‘Start Fostering Love Across Political Divides’: Q&A With Dr. Dorothy Boorse
Earlier this year, Religion Unplugged reported on findings released by the National Survey of Religious Leaders indicating that close to 80% of evangelical Protestant pastors reject scientific consensus regarding human-driven climate change.
However, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental information, January 2025 ranked as the warmest experienced on record in the past 176 years. Scientific data continues to herald rising temperatures caused by global emissions of greenhouse gases.
Yet the consequences of a rapidly warming planet disproportionately affect those in poverty. Former U.N. Special Rapporteur Philip Alston estimated in 2019 that climate change “could push more than 120 million more people into poverty by 2030 and will have the most severe impact in poor countries, regions, and the places poor people live and work.”
As a Christian ecologist and professor at Gordon College, Dr. Dorothy Boorse has endeavored to connect science to faith communities for over 30 years. Throughout her writing, she links the core Christian values of justice, compassion, and caring for the least of these to pressing climate issues. She recently spoke with Religion Unplugged’s Isabella Meibauer about her career shift from pre-med to wetland ecologist, loving your neighbor, and polarization on environmental issues during the current Trump administration.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Isabella Meibauer: What inspired you to pursue a career in environmental science, particularly wetland ecology, as a Christian?
Dr. Dorothy Boorse: Well, from the time I was a little kid until I was 20, I thought it was going to be a medical missionary. I love biology. I care about people. I wanted to do something meaningful to honor God in the world, but I didn't realize that there were so many ways to combine all those values into a career. I was that kind of kid that was always watching ants and playing in the mud and collecting frogs and loved outdoors, and I have always just cared deeply about the natural world.
I attended Mennonite schools, and that was very formational in my spiritual development. Mennonites see the idea of living simply and caring for creation as ways of promoting peacemaking and of promoting justice and compassion in the world. And then in college, I got an internship at a wetland, and I mapped plants, and I identified insects, and I just fell in love with all of that.
Finally, I went to, in college, I went to Au Sable Institute of Environmental Science, which is an organization that provides field courses for about 60 different Christian colleges. I met people that loved God and thrived in the outdoors, and I just realized that there were other things I could do that would combine all of that. So, it still took me quite a while before I ended up exactly where I am, but that's the start of it.
Meibauer: Much of your work bridges the gap between science and faith, and you have even co-authored a journal article called, “Building Bridges: Communicating between Ecologists and Faith Communities.” What challenges have you faced in connecting environmental issues to Christian communities, and how have you navigated them?
Boorse: So that's an interesting question. My co-author on that paper is a Marianist nun and a botanist, and we know each other from the Ecological Society of America, so we've both had these experiences of being in faith-based communities and in the scientific world. I would say that there is a wide range of points of view in Christian communities in the United States and even more, around the whole world. I personally did come out of a tradition where women couldn't preach in front of the congregation and many of the churches I went to in my journey had fairly conservative views, and I understand that culture, but I think some of the challenges that I have faced have included just things outside of science and faith, like the general polarizing of our society and sometimes deliberate efforts to mislead people, and particularly on climate change.
I think that has been the case, and in faith communities sometimes there's a defensiveness and a fear or distrust of science. In scientific communities, sometimes there is a significant misunderstanding about faith, and sometimes there's fear and distrust from that side as well. And then I mentioned the role of women. I don't attend that kind of church now, but I do think that there's some specific issues in trying to bridge with that kind of community. In some kinds of Christian communities, it's more acceptable to listen to somebody who doesn't have actual expertise in something but is identified as a voice in your community, and it's not as accepted to listen to somebody because they have expertise, and that's hard to work with.
But you ask how have you navigated it. And I've got a number of strategies, but I have personally a very deeply held commitment to treating all people with respect, even if I strongly disagree with somebody. The more polarized we get, the more I believe that is the right approach. I have never heard of somebody who changed their opinion because they were mocked or disrespected. That doesn't mean it is easy, but one of the things that does help a lot is connecting environmental issues to shared values. People value their kids, they value their grandkids, they love the lake they vacation at. It's helpful to assume goodwill on the part of people that you're communicating with and to listen to them about what their perceptions are, because sometimes they're easily solved. Sometimes you can just reality check something. People will have a perception that's absolutely unsupported, but if you can get them to see that ... by let's ask, are all scientists in the world in a giant cabal who's trying to fool you about climate change? Well, no, that would be actually way more difficult thing than you might think. When I speak to fellow Christians, I found my conversation in the Bible often. Sometimes I'll ask people what their own suggestions are for problem solving. So in my own experience, people are often looking for somebody who knows how to bridge a gap.
Meibauer: You were the lead author of a report entitled, “Loving the Least of These: Addressing a Changing Environment,” published by the National Association of Evangelicals. How do you connect environmental stewardship with biblical principles of justice and compassion? I’d also love to hear a particularly compelling example of the disproportional impact climate change has on those living in poverty, if you have one to share.
