Fundamentalist Xian Belief Environment

Graduate Studies Office
Bemidji State University

1500 Birchmont Drive NE
Bemidji, MN 56601
218/755-2027
FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN BELIEF, POLITICS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
by
Joellyn Anderson
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
BEMIDJI STATE UNIVERSITY

Bemidji, Minnesota, USA
November, 1998
ii
STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced
degree at Bemidji State University and is deposited in the University Library to be made
available to borrowers under the rules of the library.
Brief quotations from this thesis/research paper are allowable without special
permission, provided accurate acknowledgement of the source is indicated. Requests
for permission to use extended quotations or reproduction of the manuscript in whole or
in part may be granted by the Department of Environmental Studies or the Dean of
Graduate Studies when the proposed purpose is in the interest of scholarship. In all
other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
Signed:__________________________
________________________________________________________________
THIS THESIS HAS BEEN APPROVED ON THE DATES SHOWN BELOW:
________________________________ _____________________
Dr. David Nordlie Date
Committee Chair
Professor of Sociology
________________________________ _____________________
Dr. David J. Larkin Date
Interim Dean of Graduate Studies
iii
FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN BELIEF, POLITICS,

AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
Joellyn Anderson
Abstract
The 1967 indictment of Christians by Lynn White set the stage for study on the question
of how anti-environmentalism came to be a part of our culture. Although Christians as a
whole are no longer under suspicion, fundamentalist Christians are. Using data from
the 1994 General Social Survey and a February, 1998 survey by the author at Oak Hills
Bible College, Bemidji, Minnesota, this study asks What is it about fundamentalist
Christians that keeps them from adopting environmental concern? Is it the doctrinal
beliefs, the morally rigid political beliefs, or is it just that fundamentalists tend to be
politically conservative? The findings of this study indicate the answer lies in the morally
rigid perspective of fundamentalist Christians. Although a strict literal interpretation of
the Bible is sometimes related to anti-environmentalism, moral rigidity as defined by the
belief that homosexuality is wrong, the belief that women belong in the home, the belief
that atheists should not be allowed to teach, and the belief that prayer should be put
back in public schools have relationships with anti-environmentalism that are not
accounted for by doctrinal or political beliefs.
Approved by:
______________________________ _____________________
Committee Chair Date
______________________________
Committee Member
______________________________
Committee Member
______________________________
Graduate Faculty Representative
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank Dr. David Nordlie for his assistance and support during the
planning and completion of this study, to thank Dr. John Annexstad and Dr. Pat Welle
for serving on the advisory committee, and to thank Dr. Charlie Parson for assisting as
his schedule permitted.
I would also like to thank Dr. Ron Spreng for redefining a few things for me and Dr. Cary
Komoto for his support and encouragement.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 1
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS LITERATURE

Empirical Studies .......................................................................................................... 3
Deficiencies of Previous Studies ................................................................................ 12
Christian Self-Diagnostic Studies ............................................................................... 12
Hypotheses ................................................................................................................ 14
General Social Survey Data ............................................................................ 14
Oak Hills Data ................................................................................................. 16
METHOD
The Data .................................................................................................................... 17
Statistical Analysis ...................................................................................................... 18
The Independent Variables ........................................................................................ 19
Fundamentalist Doctrinal Beliefs (GSS Data) ................................................ 19
Fundamentalist Political Beliefs (GSS Data) ................................................... 21
Conservative Political Beliefs (GSS Data) ....................................................... 22
Fundamentalist Doctrinal Beliefs (Oak Hills Data) ........................................... 23
Fundamentalist Political Beliefs (Oak Hills Data) ............................................ 24
Education (GSS and Oak Hills Data) .............................................................. 24
The Dependent Variables ........................................................................................... 25
Environmental Concern (GSS Data) ............................................................... 25
Willingness to Sacrifice Time and Money for the Environment ........................ 26
The Role of Government in Environmental Protection .................................... 26
Environmental Concern and Attitudes (Oak Hills Data) ................................... 27
RESULTS
General Social Survey ................................................................................................ 29
Fundamentalist Doctrinal Beliefs and Concern for the Environment................ 29
Fundamentalist Doctrinal Beliefs and the Role of Government ....................... 31
Fundamentalist Doctrinal Beliefs and Willingness to Sacrifice ........................ 32
Fundamentalist Political Beliefs and Concern for the Environment ................. 33
Fundamentalist Political Beliefs and the Role of Government ......................... 35
Fundamentalist Political Beliefs and Willingness to Sacrifice .......................... 37
Conservative Political Beliefs and Concern for the Environment ..................... 38
Conservative Political Beliefs and the Role of Government ............................. 40
Conservative Political Beliefs and Willingness to Sacrifice .............................. 41
The Overall Effect on Concern for the Environment ........................................ 42
The Overall Effect on Willingness to Sacrifice ................................................ 44
vi
Oak Hills Survey ......................................................................................................... 45

"End Times" Thinking and Environmental Concern ......................................... 45
"End Times" Thinking and the Role of Government ........................................ 46
"End Times" Thinking and Willingness to Sacrifice ......................................... 47
Fundamentalist Political Beliefs and Environmental Concern .......................... 48
Fundamentalist Political Beliefs and the Role of Government ......................... 49
Fundamentalist Political Beliefs and Willingness to Sacrifice .......................... 50
DISCUSSION
General Social Survey Data ....................................................................................... 52
Oak Hills Data ............................................................................................................ 53
CONCLUSION 55
APPENDIX A: GSS DATA 58
APPENDIX B: OAK HILLS DATA 64
APPENDIX C: OAK HILLS CHRISTIAN COLLEGE DOCTRINAL STATEMENT 67
APPENDIX D: COMPARISON OF GSS DATA WITH OAK HILLS DATA 68
BIBLIOGRAPHY 73
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Fundamentalist Doctrinal Belief Indicators (GSS Data)................................. 20
Table 2. Fundamentalist Political Beliefs Indicators (GSS Data)................................. 22
Table 3. Conservative Political Belief Indicators ......................................................... 23
Table 4. Fundamentalist Doctrinal Belief Indicators (Oak Hills Data) .......................... 23
Table 5. Fundamentalist Political Belief Indicator (Oak Hills Data) ............................. 24
Table 6. Environmental Concern Indicators (GSS Data)............................................. 25
Table 7. Willingness to Sacrifice Index (GSS Data) .................................................... 26
Table 8. Role of Government Indicators (GSS Data) .................................................. 27
Table 9. Environmental Concern and Attitude Indicators (Oak Hills Data) .................. 27
Table 10. Hypothesis 1Regression Table for Degradation Index ............................ 30
Table 11. Hypothesis 1Regression Table for Worry about Progress ....................... 30
Table 12. Hypothesis 1Regression Table for Worry about Jobs ............................. 31
Table 13. Hypothesis 2. Role of Government Indicators by Fundamentalist
Doctrinal Belief Indicators ........................................................................................... 32
Table 14. Hypothesis 3Regression Table for Sacrifice Index .................................. 33
Political Belief Indicators............................................................................................. 37
Table 23. Hypothesis 8. Role of Government Indicators by Conservative
Political Belief Indicators............................................................................................. 41
Table 29. Worry about Jobs by Christ's Return (in percentages) ................................ 46
viii
Table 30. Worry about Jobs by Prophecy Fulfilled (in percentages) ........................... 46
Table 31. Public Decide by Christ's Return (in percentages) ...................................... 47
Table 32. Public Decide by Prophecy Fulfilled (in percentages) ................................. 47
Table 33. Standard of Living by Christ's Return (in percentages) ............................... 48
Table 34. Standard of Living by Prophecy Fulfilled (in percentages) .......................... 48
Table 35. Worry about Jobs by Elect Christians (in percentages) .............................. 49
Table 36. Worry about Jobs by Education (in percentages) ....................................... 49
Table 37. Public Decide by Elect Christians (in percentages) ..................................... 50
Table 38. Public Decide by Education (in percentages).............................................. 50
Table 39. Standard of Living by Elect Christians (in percentages) .............................. 51
Table 40. Standard of Living by Education (in percentages) ....................................... 51
1
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
Since Lynn White's infamous indictment of Judeo-Christian principles in
1967, the question of the effect of religious beliefs on environmental concern has
been studied and debated many times. But the dispute remains. Christianity is
not a monolithic religion, and Whites sweeping accusation of all Christians falls
short of reality. But how short?
Studies of the relationship between fundamentalist Christian beliefs and
concern for anthropogenic degradation of the natural environment have found
that fundamentalists are less likely to be concerned about environmental
degradation and protection than non-fundamentalists (Eckberg and Blocker
1989, Guth 1993, Greeley 1993). However, the studies have been unable to
determine, with any certainty, why this negative relationship exists. It is also
unclear which aspect or aspects of fundamentalism are involved.
Past studies have assumed the relationship between fundamentalism and
anti-environmentalism is due to a literal biblical worldview. It has been suggested
that a literal interpretation of the creation story of Genesis inspires a belief that
the world is a gift for humans to exploit. But belief in literal human dominion of
the earth is, at best, an incomplete explanation for a complex relationship. While
fundamentalism can legitimately be characterized by strict doctrinal beliefs,
fundamentalists are also known for their morally conservative political views, an
aspect which must also be examined.

2
As we become more aware of anthropogenic environmental degradation,
it becomes clear that understanding the barriers which keep human beings from
recognizing the importance of preserving the natural environment is vital to our
survival. Knowledge of the factors behind fundamentalists reluctance to be
concerned about the environment will be essential to developing a plan to
address the problem.

3
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS LITERATURE
Empirical Studies
In a 1985 telephone survey of 300 residents of Tulsa, Oklahoma, Eckberg
and Blocker (1989) found that belief in the Bible as the literal word of God1
predicted stances on each of a variety of environmental concern indices, always
in the expected direction. (516) The indices were generalized into four groups:
willingness to use the environment for the economy, willingness to protect the
environment even if it slows the economy, concern about the quality of Tulsas air
and water, and concern about waste disposal in Tulsa. Those who believed in the
literal interpretation of the Bible showed the highest willingness to use the
environment for the economy and the least interest in protecting the environment.
The significant relationships were moderate, with r values between .1 and .2, but
the strongest relationship (r = .25; p < .001) was between belief in the Bible and
willingness to use the environment for the economy. Correlations between Bible
belief and concern about Tulsas air and water quality and waste disposal were
not significant. (Eckberg and Blocker 1989, 516)
The problem with this study, of course, is a limitation that is shared by
several other studiesthe definition of fundamentalism is extremely restricted.
And, considering the significant demographic differences between regions within
the United States, it is doubtful that residents of Tulsa, Oklahoma represent the
entire population of the United States.
1
Respondents were asked to choose the statement which best described their belief: The Bible
is the actual word of God and it should be taken literally, word for word; the Bible is the inspired
word of God, but it was written by men and contains some human errors; and the Bible is an
ancient book of history and legends; God had nothing to do with it.
4
Using data from the 1988 General Social Survey (data collected by the
National Opinion Research Center), Greeley (1993) found support for the
findings of Eckberg and Blocker. Using the same question on biblical literalism,
he found a moderate negative correlation with environment concern.1 He also
found a weak negative correlation between belief in God2 and environmental
concern, but he believes the correlations to be spurious, a result of social factors
rather than religious beliefs.
A rigid religious orientation does correlate with negative attitudes toward

