
Hoosier evangelicals slowly going solar,\u00a0but they're not talking about climate change
The Rev. Robert Whitaker is part of growing movement across Indiana encouraging evangelical congregations to pursue clean energy, but his talking points don't start with climate change.
He said the focus is on fresh air, clean water, a biblical mandate, and the kicker: Lower utility bills leave churches more money to spend on their missions.
The movement is slowly picking up steam statewide, but it hasn't been easy to get evangelicals on board, said Whitaker, who is senior pastor at Christ Community Church, an evangelical congregation in Bloomington.
At least some of that reluctance is because climate change is a political minefield in some religious circles.
Evangelicals make up the largest group of Christians in Indiana, and they're also the least likely religious group to view climate change as a serious problem, according to the Pew Research Center. But the wedge between evangelicals and environmentalism has less to do with theology and more to do with politics, according to Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist who studies the intersection of faith and climate change.
"The problem itself is the result of decades and even centuries of politicization of faith in America," she told IndyStar.
The Pew Research Center also reported 85 percent of White evangelicals identify with or lean toward the GOP, and Republicans are far less likely than Democrats to say dealing with climate change should be a top priority for the federal government.
So despite spreading the news of a Creation Care Partners grant program that can help evangelical churches cover the costs of going green, Whitaker has only seen a handful of congregations apply.
'I have to be honest, I've been a little disappointed that more evangelical churches haven't taken it on,' he said. 'But it's been successful for us.'
Whitaker hasn't always been a vocal supporter of solar energy. For much of his life, it wasn't a priority.
'It was just one of those back burner issues for me, theologically, and could easily be stereotyped as radical, left wing, tree hugger,' said Whitaker, who grew up in a religious tradition during the 1970s that didn't put much emphasis on environmentalism.
But his son slowly helped him expand his worldview.
Hours of road-trip chats about film, philosophy and theology evolved into conversations about climate change and clean energy. After that, Whitaker said it didn't take long for him to see the truth about the condition of the earth.
Whitaker approached his church board and then members with news of a grant to go green, making it explicit the project costs wouldn't come from the church budget. Most people were on board. Within a matter of weeks, the congregation raised an additional $24,000 dollars. But some people grumbled, and others probably left the church, Whitaker said.
Still, "what happened in the end is most people caught on," he added. The church installed solar panels during the summer of 2022 and is finishing up an overhaul of the HVAC system to increase energy conservation.
Not all evangelicals have made the same pivot, even after years-long efforts to engage religious groups in Indiana with energy conservation.
Fifteen years ago, Madeline Hirschland cofounded Hoosier Interfaith Power and Light, which was an multi-faith network across the state, to help congregations reduce their energy usage and install solar panels.
Fossil fuels account for over 75 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, which linger in the earth's atmosphere and trap the sun's heat. The world is warming faster now than ever in recorded history, and the globe is starting to feel the effects: heatwaves, wildfires and and floods are all increasing in intensity and frequency, according to NASA. Plus, research has shown air pollution from fossil fuel plants can lead to lung cancer, asthma, and heart disease.
Clean energy is one way to reduce the amount of carbon heading into the atmosphere, and for Hirschland, encouraging faith communities to practice energy conservation was an easy connection to make.
"It was a natural fit for me," she said. "It feels like a matter of faith."
Hirschland, who is Jewish, said 18 different faith traditions were represented among the churches that committed to energy conservation and received funding for solar panels. There were mainline protestants, Catholics, Muslims, and Jews involved — but only a handful of evangelicals.
'There was a sense that actually the missing piece was the largest faith group,' Hirschland said. Evangelicals operate between four and six thousand churches across the state, according to her estimates, but 'evangelicals tend to want to work with evangelicals.'
Whitaker, who is an evangelical himself, explained the reaction he heard most often from others was a hesitancy to be involved with interfaith groups, so as not to be grouped in under one faith, theology or agenda.
Another reason, he explained, is the politics of going green make solarization a hard sell.
'I think one of the reasons evangelical churches have been reticent to be involved is because the whole project up until now — I think it's changing — became politicized,' Whitaker said.