Boorse: Yes, I've written loving the least of these addressing a changing environment, and we've now had two editions, and it was a real honor to do it with the National Association of Evangelicals. Our goal was to put up a human face on the issue of climate change. And in that document, we describe the three reasons to do that, specifically for a Christian audience. And the first is that God told us to care for creation. And in the book of Genesis, in chapter two, verse 15, the Hebrew words are abad and shamar, and different theologians interpret those differently, but often they're interpreted as “to tend” and “to keep” or “to till,” and so that's sort of a very basic instruction given to humanity, and no later instructions have wiped it away. So we are to take care of the world around us and I think that people have mistakenly interpreted our job as to this Dominion talk that people use. I don't think that's a very accurate perception of what God was asking of us.
But I think even more than that is the whole document is trying to get people to understand that we have to care about the rest of the created world in order to love other humans. And you can't just say it's like humans versus everything else, because people are harmed directly by environmental degradation. And you asked about compassion and justice, and I think both of those come under this loving your neighbor perspective. In the book of Matthew, 25:35-40, is that famous passage where Jesus says, I was hungry and he gave me something to eat. I was thirsty and he gave me something to drink. I was a stranger. You invited me in. I was naked, and you clothed me. It basically says, if you do these things for the most vulnerable in society, it is as if you did it for me, but if you don't, it's as if you're not willing to do it for me. So it ought to be, you know, absolutely central to the Christian faith that we are showing compassion.
But the idea of justice isn't just, I am good to people because I ought to be. It's I am trying to set to right a wrong. And one of the biggest wrongs that can happen is when one person benefits from an action, but a different person experiences the harm or risk from that action. It's like a fundamental unethical problem, and that is actually a fantastic description of most environmental degradation. Most of the time, the people who are benefiting from the action that causes degradation are not the people paying the price for it. That is especially true in poor countries where resource extraction is the norm and cash crops and that kind of thing, and especially, especially true of people suffering from the effects of climate change, where there's a whole part of the world that really did not benefit from the Industrial Revolution, or the overuse of fossil fuels very much, but are now paying those prices. So I think that's a part of justice.
I know that different people view the idea of witnessing differently, but I will say that for Christians who say we're supposed to present the world with the good news of Christ, I don't think you can do that without caring for the environment. I don't think you can talk about good news when you're part of a system that is actively undermining the health of people and in fact, I'm not the only one thinking that because the Lausanne Movement, which is a worldwide evangelical movement, in 2010 put out a statement that says that creation carries a gospel issue under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. And that was like a watershed moment, I think, in global Christianity.
And then finally, I would just say that it seems like for our own practical survival, we have to care about the environment. We're past the point where it's just other people and we're just doing it to be loving. It's like, actually your house might burn down. But anyway, there are many examples of people who are affected by climate change and where compassion and justice would require us to do something.
One example that really hits home to me is that I sponsor a child in Guatemala. Guatemala has a lot of deforestation, coupled with climate change, means a lot of mudslides, and Guatemala also has one of the highest rates of stunting from inadequate food from malnutrition in children, and so I give every month to help a child. But at the same time, I'm in a culture where we're using energy in such a way that my Guatemalan sponsored child's life is getting harder. And those two things just do not go together. There's a fundamental problem with that picture. Other peoples that are very obvious are people in the Pacific Island nations. I met a pastor from Tuvalu, and he just described being on coral islands that were being washed over in storms and not having any fresh water, what it was like to have the UN have to come in and bring desalinization, portable plants, and watching their whole nation, go under the ocean and yet they've done almost nothing to contribute to climate change. That's true for so many places. Bangladesh is the poster child for climate change: hundreds of millions of people in an area the size of Wisconsin and has contributed very little to climate change, and are very, very heavily affected.
Another group, though, that might be closer to what your readers would think of, is people in heat waves in cities. And if you can imagine that the impact of heat waves is very connected to socioeconomic levels, so that poor people spend a great deal more money on trying to keep themselves cool, or don't have access to do so, and it is so much more deadly if you're poor, and that's not really in relationship to how much you affect climate.
Meibauer: A report by the National Survey of Religious Leaders has found that only 22 percent of Protestant clergy believe the climate is changing and that is changing due to human activity. Are you able to speak on why this may be and why this is significant? How can churches approach this issue in a way that is both scientifically informed and theologically grounded?