spending on the environment. However, when . . . political and moral
rigidity are taken into account, the correlation disappears. Those who
believe in God and the Bible, and Christians who reject the various levels
of rigidity, are as likely as anyone else to support environmental
spending. . . . Those who are not Christian . . . are more likely to support
environmental concerns because they are younger, better educated, and
have a more liberal political agenda. (Greeley 1993, 26, 27-28)
Although belief in God and belief in the Bible are characteristics of
fundamentalism, they do not portray fundamentalists adequately, and Greeleys
study was limited by both its definition of fundamentalism and its reliance on one
single question on environmental concerna question which could reflect the
respondents feelings about government spending rather than, or in addition to,
environmental concern.
A survey of almost 5,000 members of American religious organizations,
1
Respondents were asked: We are faced with many problems in this country, none of which can
be solved easily or inexpensively. Im going to name these problems and for each one Id like
you to tell me whether you think were spending too much money on it, too little, or about the right
amount: a) space exploration program; b) improving and protecting the environment; c) improving
and protecting the nations health; d) solving the problems of the big cities; e) halting the crime
rate; f) dealing with drug addictions; g) improving the nations educational program; h) improving
the condition of blacks; i) the military, armaments and defense; j) foreign aid; k) welfare; l)
highways and bridges; m) Social Security; n) mass transportation; o) parks and recreation?
2
See Appendix A for the wording of this question.
5
taken in 1990-91, also found the expected relationship between fundamentalism
and environmental concern. (Guth 1993, 378)
A stratified random sample was drawn from the membership of eight

interest groups with strong religious attachments, ranging roughly from left
to right: Bread for the World, JustLife, Evangelicals for Social Action, the
National Association of Evangelicals, the Prison Fellowship, Focus on the
Family, Americans for the Republic, and Concerned Women for America.
(Guth 1993, 374)
Respondents were given a list of eight common religious labels and asked
to choose those which best described their beliefs. Compared to those who
considered themselves pentecostal, conservative, charismatic, evangelical,
mainline, ecumenical or liberal, those who considered themselves to be
fundamentalist were least likely to list the environment among the two or three
most important problems facing America.1 They also ranked protecting the
environment lowest among six values2 and were most likely to strongly disagree
with the statement More environmental protection is needed, even if it raises
prices or costs jobs.3 (376)
Guths study defined fundamentalism as characterized not only by biblical
literalism, but by high supernaturalism, belief in the imminence of the End Times
and the Second Coming, and consequent pessimism about the possibility of this
worldly reform. (377) Guth divided fundamentalist beliefs into three general
categories. The first category, a doctrinal beliefs scale, used questions on
biblical literalism, religious separatism and End Times thinking. The second
1
Seven percent of fundamentalists compared to 38% of liberals.
2
The mean score of fundamentalists was 4.56 over a range of 1 Highest Priority to 6 Lowest
Priority. Liberals had a mean score of 2.21, the lowest mean of the eight groups.
3
The mean score of fundamentalists was 3.05 over a range of 1 Strongly agree to 5 Strongly
disagree. The lowest mean score, 1.57, was that of the liberals.
6
category, individualism, measured views on means of changing society, whether
through transforming individual hearts or through corporate social and political
action, (377) and the third category, revivalismwhich could also be considered
pentecostalismmeasured attendance at religious revivals, use of religious TV
and radio, and speaking in tongues. (378) Of the three, anti-environmentalism
correlated most strongly with the doctrinal belief scale (Pearsons r = .63),
followed by individualism (r = .52) and revivalism (r = .45), respectively. In an
attempt to determine which aspects of the doctrinal belief scale were the most
important, its emphasis on the beginning of time (i.e., Gods mandate to take
dominion in Genesis), its . . . expectations about the imminence of the Rapture
and millennium, or its dismal view of human nature with its associated political
pessimism, (379) Guth ran a stepwise analysis on the individual theological
items. The test found that all three aspects were important.
Biblical literalism questions (such as whether Adam and Eve were real
people), dispensationalist questions (on the Rapture and biblical
prophecy), and views about the nature of human beings and society all
enter the equation very early. Perhaps the safest conclusion is that the
biblical literalism, End Times thinking, and social pessimism of
fundamentalism all contribute substantially to environmental conservatism.
(379)
The study also looked at the social and political views of the religious
activists. Guth found that, statistically, general conservatism was the best
predictor of antienvironmental sentiments. However
the incorporation of religious and political variables in a single regression

may lead one to understate the total impact of religious beliefs.
Theological perspectives are powerful predictors of general political
ideology: doctrinal fundamentalism, especially, produces conservative
political views on most issues (the correlation of fundamentalism with
general conservatism was .59). . . . In a path analysis, the combined direct
7
and indirect effects of fundamentalism exceeds the direct influence of

political ideology (.61 to .54). (380)
The study also examined demographic factors. Like Greeley, Guth found
that formal education had a significant influence on environmental concernthe
more educated the individual, the more likely he or she was to show concern
but the total variance explained by demographic variables was minor.
Guths study was more thorough than previous ones, but it did not
answer all the questions. Similar research needed to be done among the general
public, so two years later Guth led another study of the relationship between
religious belief and environmental concern. This time, the group used data from
four national surveys of religious activists, clergy, political-party contributors, and
the mass public.1
1
Four data sets were used: a survey of Protestant ministers in five denominations (Assemblies of
God, Southern Baptist, United Methodist, Presbyterian Church in the USA, and Disciples of
Christ), coordinated by one of the authors in 1988; the 1990 Wheaton Religious Activist Study;
respondents from two matched surveys of Republican and Democratic donors in 1986-87; and
the 1992 American National Election Study.
8
Guth and his colleagues theorized that dispensationalism1 promotes a
kind of passive quietism . . . that disengages Christians . . . from participating in
those social programs designed to save the environment, (Campolo 1992, 92)
and that
not only do such ideas divert believers attention to otherworldly concerns

and inhibit political action, but for some dispensationalists the problems
themselves become harbingers of the Second Coming, evidencing the
inevitable deterioration of society and the imminence of the End. (Guth et
al 1995, 368)
The team generalized religious factors into three groups: theological
beliefs, religious tradition and religious commitment. The theological beliefs
index concentrated on biblical literalism and End Times thinking, which included
questions on premillennialism,2 dispensationalism, and the Rapture of the
church.1 Theological beliefs were stronger predictors of anti-environmentalism
than the other two groups, religious tradition and religious commitment. This
relationship was stronger for the clergy than for the laity. For example,
theological beliefs explained 23% of the variation in antienvironmentalist
responses by the 1988 survey of clergy, 44% in the 1990 survey of clergy, 38%
in the survey of religious activists, and 5% in the survey of the voting public. The
next highest scores were for respondents with an evangelical religious tradition.
Evangelicalism explained about the same percentage of the variation as
1
A system of interpreting the Bible that divides how God works [and interacts with people] into
different periods [of time]. . . . It involves a literal interpretation of Scripture where every figure has
a strict, literal meaning . . . and a premillennial, pretribulational eschatology. (Miethe 1988, 74)
2
The teaching that Christ will return, set up an earthly kingdom, and rule for 1,000 years.
Christs return will be preceded by an increasingly evil worldmore wars, famines, earthquakes .
. . After [1,000 years] evil will again cause rebellion, but God will crush it [and] create a new
heaven and earth for believers. (Miethe 1988, 163)
9
theological beliefs in the data from the 1988 clergy survey (20%), but much less
in the other data sets (24% in the 1990 clergy survey, 12% in the survey of
religious activists, and 3% in the survey of the public). (371-372)
Among the voting public, political identity was the most important factor in
explaining environmental concern, with liberalism being slightly more powerful
than Democratic identification. This led Guth to conclude that
among religious professionals and committed lay activists, then,

theological perspectives count as much as political views, but among
broader and less religiously committed publics the political variables have
a stronger association with environmentalism. (373)
To account for the interrelatedness of the variables, the group ran a series
of regressions with all the variables entered simultaneously. Most other
measures of religiosity decreased in importance or were eliminated once the
effects of conservative eschatology and political and demographic factors were
accounted for. (374) This confirmed the initial test results: conservative
eschatology is negatively associated with environmentalism across the board.
(371)
It is possible that Guth and his colleagues found weaker relationships
among the voting public because laity, in general, do not know the definitions of
words like dispensationalism and premillennialism. In my experience, members
of fundamentalist churches are often taught doctrine without being told those
beliefs have theological labels, sometimes to keep them from realizing there are
1
A time when Christ will rescue all believers from a time of tribulation and then establish the
earthly kingdom which will last 1,000 years. (Miethe 1988, 187)
10
other doctrines. Although it is important to assess such beliefs, one may have to
do it by a more circuitous method.
Using the 1993 General Social Survey, Eckberg and Blocker (1996) found
that belief in the Bible, opposition to the ban on school prayer, rejection of the
theory of evolution, and belief in God had about equal effects on limiting the
respondents willingness to take individual actions for the environment (.05 r2
.03; p < .0001). The same variables had a positive effect on belief that economic
activity is more important than the environment (.06 r2 .03; p < .0001), and an
even stronger effect on the belief that nature is sacred because it was created by
God (.18 r2 .05; p < .0001). However, the data show a stated belief in the
sacredness of nature is not associated with any pro-nature actions; quite the
reverse [sic] is true. (350) This relationship may be evidence for the general
hypothesis that those who are firm in their belief that God created the world are
less environmentally concerned.
A multiple regression of the individual dependent variables on the
fundamentalist indicators found that belief in God (beta = .11), belief that God is
responsible for many outcomes in life (beta = .10), and rating faith in God as very
important (beta = .23) were the only items to reach .01 significance. A multiple
regression of the fundamentalist indicators on the willingness to act and
economic activity vs. environmentalism indices found that sectarianism1 (the term
used by this study for fundamentalism) did have an effect on environmental
1
Sectarianism included eight items: (a) degree of belief in the Bible, (b) moral rigidity, (c) GSS
items coding one a fundamentalist Protestant, (d) opposition to the banning of prayer in public
schools, (e) belief in evolution, (f) belief that God controls many important events in life, (g)
enjoys gospel music, and (h) a composite measure of religious graciousness. (Alpha = .732)
11
attitudes and actions. Although unwilling to draw a conclusion from this finding,
the authors suggest that the effect may have nothing to do the dominion
attitudes that are believed to stem from the literal interpretation of Genesis.
Perhaps the belief that dominating the natural environment and using it to supply
every human want or need is appropriate despite the cost does not stem from a
literal interpretation of the Bible. Perhaps
dominion attitudes are fundamentalist or sectarian instead of biblical.

Something about religious sectarianism subverts environmentalism. This
would account for the ubiquitous fundamentalism effect and could leave
room for the positive effect of religious participation on environmental
activities. It would also explain why we find independent effects of
fundamentalist affiliation that do not clearly flow from the dominion
hypothesis and why belief in the Bible has no independent effects. It
would, however, leave open the question of why fundamentalists would
take specifically anti-green positions relative to everyone else and
independent of background measures. (353)
Unfortunately, the sectarian index combined variables which represent
differing aspects of fundamentalism. Belief in the Bible and belief that God
controls many events are doctrinal items, while moral rigidity and opposition to
the ban on school prayer should be grouped together as moral conservativeness.
And as for the question on gospel music, throw it out. That is a bit like
determining who is Irish by asking who likes Celtic music. Gospel music is more
popular in the southern United States than in the North.
A study of a similar nature was done at North Carolina State University
using data from a national survey conducted in the spring of 1992. Wolkomir et
al (1997) suggested the predictive power of biblical literalism for environmental
concern is actually the result of its correlation with dominion belief. (101) The
results of a multiple regression analysis supported this hypothesis. The addition