Fewer conservative Republicans believe the climate is warming due to human activity compared to Democrats, according to the Pew Research Center, and less than a third of Republicans say that reducing carbon emissions will make a big difference as world confronts climate change.
Hoosier Interfaith Power and Light has since merged with a different network, Faith in Place, but Whitaker, Hirschland and others are still urging evangelical Hoosiers to untangle their theology from their ideology.
'You don't have to be a Democrat or Republican; we don't want to talk about that,' Whitaker said. 'What we want to talk about is a creation mandate that we believe was given to us by God.'
Long before Hirschland helped start Creation Care Partners, the organization issuing energy conservation and solar grants to evangelical congregations, she worked in poverty alleviation in rural Kenya. She met parents whose children had died of malaria and learned about changing rainfall patterns and rising heat that helps mosquitos proliferate.
She quickly came to believe that climate change was threatening people's livelihoods and lives.
When she realized the emissions raising global temperatures were highest in places like the United States, she turned her focus back toward Indiana, where she's become an advocate for faith groups to practice energy conservation across the state.
'It's an issue of faith, it's an issue of caring for the garden,' Hirschland said. 'It's an issue of caring for the least among us, for those who are impacted by what we do but don't have any power over it.'
The Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN), a non-profit that encourages churches to pursue creation care, boils down the biblical basis for creation care into four parts: Christ died to reconcile creation to God; all creation belongs to Jesus; to love what God loves fulfills the ten commandments; and Christians are called to care for the poor — who are disproportionally impacted by environmental hazards.
'If there's pollution that's harming someone, do I care about that?' asked Jeremy Summers, the director of church and community engagement at EEN. 'Do I care about the asthma rates increasing in areas where there's high pollution rates? It's a matter of life.'
Evangelicals involved in creation care work also point to the mandate given by God in the first book of the bible.
'It starts with a garden, and the human beings are given the charge to be stewards of that beautiful place,' said Whitaker. 'Before all this, I was a consumer, and now I see myself as a caretaker.'
Despite what he feels is a moral and spiritual call to care for creation, Whitaker says rhetoric isn't how he cinches the deal with churches. That's where savings come in.
'Quite honestly, the most important thing to me is that we saved energy and didn't pollute the environment,' Whitaker said. 'The savings, in my opinion, are not as important. But you use that as a line to get people going.'
Solar installation can be expensive, costing tens of thousands of dollars depending on how many kilowatts a church might install. And a tax credit that helped churches and non-profits save 30 to 40 percent on solarization is on the chopping block in the current text of the Republican megabill.
But, luckily for churches, there's still a lot of help out there to go green.
For one, Hirschland and Whitaker are helping distribute $500,000 in grants to evangelical churches through Creation Care Partners. The money was obtained through a settlement with American Electric Power.
The Creation Care Partners' grant helps congregations reduce their energy use by 25 to 40 percent. Evangelical congregations can receive up to $29,000 to install solar panels or work on energy conservation — which Hirschland says is usually a more cost-effective way to save — through upgrades to LED lights and sealing and insulating their buildings.
And once they do, Hirschland said, they'll see their utility bills drop. The money moved away from utility bills can be used to advance mission work the church is supporting.
'It's both a way to care for God's creation, and it's also a way to do more of what they want to be doing,' said Hirschland.
St. John's United Church of Christ in Collinsville, Illinois, dropped its electric bills from $2,000 a month to $200 since they installed solar in January, according to Wade Halva, who works with Faith in Place in southern Illinois. Over the next 25 years, the church could save close to half a million dollars.
Halva said that when he's working with churches, one of the pivot points is when they discuss how a church has had to adjust its budget to cut costs.
'How many programs have you stopped in the last 10 years because you didn't have this amount of money in your budget? Did you have to let a staffer go? Did you stop a summer food program?' he said he asks different pastors and church leaders. 'Then I ask them to imagine what they could do within an additional this amount of money in their budget every year for the next 20 years.'