Boorse: So that statistic is just alarming. This may not be a positive spin on it, but it was limited to American white evangelical leaders. So this the survey separated out mainline Protestant and it separated out black Protestant leaders. And I'll just say this is does not speak well for white evangelical leaders, but fortunately, it's not everybody. It's discouraging, but it is the moment that we're in. Some of it has to do with being conservative. By definition, people who are conservative don't change their thinking quickly, but the world is changing very quickly in ways that are just unfathomable. And we were adding a billion people every 12 to 15 years, and our human impact on the globe is enormous and rapidly changing. And for anybody it's hard to keep up mentally with this. But if you're naturally conservative, it's almost impossible to even accept that this is happening, and so I think that's part of it. I think it's just like pushing the edges of human imagination to even believe that these things are happening.
And then there's all the politics, and people are being directly told things that are not true. But there are some helpful things to do, and one of the things to do is to connect people that are in those churches to other believers that have similar theological beliefs but different life experiences. So the African church has things to say to white evangelicals in America that will shock them about climate change. So I think anything that that we can do to get Americans to think about connecting to other people whose life experiences are different, but one of the biggest things that has shown up in study after study, is that people simply don't talk about climate change, and many people don't, even once in six months, have an actual conversation with somebody that they know about climate change. And so the biggest single thing right now that we can do is just talk about it and normalize talking. And then I also think that there's a lot being written right now by theologians. I do think that the problems with not believing climate science and not believing science generally and then politics are sort of all intertwined in ways that don't make a simple solution for this.
Meibauer: The Trump administration has quite ostensibly taken a different approach to environmental policy so far compared to previous administrations. In your journal article, Building Bridges, you discuss how government scientists interface with faith communities, noting that 13 U.S. government agencies have (or had) Centers for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, including: USAID and the US Department of Agriculture. The US Fish and Wildlife Service also incorporates Traditional Ecological Knowledge into its initiatives through the Native American Program, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has in the past released a stewardship guide for houses of worship. Why are these types of partnerships important?
Boorse: So, I think there's a few reasons. The U.S. government has a lot of agencies that serve the public, but many people don’t know what they do, or they only know one piece of it. So I think it's really helpful to connect our civil society institutions to the lives of ordinary people. So for example, farmers may trust USDA for information on insect pests but not realize that the USDA offers suicide prevention training to faith leaders in agricultural areas because deaths from despair are high among farmers, unfortunately. The work of our federal agencies is often broader than people realize, and it works better when it's combined with other parts of society.
I think the second thing is that faith communities often have a powerful impact in people's lives. They have networks and communication and outreach strategies. They have the trust of the community very often, and they can mobilize people. And so using them to promote various strategies can actually keep the federal government from needing to be bigger than it is. So that's a good way to use the skills and abilities of different parts of society together.
Meibauer: Given the polarization around environmental issues, how can Christians advocate for policies that protect creation while fostering unity rather than division?
Boorse: I think this is a really hard one, but I'm going to start with I think that fostering love across political divides has to be the start. It just has to be. I do think that there are some other specific things that people can do, and one is that people don't as often contact their elected representatives when they want something done about climate change as they do for other positions.
Asking your elected representatives to face these realities and do something about them is very helpful, and it also does something else. There's a lot of elected representatives who want to support environmental protection but are afraid that their constituents won't support them, and so by loudly indicating that you will support them if they do something about the environment, that does give them a backing that allows them a little bit more of a voice. I think I said that people just don't talk about things. And I think talking about not just climate change, but things like decline of pollinators and the rise of plastic in the ocean, and just talking about this like this is normal conversation, and everybody ought to know about it and talk about it is a way to get that going.
I also think right now, with the federal government, you know, sort of ricocheting back and forth on so many different policies that acting on the local level and supporting international actions might be more effective than our federal level right now, even though we should be expressing our opinions on that.
Meibauer: What gives you hope when it comes to the future of environmental stewardship within the church?
Boorse: Well, I think there's a number of things, and I will say that one is just defining what you hope for and being realistic about it. I can't hope that I'll leave the world that I had as a child to my children. That's done. That's not a possibility. I can't hope that my children and grandchildren won't face real challenges from the decisions of the last century. There's no use even trying to hope that. But I do believe that as we look toward the future, we can make decisions that will make the future easier, or not as easy. We have choices, and as we make them, they have effects. So my hope is that we will choose better choices, and I think that that hope is realistic.
I'm also heartened by young people. I know it's discouraging for a lot of young people. I'm constantly burdened by trying to hold them up to the light there. My experience of young evangelical students is that they do care a lot about the environment, about climate change, about other environmental issues. They want to make a difference, and they want the church to change. That's not everybody, but it's a significant number of people that I've met. I'm heartened by international efforts on the sustainable development goals and the Christians around the world who are part of those efforts. So I think that hope is a choice. It's not a feeling. And that we choose to have hope in the face of difficulty.
Isabella Meibauer is a freelance writer and local reporter who holds a degree in religious and theological studies from the King's College and is currently pursuing a second degree in environmental science from Oregon State University. She writes from Connecticut.