12
of [dominion belief] to the model reduces the predictive power of the biblical
literalism variable to statistical insignificance. (103)
While this study provides valuable information, it limits its definition of
fundamentalism to beliefs, thereby avoiding the questions of moral rigidity and
political ideology.
Deficiencies of Previous Studies
Although the more recent studies have improved upon the early studies
reliance on biblical literalism to define fundamentalism, the subject of the
relationship between fundamentalism and environmentalism deserves more
study. Questions on the effect of religious beliefs versus actions taken to
express those beliefs remain. Is it doctrine, is it moral conservatism, or is it
merely the political ideology of people we label fundamentalists which lead them
to believe the environment is not important? Previous studies have lumped
variables together without examining them in the light of these categories.
Christian Self-Diagnostic Studies
Calvin DeWitt, professor of environmental studies at the University of
Wisconsin and head of the AuSable Institute for Environmental Studies, a former
Christian camp organized to encourage Christians to study environmental
science, believes there are ten stumbling blocks which inhibit Christian concern
for the environment.
(1) This world is not my home, Im just passing through. Since we are
headed for heaven anyway, why take care of Creation? (2) Caring for
Creation gets us too close to the New Age movement. Isnt concern for the
environment and working for a better world what the New Age movement
is all about? I dont want people to think I am a New Ager. (3) Respecting
Creation gets us too close to pantheism. If you care for plants and
13
animals, and especially if you value the keeping of endangered species,

you are close to worshipping them as gods. (4) There are too many
worldly people out there doing environmental things. If people who dont
share my beliefs in God and Jesus Christ are working to save the earth, I
know it cant be right for me. (5) We need to avoid anything that looks like
political correctness. Being politically correct these days means being
pro-abortion and pro-environment, and Ill have nothing to do with that. (6)
Caring for Creation will lead to world government. If we tackle global
environmental problems, wont we have to cooperate with other nations
and that will help set the stage for world government. (7) Before you know
it we will have to support abortion. Because of the relationship between
environmental degradation and growing human population, we will soon
find ourselves having to accept abortion as a solution to environmental
problems. (8) I dont want to be an extremist or alarmist. I want to be
considered normal and not some kind of prophet of gloom and doom. (9)
Dominion means what it saysoppressive domination. I think the Bible
says that we have the right to destroy things that get in our way; thats
what dominion is all about. (10) People are more important than the
environment. Im for people, and that means that people are more
important than saving species of plants and animalsif anything is
endangered it is people, not furbished louseworts or snail darters. (1994)
Other Christian environmentalists support DeWitts list. Loren Wilkinson,
professor at Regent College, British Columbia, writes many [Christians]
withdraw from environmentalism as an infectious carrier of New Age ideas.
(1993, 16) According to Richard Wright of Gordon College, some Christians are
quite concerned with what they see as a tendency to embrace elements of
ecotheology, and their aversion to abortion has led many Christians to oppose
any notion that population growth is a serious problem. (1995) Steven Bouma-
Prediger, Hope College, listed the following arguments he felt were important to
address in his two-part article for the Christian Scholars Review:
isnt all this concern for ecology just another passing fad? And wont new
technologies be invented to address ecological degradation? And doesnt
the Bible say that humans are given dominion over non-human creatures?
And why care for a world that will be completely destroyed when Jesus
comes again? (1998)
14
Reagans Secretary of the Interior James Watt, a member of the Assemblies of
God Church, provided an illustration of the ideas of DeWitt and Bouma-Prediger
when he told Congress not to plan too far into the future when planning policy for
natural resource management because, I do not know how many future
generations we can count on before the Lord returns. (Martin, William 1982)
Hypotheses
General Social Survey Data
Based on the information from previous studies and from Christians
attempting to diagnose the problem of fundamentalist anti-environmentalism, I
tested the following hypotheses using the 1994 General Social Survey:
1. There will be a negative association between fundamentalist doctrinal
beliefs and concern for the environment.
beliefs and acceptance of the role of government in protection of the
environment.
beliefs and willingness to sacrifice time and money to protect the
environment.
4. There will be a negative association between fundamentalist political beliefs
and concern for the environment.
and acceptance of the role of government in protection of the environment.

15
and willingness to sacrifice time and money to protect the environment.
7. The relationship between fundamentalist political beliefs and concern for the
environment will be stronger than the relationship between political ideology
or political party and concern for the environment.
8. The relationship between fundamentalist political beliefs and acceptance of
the role of government in protection of the environment will be stronger than
the relationship between political ideology or political party and acceptance
of the role of government in protection of the environment.
9. The relationship between fundamentalist political beliefs and willingness to
sacrifice time and money to protect the environment will be stronger than
the relationship between political ideology/ political party and willingness to
sacrifice time and money to protect the environment.
Oak Hills Data
To take a closer look at End Times thinking and the desire for theocracy,
I tested the following hypotheses using data collected at Oak Hills Bible College,
Bemidji, Minnesota:
10. Those who exhibit End Times thinking will be less concerned about the
environment than those who do not exhibit End Times thinking.
11. Those who exhibit End Times thinking will be less accepting of the role of
government in protecting the environment than those who do not exhibit
End Times thinking.
12. Those who exhibit End Times thinking will be less willing to make
16
sacrifices for the environment than those do not exhibit End Times
thinking.
13. Those who believe more Christians should hold political office will be less
concerned about the environment than those who do not.
accepting of the role of government in protecting the environment than
those who do not.
willing to make sacrifices for the environment than those who do not.
17
METHOD
The Data
This study uses data from two sources. The first data set, the General
Social Survey, was collected by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC),
a respected non-profit organization affiliated with the University of Chicago. The
General Social Survey is based on a representative sample of adult English-
speaking Americans, excluding those who live in university dormitories, on
military bases, in nursing homes or those who are otherwise institutionalized.
The data were collected during personal interviews lasting an average of an hour
and a half. About two-thirds of the 835 possible questions are asked of each
respondent, although demographic questions such as those about education,
income, family characteristics and occupation were asked of every respondent.
The population surveyed is estimated to represent 97% of the actual population
of the United States; respondents are selected at random from geographic units
of equal population. Response rates average 75%, and the final sample size for
the 1994 data set was 2,992. The GSS variables and the distribution of
responses used in this study are listed in Appendix A.
The second data set came from a February, 1998 survey conducted by
the author at Oak Hills Christian College, Bemidji, Minnesota. Oak Hills is a
small non-denominational four-year college which specializes in biblical studies.
See Appendix C for the doctrinal statement of the college.
A thirty-two question survey, covering a variety of topics including
environmental concern, religious beliefs, religious activity, and political

18
preference, was given to a non-probability sample of about 140 students and
staff at Oak Hills. One hundred twenty returned the survey. The questions used
in this study are listed in Appendix B. The Oak Hills respondents can be
considered to be very high in doctrinal fundamentalism, since 90% of
respondents believe God exists and have no doubts about it, 95% believe in the
divinity of Jesus, 98% believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and 98%
believe in the virgin birth of Jesus.
Tests for statistical significance made on these data are made with regard
to a hypothetical universe of possibilities since the data are not based on a
probability sample. The hypothetical universe of possibilities is defined as
the universe of all possible samples (which may be limited universes) which
could have been produced under similar conditions of time, place, culture, and
other relevant factors. (Hagood & Price 1952, 193-195)
Statistical Analysis
Each hypothesis involves several different indicators of the independent
variable and one or more indicators of the dependent variable. Each hypothesis,
therefore, involved testing a number of more specific research hypotheses.
Since the indicators were at different levels of measurement, statistical measures
of association and tests of statistical significance appropriate to the levels of
measurement of the indicators in each hypothesis were used.
If the indicator(s) of a dependent variable and/or an independent variable
fell at the nominal level of measurement, chi square was used as a test of
statistical significance and Cramers V was used to determine the strength of the
19
association between the variables in the hypothesis. If the indicator(s) of the
dependent variable were at the ordinal level of measurement and had fewer than
five values, and the indicator(s) of the independent variable were also at the
ordinal or interval/ratio level, Tau-c was used as a test of statistical significance
and as a measure of the strength of the association between the variables in the
hypothesis. If the indicators of the dependent variable were at the ordinal level of
measurement with five or more values, or at the interval/ratio level of
measurement, and the indicators of the independent variable were at the nominal
level (treated as dummy variables), the ordinal level or the interval/ratio level,
multiple regression analysis was used to determine the independent net effect
(standardized beta weights) of each indicator of the independent variable on
each indicator of the dependent variable and whether or not the effect was
statistically significant.
The Independent Variables
Fundamentalist Doctrinal Beliefs (GSS Data)
The publication of the twelve-volume manifesto The Fundamentals in 1910
defined the doctrine of fundamentalism. Those twelve volumes can be summed
up by
five central doctrines and an additional four that could more or less be
inferred from the central five. The five were: (1) the verbal and inerrant
inspiration of the Bible, (2) the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, (3) the
substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ (Jesus taking the punishment
for sin in peoples place), (4) the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from
the dead, and (5) the imminent second coming of Jesus Christ. The four
related doctrines were: (1) the deity of Jesus Christ, (2) the sinful nature of
humanity, (3) salvation by faith through the free grace of God, and (4) the
expectation of the bodily resurrection of true believers on the Last Day.
20
Much attention was also paid to refutation of errors, such as the theory of
organic evolution. (Johnstone 1997, 168)
To study the possible influence of fundamentalist religious beliefs, I used
three separate indicators of those beliefs: belief in God, belief in the literalness of
the Bible, and a rejection of the theory of evolution. I also used NORCs indicator
of fundamentalism in which the respondents denominational affiliation was
classified as liberal, moderate or fundamentalist. See Table 1. Although
combining the four into an index may have been more meaningful, the internal
consistency of the indicators was not high enough to warrant such treatment.
Cronbachs alpha was .66, less than the .70 level recommended by Knoke and
Bohrnstedt (1994), therefore each of these items was examined separately.
Table 1. Fundamentalist Doctrinal Belief Indicators (GSS Data)

Belief: God Confidence in the existence of God. (Ordinal level)
Belief: Bible Belief that the Bible is the literal Word of God. (Ordinal level)
Rejection of Evolution Rejection of the idea that humans developed from earlier species of
animals. (Ordinal level)
Fundamentalism of Fundamentalism or liberalism of respondents religious affiliation.
Religion (Ordinal level)
Belief: God was measured on a six-point scale from (1) I dont believe in
God to (6) I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it. Belief: Bible
was measured on a three-point scale from (1) the Bible is an ancient book of
fables, to (3) the Bible is the actual word of God. Rejection of Evolution asked
respondents to rate the validity of the theory of evolution on a four-point scale
which ranged from (1) definitely true to (4) definitely not true.
Fundamentalism of Religion, created by the General Social Survey, uses the
respondents religion, denomination, and other similar variables to rates his or

21
her religion on a three-point scale of (1) liberal, (2) moderate or (3)
fundamentalist.
Fundamentalist Political Beliefs (GSS Data)
Fundamentalism is more than a series of religious beliefs, it is a way of
looking at the world and associating events and people with what is already
known as a means of understanding those events or people. In other words, it is
a worldview.
Fundamentalism . . . is a social phenomenon in the sense that its sources

are more than purely religious; they are cultural or sociological as well. . . .
Fundamentalism should also be regarded as a social phenomenon in that
it has impact on the surrounding society in which it exists. (Johnstone
1997, 163)
This worldview is characterized by its reluctance to accept change.
Most scholars agree that fundamentalism is usually a reaction to events

and changes that have occurred in the modern world . . . fundamentalism
is, then, reactive and wants to restore what has been lost or discarded in
the face of changes that modernization has made. (Johnstone 1997, 164)
I chose four different indicators of fundamentalist political beliefs from the
GSS: School Prayer, Homosexual Acts, Atheist Teach, and Wife Stay Home.
These indicators lacked the internal consistency (as determined by computing
Cronbachs alpha) needed to combine them into an index, so each was treated
separately. See Table 2 for brief descriptions of these variables.