IndyStar's environmental reporting project is made possible through the generous support of the nonprofit Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Associated Press
35 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Wisconsin Supreme Court sides with Republican Legislature in fight with governor
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court handed a victory to the Republican-controlled Legislature on Wednesday in a power struggle with Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. The court, in a unanimous ruling where the four liberal justices joined with three conservatives, struck down Evers' partial veto of a Republican bill in a case that tested both the limits of his broad veto powers and the Legislature's ability to exert influence by controlling funding. The court also ruled that the Legislature can put money for certain state programs into an emergency fund under the control of its budget committee. Evers had argued such a move was unconstitutional. The ruling against Evers comes after the court earlier this year upheld Evers' partial veto that locked in a school funding increase for 400 years. The court last year issued a ruling that reined in some powers of the Legislature's budget committee, while this ruling went the other way. Evers clashes with Legislature Evers, in his seventh year as governor, has frequently clashed with the Legislature and often used his broad veto powers to kill their proposals. Republican lawmakers have tried to take control away from the governor's office by placing money to fund certain programs and state agencies in an emergency fund controlled by the Legislature's budget committee. That gives the Legislature significant influence over that funding and the implementation of certain programs within the executive branch. Evers argued that the Legislature is trying to limit his partial veto power and illegally control how the executive branch spends money. The state Supreme Court on Wednesday disagreed. It ruled that Evers improperly used his partial veto on a bill that detailed the plan for spending on new literacy programs designed to improve K-12 students' reading performance. The court also sided with the Legislature and said the budget committee can legally put money into an emergency fund to be distributed later. That is what it has done with the $50 million for the literacy program. Evers and Republican lawmakers did not immediately return messages seeking comment. Fight over literacy funding In 2023, Evers signed into law a bill that created an early literacy coaching program within the state Department of Public Instruction. The bill also created grants for schools that adopt approved reading curricula to pay for changing their programs and to train teachers on the new practices. However, Republicans put the $50 million to pay for the new initiative in a separate emergency fund controlled by the Legislature's budget committee. That money remains in limbo amid disagreements about how the money would be used and who would decide how to spend it. Evers argued that the Legislature didn't have the power to withhold the money and the court should order it to be released to the education department. The Legislature has been increasing the amount of money it puts in the emergency fund that it can release at its discretion, but it remains a small percentage of the total state budget. In the last budget, about $230 million was in the fund, or about half of a percentage point of the entire budget. Republicans sue to stop veto Evers used his partial veto power on another bill that created the mechanism for spending the $50 million for the new program. He argued that his changes would simplify the process and give DPI more flexibility. Evers also eliminated grants for private voucher and charter schools. Republican legislators sued, contending that the governor illegally used his partial veto power. State law allows only for a partial veto of bills that spend money. For all other bills, the governor must either sign or veto them in their entirety. Because the bill Evers partially vetoed was a framework for spending, but didn't actually allocate any money, his partial vetoes were unconstitutional, lawmakers argued. Evers argued for a liberal interpretation of his veto powers. He said that by challenging it, the Legislature was trying to weaken his powers. A Dane County judge sided with Evers, determining that the bill in question qualified as an appropriations bill subject to partial vetoes. But in a win for the Legislature, he did not find fault with the Legislature's budget committee putting funding for the program under its control. The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that putting the money into the emergency fund was legal. But the court also said Evers' veto was illegal.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump ramps up pressure on GOP holdouts as his megabill meets its ultimate fate
