There is a particularly compelling relationship between ecology and war. What is the carbon footprint of an F-A-22 fighter jet manufactured in the state of Georgia and flown half way around the world to engage a so-called enemy? How do you measure the environmental impact of a weapon of mass destruction? Even more pressing, how has the creation of nuclear weapons permanently altered the ethical conversation about war and its degradation of creation?

The opening chapters of Genesis reveal a God who speaks Earth, water, and flesh into being. The Creator heaves form after form into the universe with such astonishing exuberance that the Earth crawls with a complicated array of creatures--from the intricate, graceful butterfly to the vast, sleek whale. God creates one Earth, fashioned for us to share.

What begins in the opening chapters of Genesis as a magnificent symphony of creation quickly plunges into the murky depths of the human condition. Sin--that bone shard brokenness piercing the side of love--slinks onto the scene. And in the fourth chapter of Genesis, we bear witness to the first murder as Cain takes the life of his brother. The Creator implores, "What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the earth. And now you are cursed from the earth, whose mouth is open to take your brother’s blood from your hand." [1]

Creation. Sin. Murder. The Earth, suggests this holy book, bears witness to our violence. The blood that we spill cries out to God, and the Earth drinks this tragic cup. Here, in the beginning of the beginning, human violence is a direct cause of our broken relationship with the Earth. As our warring intensifies and our weapons become increasingly toxic, the virus of human violence continues to infect God’s creation.  

According to Don Fitz, “the military is the only sector of the economy where emissions of greenhouse gases can be reduced by greater than 100%. This is because militarism is the only type of activity whose primary purpose is destruction. When a road is bombed in Serbia, energy is used to rebuild it.” [2] Thus global warring levels a triple impact upon global warming: first, with the production of weapons, which burns fossil fuels; second, with the transportation of weaponry and military personnel as well as warfare’s destruction of vegetation, civilians, and animals; and third, with the fossil fuels burned in rebuilding destroyed infrastructure. Fitz notes that “the Pentagon is the single largest consumer of oil in the world.” [3]

Pentagon spending eats up 54% of our discretionary budget. In dollars, that’s roughly $541 billion, more than we spend on education, health, housing, veterans benefits, science, the environment, economic development, and international affairs combined. [4] Pentagon spending does not cover the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for which Congress is consistently asked to approve supplemental spending as if they were the Administration’s ATM.

If we consider the federal budget a moral document that ought to reflect the values of our nation, excessive Pentagon spending poses a grave concern. In fact, a group of retired military personnel and Department of Defense officials agree that $60 billion could be trimmed from the Pentagon budget without putting our troops at risk, weakening our national defense, or hindering our ability to fight terrorism. [5]

Examining our nation’s financial commitment to militarism is critical in uncovering the relationship between global warring and global warming. Though national conversation about global warming has been sparked, in part by Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth film and presentation, very few are discussing our addiction to the military industrial complex as a key cause of the Earth’s fever.

Elected officials across the political spectrum support our excessive defense spending, despite the fact that it towers over all other nations. According to Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, “Even after trimming $60 billion from the Pentagon budget, America would spend nearly as much on defense as does the rest of the world combined. We would spend more than triple the amount spent by Russia, China, and the ‘Axis of Evil’ combined.” [6]

While militarism levels a triple impact on global warming, a reduction in excessive Pentagon spending as a possible strategy to curb greenhouse emissions has been practically dismissed. Perhaps the resounding silence on the connection between global warring and global warming relates to the insidious nature of the role of the military industrial complex in our nation. Don Fitz claims, “Military spending is like a cancer which has metastasized throughout the body politic, with every congressional district demanding its place at the trough.” [7]

In truth, I’m far less worried about the Earth this Earth Day than I am about human beings. God created the Earth with an incredible capacity to heal itself. In fact, some scholars liken global warming to a fever, which causes “an unbearable environment for some pathogens” in order to heal the body. [8] Kurt Vonnegut has compared human behavior on the Earth to a virus, and he contends, “I think that the Earth’s immune system is trying to get rid of us.” [9]

The Earth harbors a life giving spark that is not easily snuffed out. A close reading of the creation account in the opening chapter of Genesis suggests that the Earth was, in fact, a co-creator with God, assisting in calling forth life. Even in the midst of eco-catastrophes such as the flood story in Genesis, we find that life is difficult to extinguish, and humanity--though certainly possessing the ability to damage the environment, propel the extinction of animals, and kill off one another--is not the ultimate giver of life and death. Green things sprout up through cracks in our concrete, and eventually even the landscape marred by war gives way to new life. God’s Earth is an organism that is constantly co-creating. The stubborn endurance of life in the face of death is a gift of hope.

God created the Earth with an incredible healing capacity, but God also created humanity to be in right relationship with the rest of creation. War wounds God’s Earth and kills off human and animal life. But eco-feminist theology claims that the place of woundedness harbors a unique capacity as a location for transformation. If the Holy One is to be found among the wounded, then perhaps women, who have long been demonized in their identification with the Earth, possess a unique capacity to cultivate God’s healing in our shared world.

Faith communities too can play a prophetic role in naming our military industrial complex as a major structural cause of global warming. While our personal choices profoundly impact the health of God’s Earth, we cannot change our present course without altering structures, like excessive defense spending, that demand our mass consumption of fossil fuel.

This election season presents a unique opportunity to call for a new direction. Martin Luther King, Jr.--who never endorsed candidates but instead urged them to endorse a moral vision for healing our nation--called houses of worship the “conscience of the state.” [10] He believed that voting was a moral obligation and essential in calling our leaders to do justice.

If war is contrary to God’s will, then we must find political leaders who will seek nonviolent solutions to the world’s problems. If God created us to live in right relationship with one another, then we must elect political leaders who live out a foreign policy based on cooperation and global justice. If the Earth belongs to God, then we will seek out political leaders who celebrate the Earth’s goodness, champion environmental justice, and uphold our responsibilities to the rest of God’s creation. [11] It’s time to take action for a new direction!