22
Table 2. Fundamentalist Political Beliefs Indicators (GSS Data)

School Prayer Government cannot require prayer in public schools. Do you approve
of this decision? (Ordinal level)
Homosexual Acts Are sexual relations between two adults of the same sex wrong?
(Ordinal level)
Atheist Teach Should a person who is against religion be allowed to teach? (Ordinal
level)
Wife Stay Home Should the wife take care of home and family rather than the man?
(Ordinal level)
In School Prayer, respondents were asked whether they approved (1),
had no opinion (2) or disapproved (3) of the Supreme Court ruling against
requiring prayer in public schools. Homosexual Acts was measured by a four-
point scale from (1) homosexual sex is not wrong at all to (4) homosexual sex
is always wrong. Atheist Teach had three possible responses, allowed (1),
cant choose (2), and not allowed (3), and Wife Stay Home was measured on
a four-point scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4).
Conservative Political Beliefs (GSS Data)
Fundamentalists also tend to be politically conservative, so the question
must be asked. Which came first? Are fundamentalist Christians less than
enthusiastic about supporting the environment because they are conservative
politically? Or is it because they are conservative morally? Is it a liberal political
agenda that they reject; or might they not be more rigid religiously and hence
incapable of absorbing new moral concerns? (Greeley 1993, 20)
To explore this question, I used two GSS variables, one a question on
political ideology, the other on political party. Both were measured by seven-
point scales. Political Ideology ranged from (1) extremely liberal to (7)
23
extremely conservative. Political Party ranged from (0) strong Democrat to (6)
strong Republican. See Table 3 for descriptions of these variables.
Table 3. Conservative Political Belief Indicators

Political Ideology Respondents self-rating of liberal to conservative. (Ordinal level)
Political Party Political party with which respondent identifies. (Ordinal level)
Fundamentalist Doctrinal Beliefs (Oak Hills Data)
The Oak Hills survey included the same question of biblical interpretation
(Belief: Bible) that was asked in the General Social Survey, so I was able to
compare data from the two studies. Most anti-evolutionists believe the earth is
thousands of years old rather than the 4.6-billion-year figure geologists estimate
for the age of the earth, so I treated the Age of Earth item in the Oak Hills survey
as being equivalent to the GSS item Rejection of Evolution. To study End
Times thinking, I used two variables, Prophecy Fulfilled and Christs Return (see
Table 4). This allowed me to examine how the respondents feelings about the
end of the world related to their feelings about the environment.
Table 4. Fundamentalist Doctrinal Belief Indicators (Oak Hills Data)

Belief: God Confidence in the existence of God. (Ordinal level)
Age of Earth The earth is millions of years old. (Ordinal level)
Prophecy Fulfilled Current events are the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. (Ordinal level)
Christs Return Christ will return in the next 50 years. (Ordinal level)
Like the GSS question, the Oak Hills version of Belief: Bible was
measured on a three-point scale from (1) the Bible is the actual Word of God to
(3) the Bible is an ancient book of fables. Age of Earth and Prophecy Fulfilled
were both measured on a five-point scale from (1) strongly agree to (5)
strongly disagree. Christs Return was measured on a four-point scale from (1)
24
Christ will return in the next 10 years to (4) Christ will return more than 100
years from now.
Fundamentalist Political Beliefs (Oak Hills Data)
Fundamentalism seeks to restore the values of the past and to restrict the
values of the present. Among fundamentalists, there is a hope that by building a
theocracy, they can accomplish these goals. Many believe they have a
responsibility to elect believers to political office so they can achieve Gods
design for humanity by controlling the governance of a social system.
(Johnstone 1997, 172)
Using data from the Oak Hills survey, I was able to examine the desire for
theocracy in a more direct manner than I could using the General Social Survey;
the Oak Hills data allowed me to study the answers to the question of whether or
not it would be better for America if more Christians held government office. See
Table 5.
Table 5. Fundamentalist Political Belief Indicator (Oak Hills Data)

Elect Christians More Christians should be elected to government. (Ordinal level)
Elect Christians was measured on the standard strongly agree (1) to
strongly disagree (5) five-point scale.
Education (GSS and Oak Hills Data)
Previous studies have found that highly educated people are more likely to
be concerned about the environment than those who have spent fewer years in
school, so level of education was included for use as a control variable in multiple
regression analysis of the GSS data. Level of education was cross-tabulated
with dependent variables in the Oak Hills data for comparison to other tests. In
25
both surveys, education was measured by a five-point scale which began with (1)
less than high school and ended with (5) graduate degree.
The Dependent Variables
Environmental Concern (GSS Data)
I used several types of questions on environmental concern, beliefs, and
behavior. To study concern and beliefs, I combined two variables (Water
Pollution and Warming) into an environmental degradation index. The internal
consistency of the two variables, measured by Cronbachs alpha, met the
recommended level of .70. In addition to the index, I used two variables on
worrying about the environment more than the economy, Worry about Progress
and Worry about Jobs. See Table 6 for a description of these variables.
Table 6. Environmental Concern Indicators (GSS Data)

Degradation Index
Water Pollution Is water pollution dangerous for the environment? (Ordinal level)
Warming Is greenhouse warming dangerous for the environment? (Ordinal level)
Worry about Progress We worry too much about progress harming the environment. (Ordinal
level)
Worry about Jobs We worry too much about the environment, not enough about jobs.
(Ordinal level)
Both Water Pollution and Warming were measured on a five-point scale
which began with (1) [pollution/warming] is not dangerous for the environment
and ended with (5) [pollution/warming] is extremely dangerous for the
environment. The environmental degradation index based on these two items
had a range of two to ten, with ten showing the most concern for the
environment. Worry about Progress and Worry about Jobs were measured on
the standard five-point scale of (1) strongly agree to (5) strongly disagree.
26
Willingness to Sacrifice Time and Money for the Environment
The internal consistency of four items on recycling, willingness to pay
higher prices or taxes, and willingness to lower ones standard of living was
adequate (Cronbachs alpha = .74), so I created a second index to measure the
respondents willingness to make sacrifices for the environment. See Table 7 for
descriptions of the variables.
Table 7. Willingness to Sacrifice Index (GSS Data)

Recycle How often do you recycle? (Ordinal level)
Standard of Living Are you willing to accept cuts in your standard of living? (Ordinal level)
Higher Taxes Are you willing to pay higher taxes? (Ordinal level)
Higher Prices Are you willing to pay higher prices? (Ordinal level)
Recycle was measured on a five-point scale from (1) I never recycle to
(5) I always recycle. The three remaining variables used in this index were each
measured on a five-point scale from (1) very willing to (5) not at all willing.
The resulting index has a range of four to twenty.
The Role of Government in Environmental Protection
Finally, to study a possible combined effect of attitudes toward the
government and fundamentalism, I looked at three indicators that ask how the
respondent feels about the governments role in legislating and financing
environmental protection. See Table 8 for brief descriptions of these variables.

27
Table 8. Role of Government Indicators (GSS Data)

Government Spending Too much or too little is spent on the environment? (Ordinal level)
Business Decide Should government let businesses decide how to protect the
environment? (Ordinal level)
Public Decide Should government let ordinary people decide how to protect the
environment? (Ordinal level)
Government Spending was originally two variables with a slightly different
wording. One asked about spending on improving and protecting the
environment, the other about spending on the environment. Since both
questions were measured on identical three-point scales from too much (1) to
too little (3), I was able to combine the questions into an item with twice the
number of valid cases. Business Decide and Public Decide were ordinal
variables which gave respondents two statements and asked them to choose the
statement which was closest to their views. In both variables (1) indicated an
unwillingness to have the government create environmental regulations, (2) was
no choice, and (3) supported government intervention.
Environmental Concern and Attitudes (Oak Hills Data)
Several of the items used by the General Social Survey were also
included on the survey of Oak Hills staff and students. Of these, I included
Government Spending, Worry about Jobs, and Standard of Living. See Table 9.
Table 9. Environmental Concern and Attitude Indicators (Oak Hills Data)

Government Spending Too much or too little is spent on the environment? (Ordinal level)
Worry About Jobs We worry too much about the environment, not enough about jobs.
(Ordinal level)
Standard of Living Are you willing to accept cuts in your standard of living? (Ordinal
level)
Government Spending was measured on a three-point scale identical to
that used by the GSS. Worry about Jobs and Standard of Living were both
28
measured on four-point scales; Worry about Jobs from (1) strongly agree to (4)
strongly disagree, and Standard of Living from (1) very willing to (4) not at all
willing.
29
RESULTS
General Social Survey
All but one of the multiple regression analyses done to test each
hypothesis resulted in a significant R2 value. These values ranged from weak
(.023) to moderate (.187).
Fundamentalist Doctrinal Beliefs and Concern for the Environment
Hypothesis 1 was that there would be a negative association between
fundamentalist doctrinal beliefs and concern for the environment. Four indicators
were used to measure the independent variable (fundamentalist doctrinal beliefs)
and three indicators were used to measure concern for the environment (the
dependent variable), therefore the first hypothesis test actually involved testing
twelve more specific research hypotheses. A multiple regression was run on
each of the three dependent variable indicators to explain each as a function of
the explanatory variables.
A multiple regression of the four belief indicators and Education on the
degradation index left Rejection of Evolution as the only significant predictor.
See Table 10. This would seem to support the hypothesis, albeit somewhat
weakly. The relationship was negative, suggesting that those who reject the
theory of evolution are less concerned with environmental degradationin this
case water pollution and greenhouse warming. Oddly enough, the relationship
between Belief: God and the dependent variable indicator was positive, but it was
also not significant.

30
Table 10. Hypothesis 1Regression Table for Degradation Index

Regression Analysis of Concern for the Environment
Dependent Variable Indicator: Degradation Index
Unstandardized Standardized R2 = .023
Independent Variable Indicators Beta Beta t
Prob = .014
Belief: God .102 .079 1.696 n = 616
Belief: Bible -.093 -.038 - .791
Rejection of Evolution -.177 -.114 -2.467*
Fundamentalism of Religion -.102 -.047 -1.066
Education .041 .028 .673
* p < .05 ** p < .01
In the multiple regression on Worry about Progress, there were two
significant explanatory variables, Belief: Bible and Education. See Table 11. The
demographic variable Education explained more of the variation than the
fundamentalist belief indicator, Belief: Bible. In both cases the direction of the
association was as expected, and the results of the regression supported the
hypothesis. It is important, however, to recognize the effect of education on
environmental concern, and to notice the weak R2 value.
Table 11. Hypothesis 1Regression Table for Worry about Progress

Dependent Variable Indicator: Worry About Progress
Prob = .000
Belief: God -.001 .001 - .032 n = 703
Belief: Bible -.187 -.114 -2.582*
Rejection of Evolution -.038 -.037 - .888
Fundamentalism of Religion -.057 -.040 - .977
Education .131 .135 3.466**
* p < .05 ** p < .01
A multiple regression of the independent variables on Worry about Jobs
left Belief: Bible and Education significant, a result similar to the regression on
31
Worry about Progress. See Table 12. The association between Belief: Bible and
Worry about Jobs was negative, as expected. Again, the hypothesis was
supported, but the importance of education should not be overlooked.
Table 12. Hypothesis 1Regression Table for Worry about Jobs

Dependent Variable Indicator: Worry about Jobs
Prob = .000
Belief: God -.003 .003 - .077 n = 706
Belief: Bible -.427 -.234 -5.612**
Fundamentalism of Religion -.091 -.057 -1.463
Education .161 .153 4.070**
p < .05 ** p < .01
Fundamentalist Doctrinal Beliefs and the Role of Government
The second hypothesis was that there would be a negative association
between fundamentalist doctrinal beliefs and acceptance of the role of
government in protecting the environment. Acceptance of government was
measured with three indicators, so, like the first hypothesis, Hypothesis 2 was
actually made up of twelve more specific hypotheses. The eight sub-hypotheses
using Public Decide or Business Decide as dependent variables were tested for
statistical significance with Chi Square. The strength of the association between
the variables was determined by Cramers V, a measure of association for
nominal variables. Tau-c, a measure of association for ordinal variables, was
used to test the remaining four hypotheses and to determine the strength of the
relationships that used Government Spending as the dependent variable.

32
Although two of the specific hypotheses contained in Hypothesis 2
produced non-significant relationships, the remaining ten were statistically
significant and in the predicted direction, providing evidence for the validity of the
second hypothesis. Rejection of Evolution had the strongest relationship with
Government Spending. Belief: Bible had the strongest association with Business
Decide and Public Decide.