President Donald Trump and Republican leaders are betting that key GOP holdouts will buckle under enormous pressure to pass his sweeping agenda within days – even as a number are warning they're prepared to sink the multi-trillion-dollar measure without major changes. But tensions are escalating between the House and Senate and between moderates and conservatives who are battling over competing versions – as Trump demands the bill on his desk by July 4. With the Senate planning a critical vote to begin debate as soon as Thursday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Speaker Mike Johnson are both racing to quell rebellions among their centrist and right-wing factions. Behind the scenes, Johnson and his allies are in high-stakes talks with Senate GOP leaders to resolve final sticking points, while stressing to their own House members that they may ultimately need to back the Senate's version because further cross-Capitol negotiations aren't feasible, according to two sources familiar with the discussions, a move certain to cause an outcry among many in his conference. That means GOP holdouts could ultimately be left with this choice: Vote for a plan they detest or sink the bill and endure Trump's wrath. GOP leaders in both chambers are gambling their members will choose the former. 'When it comes over, we'll pass it,' House Majority Whip Tom Emmer told CNN. 'We've been talking over a year. The time for voting is now.' But multiple House Republicans are fuming that the Senate rewrote their carefully crafted version of bill – most critically to propose deeper cuts on Medicaid – and are openly calling to blow past Trump's timeline to change it back. Plus Johnson now has at least three Republican hardliners declaring they will oppose the Senate version without even deeper spending cuts: Reps. Andy Harris of Maryland, Chip Roy of Texas and Eric Burlison of Missouri. And then there's the parochial issue dogging the GOP: The push led by New York Republicans to increase the amount taxpayers can deduct from their local levies, a deal that GOP senators want to gut and force House members to swallow. Some are warning they won't cave – a threat GOP leaders must weigh since they can only afford three defections in each chamber to pass the bill. 'If they're trying to jam us with something that we can't support, then I think we need to take those extra days to make sure it's a good product,' said Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who was one of 16 House Republicans who declared in a letter to both GOP leaders on Tuesday that they couldn't support the Senate's Medicaid provisions without major changes. She also met with Johnson about the issue on Tuesday. Malliotakis was among several GOP lawmakers who told CNN she would support a formal 'conference committee' between the House and Senate – against the wishes of Trump and GOP leaders, since it would dramatically slow down the president's agenda. Even Rep. David Joyce, a close leadership ally, said he was willing to miss Trump's July 4 deadline to fight for more of the House's original provisions. 'I think a good bill deserves to take its time,' the Ohio Republican told CNN. 'There's differences in what the Senate's talking about and what can pass here.' The GOP is largely united on the main tenets of the bill, including extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts for individuals and businesses, imposing new work requirements on social safety net programs and fulfilling the president's campaign promises like no tax on tips and overtime pay — all while providing hundreds of billions more for the Pentagon and border security agencies. But how to pay for many of those provisions has been far more contentious, including cuts to Medicaid and phasing out Biden-era energy tax credits. And official estimates that the measure could add more than $3.4 trillion to deficits over the next decade have left many on the right uneasy – in addition to the Senate's proposed $5 trillion increase to the national debt limit. Meanwhile, patience is running thin in the Senate, with many Republicans eager to move on and call their House counterparts' bluff. 'It's a little arrogant to say the Senate has got to eat exactly what the House proposed. I mean it's a bicameral process,' Sen. Bernie Moreno, a Republican from Ohio. 'I don't look like Alexander Hamilton or James Madison do I? That's just the process our founders created.' And Trump himself is heaping pressure on Congress, posting on Truth Social on Tuesday: 'Lock yourself in a room if you must, don't go home, and GET THE DEAL DONE THIS WEEK.' Senate Republicans are particularly frustrated by the so-called SALT Caucus, the group of House Republicans in New York and California that is demanding bigger deductions on state and local tax payments. Those Republicans cut a deal with Johnson to win their support by raising the amount of state and local levies that eligible taxpayers can deduct to a $40,000 limit. Now, several of those New York Republicans say they won't accept a penny less than that number, even though Senate Republicans say they should jam the House with a less expensive deal. 'I'm OK with them making crazy statements like that if they want,' said North Dakota Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer, referring to the House Republicans from New York. 'I hear 'red line' a lot around here. I hear that a lot, but at the end of day, it turns into a rather light pink.' But those House GOP lawmakers pressing for tax relief said it would be a mistake to assume that they would simply swallow whatever SALT deal the Senate passes. 