Where do we start with a response to an article that criticizes any attempt at solving environmental degradation and places the entirety of the blame on women? Here are a few issues of contention that we find key.

In response to the author’s argument that PLNU’s efforts at creation care are “fruitless” or “humanist”: God has called his followers to take care of the earth, and this requires individuals to take action. James 2:24 says, “A person is justified by what he/she does and not by faith alone.” Praying over an issue without accompanying action is ineffective.

Faith (or intercession) alone won’t fix environmental destruction or a drought. Prayer alone can’t care for the planet. When “God moves,” God uses human actors. This perspective is by no means humanism. It is a mindset that empowers Christians to fight for change, addressing even structural problems that damage the earth.

The author continues, “I just happen to believe that there is more to San Diego’s drought than meets the eye”: While this is a rather ambiguous statement, we would agree. There is more here than meets the eye. Issues such as global warming, the overconsumption of resources and the heavy subsidization of water substantially contribute to the lack and waste of water and other forms of environmental degradation. These problems are physical in nature; they come from poor human stewardship and inaction.

The author says, “[S]tep back and you can see we have a dying planet”: If the assertion that environmental destruction and all the problems of the past 50 years are the result of sin, then most of the poverty, disease and environmental destruction should not be located in the global south.

The developing world has had positive growth in terms of the Christian faith. Therefore, to link “sins of a nation” to things such as environmental degradation is illogical and offensive to nations that still feel the effects of colonialism. Instead, the damage done to the earth in the global south has to do with human actions such as irresponsible logging, mining, farming and fishing practices — and has nothing to do with the degree a particular nation has sinned against God.

The author spends the majority of the article referring to abortion — “The ground of America has been polluted by the blood of fifty million innocents since 1973”: He places abortion on a hierarchical scale over other forms of “sin.” Although he addresses all sin, he chooses to focus on a “sin” that is uniquely female in nature — further entrenching the mindset that women are not equal. Men, after all, cannot choose to have an abortion because men cannot get pregnant. The author overlooks other sins, such as sexual abuse or genocide, which do not single out one sex.

Even if it is unintentional, the rhetoric places blame on all women by focusing on abortion, whether or not all women are united on abortion. Abortion is a woman’s issue because it deals uniquely with her body. The community will not condemn the man, yet society will judge the woman based on her choice. For example, at PLNU a pregnant student is kicked out of the dorms if she is discovered to be pregnant. Whether or not this is for health reasons does not matter, because the male who got the woman pregnant does not have to move off campus. Singling out abortion is placing it at the top of a hierarchy of sin — and that is just wrong.

By no means are we saying not to pray. But if we pray without any ensuing action, it’s pointless. God created us with the ability to act. Taking action is not embracing humanism, but allowing Christ to act through humans.

Caitlyn Burford, Dane Cardiel, Ethan Cloherty and Ben Powers contributed to this article via coffeeshop discourse.