Doctrinal Belief Indicators
Role of Government Indicators
Fundamentalist Doctrinal Government Public Decide Business Decide
Belief Indicators Spending
Belief: God -c = -.059* -c = -.042 -c = -.026
DF = 5 N = 1326 N = 1299 N = 1300
Belief: Bible -c = -.077** -c = -.071* -c = -.061*
DF = 2 N = 1910 N = 847 N = 846
Rejection of Evolution -c = -.116** -c = -.061 -c = -.033
DF = 3 N = 1228 N = 1205 N = 1204
Fundamentalism of Religion -c = -.046 -c = -.066 -c = -.033
DF = 2 N = 2846 N = 1287 N = 1288
p < .05 * p < .001 ** p < .0001
Fundamentalist Doctrinal Beliefs and Willingness to Sacrifice
The third hypothesis involving fundamental doctrinal beliefs was that there
would be a negative association between those beliefs and willingness to
sacrifice time and money to protect the environment. The four belief indicators
used in the previous two hypotheses were also used in this one, but only one
iteman indexwas used for the dependent variable.
A multiple regression of the four belief indicators and Education found that
Belief: God was the only indicator that was not significantly associated with the
dependent variable indicator. See Table 14. Education and Rejection of
Evolution had the greatest effects on Willingness to Sacrifice. The four significant
33
relationships were negative as expected, supporting Hypothesis 3 and the idea
that respondents with fundamentalist beliefs are less willing to make sacrifices to
preserve the environment. Although the relationship between Belief: God and
the dependent variable indicator was not significant, it is interesting that it is
positive. Belief in God is common in the United States, and it may not be a
particularly good indicator of fundamentalism.
Table 14. Hypothesis 3Regression Table for Sacrifice Index

Dependent Variable Indicator: Willingness to Sacrifice Index
Prob = .000
Belief: God .052 .018 .419 n = 684
Belief: Bible -.476 -.088 -1.992*
Rejection of Evolution -.408 -.121 -2.890**
Fundamentalism of Religion -.480 -.101 -2.514*
Education .370 .118 3.041**
* p < .05 ** p < .01
Fundamentalist Political Beliefs and Concern for the Environment
fundamentalist political beliefs and concern for the environment. Since four
indicators were used to measure the independent variable (fundamentalist
political beliefs) and three indicators were used to measure the dependent
variable (environmental concern), this hypothesis was made up of twelve more
specific hypotheses.
In a multiple regression on the Degradation Index, none of the independent
variable indicators had a significant association with the dependent variable. See
Table 15. Curiously, the relationship with School Prayer is positive.

34

Prob = .087
Homosexual Acts -.116 -.115 -1.937 n = 370
Wife Stay Home -.073 -.053 - .934
Atheist Teach -.057 -.032 - .573
School Prayer .103 .058 1.037
Education .056 .038 .690
* p < .05 ** p < .01
In a multiple regression of the fundamentalist political belief indicators on
Worry about Progress, Homosexual Acts, School Prayer and Education each had
a significant effect on the dependent variable. See Table 16. All three significant
associations were negative, thus the results of this statistical analysis support the
hypothesis.

Dependent Variable Indicator: Worry about Progress
Prob = .000
Homosexual Acts -.092 -.142 -2.737** n = 426
Wife Stay Home -.081 -.093 -1.835
Atheist Teach -.068 -.061 -1.214
School Prayer -.121 -.107 -2.144*
Education .104 .111 2.243*
* p < .05 ** p < .01
The multiple regression on Worry about Jobs provided the best support for
the hypothesis. All four fundamentalist political belief indicators and Education
had a significant effect on the dependent variable indicator; Atheist Teach had
the greatest effect on Worry about Jobs. See Table 17. The significant
35
associations were negativethe predicted direction. This multiple regression
also produced one of the higher R2 values of the several regressions done.

Prob = .000
Homosexual Acts -.087 -.118 -2.367* n = 426
Wife Stay Home -.108 -.110 -2.268*
Atheist Teach -.183 -.145 -2.983**
School Prayer .169 -.132 -2.768**
Education .152 .144 3.021**
* p < .05 ** p < .01
Fundamentalist Political Beliefs and the Role of Government
The fifth hypothesis was that fundamentalist political beliefs would have a
negative association with acceptance of the role of government in preserving the
environment. The four fundamentalist political belief indicators used in
Hypothesis 4 were used again, and three indicators were used to measure the
dependent variable, which produced twelve more specific hypotheses. Tau-c was
used to test the hypotheses and to determine the strength of the relationships.
Nine of the twelve sub-hypotheses were supported by statistically
significant relationships (see Table 18), which suggests that the overall
hypothesis may be retained. Wife Stay Home had the strongest relationship with
all three role of government indicators.

36

Political Belief Indicators
Fundamentalist Political Belief Government Public Decide Business Decide
Indicators Spending
Homosexual Acts -c = -.083** -c = -.030 -c = -.045
DF = 3 N = 1991 N = 904 N = 904
Wife Stay Home -c = -.158** -c = -.106** -c = -.096**
DF = 3 N = 1969 N = 876 N = 876
Atheist Teach -c = -.087** -c = -.016 -c = -.028
DF = 2 N = 1989 N = 905 N = 904
School Prayer -c = -.093** -c = -.105** -c = -.091**
DF = 2 N = 1972 N = 877 N = 877
p < .05 * p < .001 ** p < .0001
Fundamentalist Political Beliefs and Willingness to Sacrifice
fundamentalist political beliefs and willingness to sacrifice time and money to
protect the environment. Four belief indicators were used to measure the
independent variable, but only one iteman indexwas used for the dependent
variable.
In a multiple regression of the political belief indicators on the Willingness
to Sacrifice index, Homosexual Acts and School Prayer had significant effects on
the dependent variable indicator. Homosexual Acts had the greatest effect. See
Table 19. Both significant effects were negative as predicted.

37

Prob = .000
Wife Stay Home .004 .001 .025
Atheist Teach -.110 -.030 - .579
School Prayer -.383 -.104 -2.014*
Education .278 .091 1.760
* p < .05 ** p < .01
Conservative Political Beliefs and Concern for the Environment
Hypothesis 7 was that, in a comparison of fundamentalist political beliefs
and conservative political beliefs, fundamentalism would be the better predictor
of the variance in the dependent variableenvironmental concern. Two
conservative political belief indicators were used, as well as the same three
environmental concern indicators used in Hypothesis 4. Initially, the hypothesis
called for six more specific research hypotheses. Multiple regression equations
using the four fundamentalist political belief indicators and the two conservative
political belief indicators were run on each of the dependent variables to examine
each dependent variable as a function of the multiple explanatory variables.
In a multiple regression on the degradation index, only Political Party had
a significant effect on the dependent variable indicator. See Table 20. A multiple
regression on Worry about Progress, however, provided support for the
hypothesis. See Table 21. Two of the four fundamentalist political belief
indicators (Homosexual Acts and School Prayer) had significant effects on the
dependent variable indicator while neither of the conservative political belief

38
indicators were significant. The associations were negativethe expected
direction. Education was also significantly associated with the dependent variable
indicator.

Prob = .000
Wife Stay Home -.073 -.053 - .927
Atheist Teach -.068 -.038 - .669
School Prayer .109 .061 1.087
Education .066 .045 .808
Political Party -.095 -.110 -1.975*
Political Ideology .056 .006 .095
* p < .05 ** p < .01
The multiple regression on Worry about Jobs had even more convincing
results (see Table 22); all four of the fundamentalist political belief indicators
were significantly related to the dependent variable indicator, and the
conservative political belief indicators were not. Atheist Teach and School Prayer
had the greatest effects on Worry about Jobs, and the R2 was the highest of any
of the regressions. This suggests that fundamentalist political beliefs are a
greater factor in explaining anti-environmentalism than are conservative political
beliefs.
39

Prob = .000
Wife Stay Home -.070 -.081 -1.585
Atheist Teach -.068 -.061 -1.198
School Prayer -.115 -.101 -2.024*
Education .113 .120 2.411*
Political Party -.040 -.074 -1.490
Political Ideology -.042 -.059 -1.145
* p < .05 ** p < .01

Prob = .000
Wife Stay Home -.120 -.122 -2.488*
Atheist Teach -.198 -.156 -3.207**
School Prayer -.184 -.144 -2.992**
Education .144 .137 2.841**
Political Party -.013 -.021 - .431
Political Ideology .044 .054 1.108
* p < .05 ** p < .01
Conservative Political Beliefs and the Role of Government
Hypothesis 8 also involved a comparison between fundamentalist political
belief indicators and conservative political indicators. According to this
hypothesis, the relationship between fundamentalist indicators and acceptance of
the role of government will be stronger than the relationship between
conservative indicators and acceptance of the role of government. Two variables

40
were used as conservative political indicators and three were used as role of
government indicators, making this hypothesis into six more specific hypotheses.
Those hypotheses where Government Spending was the dependent variable
used Tau-c to test the hypothesis and to determine the strength of association.
The other four hypotheses were tested for statistical significance with Chi Square
and Cramers V was used to measure the strength of the relationship.
Five of the six relationships between conservative political belief indicators
and role of government indicators were statistically significant (see Table 23) and
were similar in strength to the relationships between fundamentalist political
belief indicators and role of government indicators (see Table 18). This made it
difficult to determine whether or not the hypothesis was supported.
Table 23. Hypothesis 8. Role of Government Indicators by Conservative

Political Belief Indicators
Conservative Political Belief Government Public Decide Business Decide
Indicators Spending
Political Party -c = -.102** -c = -.068* -c = -.021
DF = 6 N = 2943 N = 1324 N = 1325
Political Ideology -c = -.143** -c = -.089** -c = -.063*
DF = 6 N = 2980 N = 2980 N = 2980
p < .05 * p < .001 ** p < .0001
Conservative Political Beliefs and Willingness to Sacrifice
Hypothesis 9 is that the relationship between fundamentalist political
beliefs and willingness to sacrifice time and money to protect the environment will
be stronger than the relationship between conservative political beliefs and
willingness to sacrifice for the environment. One indicator was used to measure
willingness to sacrifice time and money for the environment (the dependent
variable), and two indicators were used to measure conservative political beliefs.
41
A multiple regression of the four fundamentalist political belief indicators
and the two conservative political belief indicators eliminated one conservative
political belief indicators, leaving only School Prayer and Political Party to explain
the variability in the dependent variable indicator. See Table 24. The association
between School Prayer and Willingness to Sacrifice was in the expected
direction.

Prob = .000
Wife Stay Home .025 .009 .171
Atheist Teach -.145 -.040 - .771
School Prayer -.398 -.109 -2.109*
Education .286 .093 1.813
Political Ideology -.092 -.039 - .752
* p < .05 ** p < .01
The Overall Effect on Concern for the Environment
Each of the environmental concern indicators, the fundamentalist doctrinal
and political belief indicators and the conservative political belief indicators which
had been significantly related to the dependent variable indicators in previous
multiple regressions was placed in a multiple regression to see if any of these
would be eliminated. In a multiple regression on the Degradation Index, only
Rejection of Evolution, Political Party and Political Ideology were significant. Of
the three, Rejection of Evolution had the greatest effect on the dependent
42
variable indicator, and Political Ideology was no longer statistically significant.
See Table 25.
Table 25. Regression Table for Degradation Index

Prob = .000
Rejection of Evolution -.114 -.074 -2.312* n = 1,018
Political Ideology -.126 -.111 -3.309
* p < .05 ** p < .01
The result of an overall multiple regression on Worry about Progress (see
Table 26) left Belief: Bible and Education significant, but Education was a
stronger predictor of the variability than the fundamentalist indicator.
In a multiple regression on Worry about Jobs (see Table 27), fundamentalist
political belief indicators were the best predictors of the variability of the
dependent variable indicators, and level of education was also a significant
factor. Belief: Bible, Wife Stay Home, School Prayer and Atheist Teach were
significantly related to the dependent variable indicator, and the three
fundamentalist political belief indicators were the best predictors.

43
Table 26. Regression Table for Worry about Progress

Prob = .000
Belief: God -.001 -.001 - .032 n = 703
Belief: Bible -.187 -.114 -2.582*
Fundamentalism of Religion -.057 -.040 - .977
Education .131 .135 3.466**
* p < .05 ** p < .01
Table 27. Regression Table for Worry about Jobs

Prob = .000
Belief: Bible -.196 -.106 -2.100* n = 411
Homosexual Acts -.075 -.102 -1.957
Wife Stay Home -.126 -.128 -2.592**
Atheist Teach -.201 -.160 -3.215**
School Prayer -.145 -.114 -2.304*
Education .112 .105 2.139*
Political Party -.022 -.035 - .727
Political Ideology .064 .079 1.580
* p < .05 ** p < .01
The Overall Effect on Willingness to Sacrifice
A multiple regression of fundamentalist belief indicators and conservative
indicators on the Willingness to Sacrifice index showed two variable indicators
Rejection of Evolution and Fundamentalism of Religionto have a statistically
significant effect on the dependent variable indicator. See Table 28.

44
Table 28. Regression Table for Sacrifice Index

Prob = .087
Belief: Bible -.119 -.022 - .374 n = 370
Rejection of Evolution -.424 -.127 -2.202*
Fundamentalism of Religion -.566 -.119 -2.149*
Homosexual Acts -.120 -.055 - .954
School Prayer -.263 -.071 -1.285
Education .149 .047 .861
Political Party -.158 -.089 -1.650
Political Ideology -.089 -.037 - .669
* p < .05 ** p < .01
Oak Hills Survey
End Times Thinking and Environmental Concern
Hypothesis 10 was that respondents who exhibit End Times thinking will
be less concerned about the environment than those who do not exhibit End
Times thinking. Two variables were used to measure the independent variable
End Times thinking, and one variable was used to measure concern for the
environment, so there were actually two research hypotheses. Tau-c was used
to test the hypotheses and to determine the strength of each association.
The relationship between Worry about Jobs and Christs Return (see
Table 29) was significant and fairly strong, and it provides support for the
hypothesis. The relationship between Worry about Jobs and Prophecy Fulfilled
(see Table 30) was in the direction predicted but was weak and not significant.
45
Table 29. Worry about Jobs by Christ's Return (in percentages)

Expectation of Christs Return
We worry too much about the Within 50 years Within 100 years No answer
environment, not enough about jobs or more
Disagree 43.5 56.5 80.0
Agree 56.5 43.5 20.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (23) (46) (45)
-c = -.308 p = .001
Table 30. Worry about Jobs by Prophecy Fulfilled (in percentages)

Current events are prophecies fulfilled.
We worry too much about the
Agree Undecided Disagree
environment, not enough about jobs
Disagree 60.4 60.9 75.0
Agree 39.6 39.1 25.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (48) (46) (20)
-c = -.086 p = .360
End Times Thinking and the Role of Government
Hypothesis 11 was that those who exhibit End Times thinking will be less
accepting of the role of government in protecting the environment than those who
do not exhibit such thinking. Again, two variables were used to measure End
Times thinking, so there were two research hypotheses. The variable used to
measure the dependent variable (role of government) was nominal, so Chi
Square was used to test for statistical significance and Cramers V was used to
determine the strength of the association.
There was a moderate and statistically significant relationship between the
Christs Return indicator of End Times thinking and Public Decide (see Table
31), but the relationship between Public Decide and Prophecy Fulfilled (see
Table 32), although in the predicted direction, was not significant.

46
Table 31. Public Decide by Christ's Return (in percentages)

Who should decide how to protect the Within 50 years Within 100 years No answer
environment? or more
Ordinary people 56.5 36.4 25.6
The government 43.5 63.6 74.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (23) (44) (43)
V = .237 2 = 6.199 DF = 2 p = .045
Table 32. Public Decide by Prophecy Fulfilled (in percentages)

Who should decide how to protect the
environment?
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (47) (45) (19)
V = .101 2 = 1.121 DF = 2 p = .571
End Times Thinking and Willingness to Sacrifice
The third of the Oak Hills Data hypotheses, Hypothesis 12 was that
respondents who exhibit End Times thinking will be less willing to make
sacrifices for the environment than those who do not exhibit End Times
thinking. Two variables were used to measure End Times thinking (the
independent variable), so there were two research hypotheses. One variable was
used to measure willingness to sacrifice for the environment. Tau-c was used to
test for statistical significance and to determine the strength of each association.
Both cross-tabulations resulted in significant relationships, supporting the
hypothesis. As in the previous hypotheses regarding data from the Oak Hills
survey, the relationship between the dependent variable indicator and Christs
Return was stronger than the relationship with Prophecy Fulfilled.
Table 33. Standard of Living by Christ's Return (in percentages)

47

How willing would you be to accepts Within 50 years Within 100 years No answer
cuts to your standard of living? or more
Willing 0.0 2.2 12.2
Somewhat willing 34.8 43.5 57.1
Not willing 65.2 54.3 30.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (23) (46) (49)
-c = -.256 p = .000
Table 34. Standard of Living by Prophecy Fulfilled (in percentages)

How willing would you be to accepts
cuts to your standard of living?
Willing 3.8 2.2 20.0
Not willing 53.8 45.7 30.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (52) (46) (20)
-c = -.154 p = .049
Fundamentalist Political Beliefs and Environmental Concern
Hypothesis 13 stated that those who believe more Christians should hold
political office will be less concerned about the environment than those who do
no feel this way. One variable was used to measure fundamentalist political
beliefs (the independent variable) and one was used to measure concern for the
environment (the dependent variable). Tau-c was used to test the hypothesis for
statistical significance and to measure the strength of the association. The
dependent variable indicator was also cross-tabulated with the demographic
variable Education for comparison with the hypothesis.
The relationship between Worry about Jobs and Elect Christians was not
significant (see Table 35), although the percentage of responses in each
category were in the direction hypothesized. Education did produce a statistically

48
significant relationship with the dependent variable indicator (see Table 36), and
the tau-c indicates a moderately strong relationship.
Table 35. Worry about Jobs by Elect Christians (in percentages)

More Christians should hold public office.
Disagree 59.7 64.3 80.0
Agree 40.3 35.7 20.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (77) (28) (10)
-c = -.090 p = .279
Table 36. Worry about Jobs by Education (in percentages)

Highest degree earned.
We worry too much about the High School College Graduate
environment, not enough about jobs or less degree degree
Disagree 52.2 80.0 72.2
Agree 47.8 20.0 27.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (67) (30) (18)
-c = -.229 p = .009
Fundamentalist Political Beliefs and the Role of Government
Hypothesis 14, which was that those who believe more Christians should
hold political office will be less accepting of the role of government in protecting
the environment than those who do not believe that more Christians should be
elected, was tested with one variable to measure fundamentalist political beliefs
(the independent variable) and one to measure feelings about the government
(the dependent variable). The dependent variable was nominal, so Chi Square
was used to test the hypothesis for statistical significance, and Cramers V was
used to measure the strength of the relationship.

49
Public Decide and Elect Christians did not have a statistically significant
relationship (see Table 37), but the percentages were consistent with what was
predicted in the hypothesis. The relationship between Public Decide and
Education was not significant either (see Table 38), although it was stronger than
the cross-tabulation with the role of government indicator and was also
consistent with the hypothesis.
Table 37. Public Decide by Elect Christians (in percentages)

environment?
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (76) (27) (8)
V = .158 2 = 2.766 DF = 2 p = .251
Table 38. Public Decide by Education (in percentages)

Who should decide how to protect the High School College Graduate
environment? or less degree degree
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (65) (30) (16)
V = .196 2 = 4.251 DF = 2 p = .119
Fundamentalist Political Beliefs and Willingness to Sacrifice
Hypothesis 15 was that people who believe more Christians should hold
political office (a fundamentalist political belief) will be less willing to make
sacrifices for the environment than those who do not believe this. Tau-c was
used to measure statistical significance and to determine the strength of the
association.
50
The relationship between Elect Christians and Standard of Living is not
statistically significant (see Table 39). The relationship with Education, however,
was significant (see Table 40) and moderate in strength.
Table 39. Standard of Living by Elect Christians (in percentages)

Willing 6.2 3.6 10.0
Not willing 48.1 46.4 40.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (81) (28) (10)
-c = -.024 p = .726
Table 40. Standard of Living by Education (in percentages)

How willing would you be to accepts High School College Graduate
cuts to your standard of living? or less degree degree
Willing 2.9 9.7 10.5
Not willing 56.5 35.5 31.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (69) (31) (19)
-c = -.187 p = .007
51
DISCUSSION
General Social Survey Data
In general, I believe it is safe to retain Hypotheses 1 through 6.
Statistically significant effects and associations were found between the
fundamentalist belief indicators and the various environmental concern and
attitude indicators, although most were fairly weak. All significant effects and
associations were in the expected direction, indicating that fundamentalism,
whether it be doctrinal beliefs or political beliefs, does seem to be related to anti-
environmentalism.
Results of the multiple regressions also provide support for retaining
Hypotheses 7 and 9. The dependent variable indicators used in Hypothesis 8
were measured on a three-point scale, so a multiple regression equation was not
an option. In comparing the strength of association for each relationship, I found
political beliefs to be slightly higher than fundamentalist political beliefs, but the
difference was not great enough to warrant rejecting or retaining my hypothesis.
The overall multiple regression of significantly associated independent
variable indicators on the degradation index showed Political Ideology to have
the strongest relationship with the dependent variable, suggesting those who are
politically conservative are least likely to take environmental degradation
seriously. The second greatest factor was Rejection of Evolution.
Worry about Progress was most affected by fundamentalist political belief
indicators. In the overall multiple regression, Homosexual Acts was the best
predictor of anti-environmentalism, and Education was second.

52
Fundamentalist political beliefs were also the key factors in the overall
regression on Worry about Jobs. Atheist Teach was the best predictor of anti-
environmentalism, and Wife Stay Home and School Prayer were also significant.
The sacrifice index did not follow the pattern of the environmental concern
indicators. The highest predictor of this indicator of anti-environmentalism was
Rejection of Evolution. Fundamentalism of Religion was the second highest
predictor.
Oak Hills Data
The small number of cases surveyed made it difficult to draw many
conclusions from the hypothesis testing done on Oak Hills data, but some
general ideas seem to hold true. End Times thinking does seem to have a
limiting effect on environmental concern and on willingness to make sacrifices for
the environment, and I feel it is safe to retain Hypotheses 10 and 12. It is also
possible that End Times thinking is related to a reluctance to accept the
governments role in environmental protection (Hypothesis 11), although the
results of my statistical tests do not indicate I should reject the null hypothesis.
Elect Christians, as a fundamentalist political belief indicator, may be
related to anti-environmentalism, antigovernment feelings, and a lack of
willingness to make sacrifices for the environment, but the results of my statistical
tests did not provide the evidence I need to retain Hypotheses 13 through 15.
Greater education does seem to increase concern for the environment,
acceptance of the governments role in environmental protection and willingness

53
to make sacrifices for the environment, but, in general, the effect of education
seems to be less than that of End Times thinking.

54
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, there does seem to be a relationship between
fundamentalism and anti-environmentalism. However, the problem with
fundamentalism is not likely to be due to doctrinal beliefs, although since I could
not test End Times thinking in the General Social Survey, it is possible that the
effect of that type of eschatological focus could be stronger than I realize.
My research suggests the problem is tied to fundamentalist political
beliefs. Those who are morally rigid, who are unable to accept homosexuality,
the separation of church and state, or the changing roles of women, seem unable
to expand their definition of morality to include environmental awareness. These
people are likely to be doctrinally fundamental, but their environmental beliefs are
shaped primarily by their fundamentalist political worldview.
The fundamentalist doctrinal belief indicators and fundamentalist political
belief indicators used in this study were an improvement over a single question
on biblical literalism, but they are still inadequate. A more detailed
operationalization of the various aspects of fundamentalism is needed to develop
a more precise research tool. There is more to fundamentalist doctrine than
belief in God and belief in the Bible; tenets such as the divinity of Christ,
atonement of sins, the second coming of Christ and the depravity of human
nature should be considered. The definition of fundamentalist political beliefs
should, at the very least, include more items on the desire for separation from the
secular world.
55
The results of this research suggest that the focus of future research
should be on fundamentalist political beliefs or fundamentalist moral rigidity
rather than on the effect of biblical literalism. The people whose doctrinal beliefs
are fundamentalist are not necessarily the fundamentalists who are fighting
environmentalism. People whose religion is legalisticbased on strict obedience
to specific laws and procedures designed to subdue the effects of
modernizationare the ones we need to reach.
What is needed is an appropriate method of introducing fundamentalists to
the importance of environmental awareness. I would like to see a few key
fundamentalist voices begin to support environmentalism and I would like to see
fundamentalist churches provided with non-threatening environmental
information.
A biblical basis for environmentalism is available to those who are willing
to recognize that respect for creation as a gift from God leads to the responsibility
to be good stewards of this gift. But to recognize this, many fundamentalists
need to understand themselves, their fears, and how the two are related. They
need to shape their faith around moral and religious principles that do not change
rather than rules and norms which reflect a society that will inevitably change.
Then they will be able to recognize that environmentalism does not threaten their
faith but instead offers them new opportunities to serve God.
My research also found the respondents level of education to be a key
factor in understanding anti-environmentalisma result that should come as no
surprise. Increasing education has often been found to be the key to abolishing
56
social ills; this study is not very different from many others in that respect. What
is interesting and different is the relative strength of the effect of education
compared to the primary topic of the study, fundamentalism. In most cases, the
effect of fundamentalist doctrinal beliefs was stronger than, or equal to, the effect
of education.
57
APPENDIX A: GSS DATA
Belief: God
Please tell me which statement comes closest to expressing what you believe about
God.
1) I don't believe in God ............................................................... 33 2.5%

2) I don't know whether there is a God and I don't believe
there is any way to find out ..................................................... 37 2.8%
3) I don't believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a
Higher Power of some kind ..................................................... 131 9.9%
4) I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at
others ...................................................................................... 51 3.9%
5) While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God ................. 214 16.1%
6) I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it .......... 860 64.9%
MEAN = 5.23 STANDARD DEVIATION = 1.30 VALID N 1326
Belief: Bible
Which of these statements comes closest to describing your feelings about the Bible?
1) The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken

literally, word for word ............................................................. 616 32.3%
2) The Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it
should be taken literally, word for word ................................... 1002 52.5%
3) The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and
moral precepts recorded by men ............................................ 292 15.3%
MEAN = 1.83 STANDARD DEVIATION = .67 VALID N 1910
Rejection of Evolution
Human beings developed from earlier species of animals.
1) Definitely true .......................................................................... 188 15.3%

2) Probably true ........................................................................... 406 33.1%
3) Probably not true ..................................................................... 224 18.2%
4) Definitely not true .................................................................... 410 33.4%
Fundamentalism of Religion
Fundamentalism/liberalism codes are assigned to denominations using the most detail
applicable code of religious affiliation (Denomination of choice, religion of choice, etc.).
1) Fundamentalist ........................................................................ 936 32.9%

2) Moderate ................................................................................. 1125 39.5%
3) Liberal ...................................................................................... 785 27.6%
58
School Prayer
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that no state or local government may
require the reading of the Lord's Prayer or Bible verses in public schools. What are your
views on thisdo you approve or disapprove of the court ruling?
1) Approve ................................................................................... 737 37.4%

2) Disapprove .............................................................................. 1150 58.3%
3) No opinion ............................................................................... 85 4.3%
Homosexual Acts
What about sexual relations between two adults of the same sexdo you think it is
always wrong, almost always wrong, wrong only sometimes, or not wrong at all?
1) Always wrong .......................................................................... 1253 70.4%

2) Almost always wrong ............................................................... 76 4.3%
3) Wrong only sometimes ............................................................ 116 6.5%
4) Not wrong at all ....................................................................... 439 24.7%
Atheist Teach
There are always some people whose ideas are considered bad or dangerous by other
people. For instance, somebody who is against all churches and religion . . .
Should such a person be allowed to teach in a college or university, or not?
4) Yes .......................................................................................... 1034 54.3%

5) No ............................................................................................ 871 45.7%
Wife Stay Home

It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and
the woman takes care of the home and family.
1) Strongly agree ......................................................................... 131 6.8%

2) Agree ....................................................................................... 540 28.2%
3) Disagree .................................................................................. 896 46.8%
4) Strongly disagree .................................................................... 349 18.2%
59
Political Ideology
We hear a lot of talk these days about liberals and conservatives. I'm going to show you
a seven-point scale on which the political views that people might hold are arranged
from extremely liberalpoint 1to extremely conservativepoint 7. Where would you
place yourself on this scale?
1) Extremely liberal ...................................................................... 71 2.5%

2) Liberal ...................................................................................... 328 11.4%
3) Slightly liberal .......................................................................... 378 13.1%
4) Moderate, middle of the road .................................................. 1049 36.4%
5) Slightly conservative ................................................................ 472 16.4%
6) Conservative ........................................................................... 478 16.6%
7) Extremely conservative ........................................................... 103 3.6%
Political Party
Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, Democrat,
Independent, or what?
0) Strong Democrat ..................................................................... 423 14.6%
1) Not very strong Democrat........................................................ 644 22.2%
2) Independent, close to Democrat ............................................. 341 11.8%
3) Independent (Neither, No response) ....................................... 369 12.7%
4) Independent, close to Republican ........................................... 282 9.7%
5) Not very strong Republican ..................................................... 519 17.9%
6) Strong Republican ................................................................... 321 11.1%
Water Pollution
In general, do you think that pollution of America's rivers, lakes, and streams is...
1) Extremely dangerous for the environment............................... 422 32.2%

2) Very dangerous ....................................................................... 421 32.1%
3) Somewhat dangerous ............................................................. 400 30.5%
4) Not very dangerous ................................................................. 63 4.8%
5) Not dangerous at all for the environment ................................ 6 .5%
Warming
In general, do you think that a rise in the world's temperature caused by the greenhouse
effect', is...
1) Extremely dangerous for the environment............................... 186 15.8%

2) Very dangerous ....................................................................... 287 24.4%
3) Somewhat dangerous ............................................................. 489 41.6%
4) Not very dangerous ................................................................. 184 15.7%
5) Not dangerous at all for the environment ................................ 30 2.5%
60
Worry about Progress

People worry too much about human progress harming the environment.
1) Strongly agree ......................................................................... 63 4.8%

2) Agree ....................................................................................... 425 32.1%
3) Neither agree nor disagree ...................................................... 204 15.4%
4) Disagree .................................................................................. 537 40.5%
Worry about Jobs

We worry too much about the future of the environment, and not enough about prices
and jobs today.
1) Strongly agree ......................................................................... 139 10.4%

2) Agree ....................................................................................... 422 31.6%
3) Neither agree nor disagree ...................................................... 184 13.8%
4) Disagree .................................................................................. 447 33.5%
Recycle
How often do you make a special effort to sort glass or cans or plastic or papers and so
on for recycling?
1) Always ..................................................................................... 481 36.4%

2) Often ........................................................................................ 329 24.9%
3) Sometimes .............................................................................. 340 25.8%
4) Never ....................................................................................... 170 12.9%
Standard of Living
And how willing would you be to accept cuts in your standard of living in order to protect
the environment?
1) Very willing .............................................................................. 57 4.3%

2) Fairly willing ............................................................................. 363 27.3%
3) Neither willing nor unwilling ..................................................... 306 23.0%
4) Not very willing ........................................................................ 390 29.3%
5) Not at all willing ....................................................................... 214 16.1%
61
Higher Taxes
And how willing would you be to pay much higher taxes in order to protect the
environment?
1) Very willing .............................................................................. 77 5.8%

2) Fairly willing ............................................................................. 381 28.6%
4) Not very willing ........................................................................ 360 27.0%
Higher Prices
How willing would you be to pay much higher prices in order to protect the environment?
1) Very willing .............................................................................. 116 8.8%

2) Fairly willing ............................................................................. 509 38.6%
4) Not very willing ........................................................................ 237 18.0%
Government Spending
We are faced with many problems in this country, none of which can be solved easily or
inexpensively. I'm going to name some of these problems, and for each one I'd like you
to tell me whether you think we're spending too much money on it, too little money, or
about the right amount. Are we spending too much money, too little money, or about the
right amount on...
Improving and protecting the environment
1) Too little ................................................................................... 885 60.8%

2) About right ............................................................................... 443 30.5%
3) Too much ................................................................................ 127 8.7%
Are we spending too much money, too little money, or about the right amount on...
The environment
1) Too little ................................................................................... 887 63.9%

2) About right ............................................................................... 372 26.8%
3) Too much ................................................................................ 130 9.4%
VALID N 2844
62
Business Decide
And which one of the following closest to your views? Government should let businesses
decide for themselves how to protect the environment, even if it means they don't always
do the right thing, or government should pass laws to make businesses protect the
environment, even if it interferes with business' right to make their own decisions.
1) Government should let businesses decide .............................. 127 10.8%

2) Government should pass laws ................................................ 1047 89.2%
Public Decide
If you had to choose, which one of the following would be closest to your views?
Government should let ordinary people decide for themselves how to protect the
environment, even if it means they don't always do the right thing, or government should
pass laws to make ordinary people protect the environment, even if it interferes with
people's right to make their own decisions.
1) Government should let ordinary people decide ....................... 284 26.5%

Education
Did you ever get a high school diploma or a GED certificate? Do you have any college
degrees? (IF YES: What degree or degrees?)
0) Less than high school .............................................................. 507 17.0%

1) High school .............................................................................. 1586 53.2%
2) Associate degree/Junior college ............................................. 176 5.9%
3) Bachelors degree 497 16.7%
4) Graduate degree ..................................................................... 216 7.2%
63
APPENDIX B: OAK HILLS DATA
Belief: Bible
Which of these statements comes closest to describing your feelings about the Bible?
1) The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken

literally, word for word ............................................................. 21 17.6%
2) The Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it
should be taken literally, word for word ................................... 97 81.5%
3) The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and
moral precepts recorded by men ............................................ 1 .8%
Age of Earth
The earth is millions of years old.
1) Strongly agree ......................................................................... 5 4.2%

2) Agree ....................................................................................... 18 15.3%
3) Undecided ............................................................................... 55 45.8%
4) Disagree .................................................................................. 24 20.3%
Christs Return
Do you believe Jesus will actually return to the earth someday? How soon do you expect
this is apt to happen?
0) No answer ............................................................................... 49 41.5%

1) In the next 10 years ................................................................. 6 5.1%
2) In the next 50 years ................................................................. 17 14.4%
3) In the next 100 years ............................................................... 29 25.4%
4) More than 100 years from now ................................................ 16 13.6%
Prophecy Fulfilled
Current events are the fulfillment of prophecies found in the Bible.
1) Strongly agree ......................................................................... 11 9.3%

2) Agree ....................................................................................... 41 34.7%
3) Undecided ............................................................................... 46 39.0%
4) Disagree .................................................................................. 19 16.1%
5) Strongly disagree .................................................................... 1 .8%
64
Worry about Jobs

We worry too much about the future of the environment, and not enough about prices
and jobs today. Do you
4) Strongly agree ......................................................................... 2 1.7%

3) Agree ....................................................................................... 41 35.7%
2) Disagree .................................................................................. 65 56.5%
Standard of Living
How willing would you be to accept cuts to your standard of living in order to protect the
environment?
1) Very willing .............................................................................. 7 5.9%

2) Fairly willing ............................................................................. 56 47.1%
3) Not very willing ........................................................................ 54 45.4%
Government Spending
What is your view with regard to the amount of spending by the federal government on
improving and protecting the environment in the United States? Is the government
spending
3) Too little ................................................................................... 33 32.3%

2) About right ............................................................................... 43 42.2%
1) Too much ................................................................................ 26 25.5%
MEAN = 2.07 STANDARD DEVIATION = . VALID N 102
Public Decide
Select the statement that is most similar to your own views about the role of government
in protecting the environment.
1) Government should let ordinary people decide ....................... 41 36.9%

65
Elect Christians
It would be better for America if more people with strong Christian beliefs held public
office.
1) Strongly agree ......................................................................... 36 30.3%

2) Agree ....................................................................................... 45 37.8%
3) Undecided ............................................................................... 28 23.5%
4) Disagree .................................................................................. 9 7.6%
5) Strongly disagree .................................................................... 1 .8%
Political Party
Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as:
2) Democrat ................................................................................. 6 5.2%

3) Independent ............................................................................ 39 33.1%
4) Republican .............................................................................. 59 51.3%
5) Strong Republican ................................................................... 11 9.6%
Education
What is the highest educational degree you have attained?
0) Less than high school .............................................................. 2 1.7%

1) High school .............................................................................. 65 56.3%
2) Associate degree ..................................................................... 10 7.6%
3) Bachelors degree 22 18.5%
4) Graduate degree ..................................................................... 20 16.0%
66
APPENDIX C: OAK HILLS CHRISTIAN COLLEGE DOCTRINAL STATEMENT
SCRIPTURES: We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are all
verbally inspired by God, without error as originally written, and our only infallible rule of
faith and practice.
THE GODHEAD: We believe the Godhead eternally exists in three Personsthe Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spiritand these three are one God; having precisely the same
nature, attributes, perfection, and worthy of precisely the same homage, confidence, and
obedience.
THE SAVIOR: We believe the Lord Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. We hold to
His virgin birth, sinless life, vicarious death, bodily resurrection, His ascension into
heaven, His present high priestly ministry, His translation of the church, and His personal
premillennial return to set up an earthly kingdom.
THE HOLY SPIRIT: We believe the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Trinity who
convicts the unsaved and effects the full salvation of the believer.
MAN: We believe, through the fall of man in Adam, all men are totally depraved and
stand in need of regeneration.
SALVATION FOR SINNERS: We believe salvation was provided through Jesus Christ
by His substitutionary and sacrificial death on the cross, sufficient for all, taking every
legal obstacle out of the way, and that all must be born again or be forever lost.
ETERNAL LIFE: We believe eternal life is the sovereign work of God's grace implanted
in the sinner when he believes and receives Christ.
TWO DESTINIES: We believe the destiny for the believer is to be present (at home) with
the Lord and for the unbeliever is to be separated from the presence of the Lord in
everlasting punishment.
THE CHURCH: We believe the church is an organism of which Christ is the head, made
up of individual believers who have been saved by personal faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ through the grace of God and baptized into Christ's body by the Holy Spirit.
ONE COMMISSION: We believe the great evangelistic and missionary commission

given by Jesus Christ to the disciples and to the continuing church is that of making
Christ known by word and example and bringing to maturity those who believe by
instruction in the Word.
67
APPENDIX D: COMPARISON OF GSS DATA WITH OAK HILLS DATA
Worry about Jobs by Belief: Bible (in percentages)

Oak Hills Data The Bible is
Actual Word of Inspired Word of Ancient
God God Book
Disagree 40.0 67.0 100.0
Agree 60.0 33.0 0.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (20) (94) (1)
-c = -.167 p = .023
Worry about Jobs by Belief: Bible (in percentages)

GSS Data The Bible is
God God Book
Disagree 31.3 57.2 71.6
Agree 68.8 42.8 28.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (116) (367) (240)
-c = -.308 p = .000
Worry about Jobs by Rejection of Evolution (in percentages)

Oak Hills Data The earth is millions of years old.
Disagree 73.9 64.0 56.1
Agree 26.1 36.0 43.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (23) (50) (41)
-c = .137 p = .150
Worry about Jobs by Rejection of Evolution (in percentages)

GSS Data People evolved from earlier species.
True Possibly true Not true
Disagree 71.4 52.2 41.9
Agree 28.6 47.8 58.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (168) (538) (332)
-c = .194 p = .000
68
Government Spending by Belief: Bible (in percentages)

Government spending on the
environment is
God God Book
Too much 41.2 22.6 0.0
About right 35.3 44.0 0.0
Too little 23.5 33.3 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (17) (84) (1)
-c = .102 p = .115
Government Spending by Belief: Bible (in percentages)

environment is
God God Book
Too much 56.6 8.2 9.6
About right 32.6 28.1 24.1
Too little 56.6 63.8 66.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (571) (969) (282)
-c = .056 p = .002
Government Spending by Rejection of Evolution (in percentages)

environment is
Too much 19.0 21.7 32.4
About right 28.6 50.0 41.2
Too little 52.4 28.3 26.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (21) (46) (34)
-c = -.158 p = .079
69
Government Spending by Rejection of Evolution (in percentages)

environment is
Too much 3.8 8.0 10.0
About right 23.0 27.7 36.6
Too little 73.2 64.3 53.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (183) (600) (380)
-c = -.110 p = .000
Public Decide by Belief: Bible (in percentages)

environment?
God God Book
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (20) (90) (1)
V = .279 p = .013 2 = 8.659 DF = 2
Public Decide by Belief: Bible (in percentages)

environment?
God God Book
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (227) (339) (107)
V = .096 p = .046 2 = 6.151 DF = 2
Public Decide by Rejection of Evolution (in percentages)

environment?
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (21) (50) (39)
V = .235 p = .048 2 = 6.056 DF = 2
Public Decide by Rejection of Evolution (in percentages)

70

True Possible true Not true
environment?
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (163) (483) (329)
V = .078 p = .051 2 = 5.938 DF = 2
Standard of Living by Belief: Bible (in percentages)

God God Book
Willing 4.8 6.2 0.0
Not willing 47.6 47.4 0.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (21) (97) (1)
-c = -.014 p = .788
Standard of Living by Belief: Bible (in percentages)

God God Book
Willing 7.7 2.8 8.3
Not willing 64.4 54.9 49.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (222) (317) (96)
-c = -.079 p = .015
Standard of Living by Rejection of Evolution (in percentages)

Willing 13.0 3.7 4.9
Not willing 39.1 42.6 56.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (23) (54) (41)
-c = .122 p = .117
Standard of Living by Rejection of Evolution (in percentages)

71

Willing 13.5 4.1 5.3
Not willing 37.6 59.4 66.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
(N) (21) (97) (1)
-c = .136 p = .000
72
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bouma-Prediger, Steven. 1998, Spring. Why Care for Creation: from Prudence
to Piety. Christian Scholars Review Vol. 27, No. 3: 146-156.
Bruce, Carl E. 1992, Summer. Environmentalism-Leading Mankind Down the

Garden Path. CSSH Quarterly Vol. 14, No. 4: 14-18.
Campolo, Tony. 1992. How to Rescue the Earth Without Worshipping Nature.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Curry-Roper, Janel M. 1990. Contemporary Christian Eschatologies and Their

Relationship to Environmental Stewardship. Professional Geographer
Vol. 42, pp. 157-69.
DeWitt, Calvin B. 1994, June. Christian Environmental Stewardship: Preparing

the Way for Action. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Vol. 46,
No. 2: 80-89.
Eckberg, Douglas Lee. 1996. Christianity, environmentalism, and the theoretical

problem of fundamentalism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
Vol. 35 No. 4: 343(13).
Eckberg, Douglas Lee and T. Jean Blocker. 1989. Varieties of Religious

Involvement and Environmental Concerns: Testing the Lynn White Thesis.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Vol. 28 No. 4: 509-517
Greeley, Andrew. 1993. Religion and Attitudes toward the Environment. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion. Vol. 32 No. 1: 19-28.
Guth, James L., Lyman A. Kellstedt, Corwin E. Smidt, and John C. Green. 1993.
Theological Perspectives and Environmentalism Among Religious
Activists. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 32 No. 4: 373-
382
Guth, James L., John C. Green, Lyman A. Kellstedt, and Corwin E. Smidt. 1995,
May. Faith and Environment: Religious Beliefs and Attitudes on
Environmental Policy. American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 39, No.
2: 364-82.
Hagood, Margaret J. and Daniel O. Price. 1952. Statistics for Sociologists. New
York: Rhinehart and Winston. 193-195.
Kanagy, Conrad L. 1993, September. A Greening of Religion? Some Evidence

from a Pennsylvania Sample. Social Science Quarterly. Vol. 74 No. 3:
674-683
73
Knoke, D. and G.W. Bohrnstedt. 1994. Statistics for Social Data Analysis, 3rd Ed.
Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock Publishers Inc.
White, Lynn. 1967, March 10. The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis.
Science.
Wilkinson, Loren. 1993, January 11. How Christian is the Green Agenda?
Christianity Today Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 16-21.
Wolkomir, Michelle. 1997, March. Substantive Religious Belief and

Environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly. Vol. 78 No. 1: 96-108.

Fundamentalist Xian Belief Environment

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Fundamentalist Xian Belief Environment

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Graduate Studies Office

Bemidji State University

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

BEMIDJI STATE UNIVERSITY

THIS THESIS HAS BEEN APPROVED ON THE DATES SHOWN BELOW:

FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN BELIEF, POLITICS,

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS LITERATURE

Oak Hills Survey ......................................................................................................... 45

APPENDIX A: GSS DATA 58

APPENDIX B: OAK HILLS DATA 64

APPENDIX C: OAK HILLS CHRISTIAN COLLEGE DOCTRINAL STATEMENT 67

APPENDIX D: COMPARISON OF GSS DATA WITH OAK HILLS DATA 68

Since Lynn White's infamous indictment of Judeo-Christian principles in

short of reality. But how short?

Studies of the relationship between fundamentalist Christian beliefs and

concern for anthropogenic degradation of the natural environment have found

that fundamentalists are less likely to be concerned about environmental

degradation and protection than non-fundamentalists (Eckberg and Blocker

unclear which aspect or aspects of fundamentalism are involved.

Past studies have assumed the relationship between fundamentalism and

anti-environmentalism is due to a literal biblical worldview. It has been suggested

fundamentalism can legitimately be characterized by strict doctrinal beliefs,

aspect which must also be examined.

As we become more aware of anthropogenic environmental degradation,

recognizing the importance of preserving the natural environment is vital to our

survival. Knowledge of the factors behind fundamentalists reluctance to be

concerned about the environment will be essential to developing a plan to

address the problem.

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS LITERATURE

In a 1985 telephone survey of 300 residents of Tulsa, Oklahoma, Eckberg

predicted stances on each of a variety of environmental concern indices, always

not significant. (Eckberg and Blocker 1989, 516)

The problem with this study, of course, is a limitation that is shared by

several other studiesthe definition of fundamentalism is extremely restricted.

And, considering the significant demographic differences between regions within

entire population of the United States.

he found a moderate negative correlation with environment concern.1 He also

found a weak negative correlation between belief in God2 and environmental

concern, but he believes the correlations to be spurious, a result of social factors

rather than religious beliefs.

A rigid religious orientation does correlate with negative attitudes toward

Although belief in God and belief in the Bible are characteristics of

fundamentalism, they do not portray fundamentalists adequately, and Greeleys

single question on environmental concerna question which could reflect the

respondents feelings about government spending rather than, or in addition to,

A survey of almost 5,000 members of American religious organizations,

taken in 1990-91, also found the expected relationship between fundamentalism

and environmental concern. (Guth 1993, 378)

A stratified random sample was drawn from the membership of eight

considered themselves pentecostal, conservative, charismatic, evangelical,

mainline, ecumenical or liberal, those who considered themselves to be

with the statement More environmental protection is needed, even if it raises

prices or costs jobs.3 (376)

Guths study defined fundamentalism as characterized not only by biblical

categories. The first category, a doctrinal beliefs scale, used questions on

category, individualism, measured views on means of changing society, whether

through transforming individual hearts or through corporate social and political

pentecostalismmeasured attendance at religious revivals, use of religious TV

and radio, and speaking in tongues. (378) Of the three, anti-environmentalism

followed by individualism (r = .52) and revivalism (r = .45), respectively. In an

dominion in Genesis), its . . . expectations about the imminence of the Rapture

pessimism, (379) Guth ran a stepwise analysis on the individual theological