'I think that would be the wrong assumption,' Rep. Mike Lawler, a New York Republican and leading proponent of the House deal, told reporters Tuesday. Any whipping operation among House Republicans, however, is complicated by the still-fluid negotiations in the Senate. GOP senators are still tweaking their bill themselves and trying to navigate changes forced on them by the Senate parliamentarian's rulings that some of their provisions are out of order with strict Senate budget rules that they must follow to pass the bill along party lines. The biggest headache for Republicans, though, remains the fate of Medicaid. At least 20 centrist Republicans in both chambers are trying to reverse the Senate's biggest cuts to Medicaid, which were not part of the House-passed bill. But another group of GOP hardliners – including Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Rick Scott of Florida and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin – wants to slash even deeper from the program and have raised major concerns about the impact the bill would have on the deficit. And they all met with Trump on Monday night. During a closed-door meeting Monday, Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri who has been outspoken about his concerns the bill is cutting too much into Medicaid, said North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis gave out information to senators on how much rural hospitals in states like his could lose if some of the changes the Senate rolled out went into effect. At issue are new proposed limits on how much states can tax health care providers, a levy that helps fund the Medicaid program. Some key Republicans fear that the new proposed limits could devastate Medicaid providers, especially rural hospitals, and are demanding changes. 'Senate leadership now needs to fix this,' Hawley said. 'They're the ones who invented this new rural hospital defund scheme that the House says they can't pass. It's going to close rural hospitals. They need to get with rural hospitals, figure out what's going to work for them, and then they need to get the sign off of the House.' 'The leadership needs to work on this with rural hospitals and the House,' he said. 'This won't work to not ever talk to the House and hope that they just take the bill. That will land us in a conference committee. I don't want to do that.' Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican and a key swing vote facing reelection next year, is pushing for the bill to include a relief fund to providers hardest hit by the new cuts — potentially around $100 billion although multiple sources told CNN that the number has been extremely fluid. 'I've been very concerned about the cuts in Medicaid and the impact on my state, but other states as well,' Collins told CNN on Tuesday. 'I've also been concerned about the health of rural hospitals, nursing homes, health centers and have been working on a provider relief fund. But that doesn't offset the problem with the Medicaid cuts.' Tillis, a Republican who like Collins is also up for reelection next year, said that the proposed Medicaid cuts could cost his state $38 billion over 10 years. 'That's a big impact,' he told CNN. He added: 'I'm very much in favor of moving in that direction. You just have to do it at a pace that states can absorb, or we're going to have bad outcomes, political and policy.' But if Trump and Senate GOP leaders give in to the demands of those holdouts, it would drive up the already hugely expensive price tag — prompting a revolt on the right. Rep. Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican who leads the House Freedom Caucus, contended that the Senate is moving in the wrong direction, calling for deeper cuts into Medicaid and saying it should more quickly eliminate green energy tax credits enacted under the Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act. Harris voted 'present' when the bill passed the House by a single vote last month. But Harris said he would go even further if forced to accept the Senate bill in the coming days. 'If the Senate tries to jam the House with this version, I won't vote ' present.' I'll vote 'NO,'' Harris said Tuesday. CNN's Ali Main contributed to this report.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How US adults' views on same-sex marriage have changed since the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling
WASHINGTON (AP) — For years, it looked as though the United States was steadily climbing toward a consensus on same-sex marriage. But 10 years after the Supreme Court ruled that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the split between Republicans and Democrats on the issue is wider than it's been in decades. Recent polling from Gallup shows that Americans' support for same-sex marriage is higher than it was in 2015. Gallup's latest data, however, finds a 47-percentage-point gap on the issue between Republicans and Democrats, the largest since it first began tracking this measure 29 years ago. The size of that chasm is partially due to a substantial dip in support among Republicans since 2023. An Associated Press polling analysis shows how same-sex marriage shifted from a clear minority position to a stance with broad support — and what the future could hold for views on the issue. Same-sex marriage was once highly unpopular Less than 40 years ago, same-sex marriage was a deeply unpopular issue. In 1988, The General Social Survey showed that just about 1 in 10 U.S. adults 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' with a statement that gay couples should have the right to marry. At that point, roughly 7 in 10 Americans — including similar shares of Democrats and Republicans — disagreed with the statement. But as early as the 1990s, the politics of same-sex marriage were shifting. Gallup data from 1996 — the year the Defense of Marriage Act defined marriage as between one man and one woman — showed that 27% of U.S. adults said marriages between same-sex partners 'should be recognized by the law as valid.' But Democrats and Republicans weren't in lockstep anymore: Democrats were nearly twice as likely as Republicans to support legal recognition of same-sex marriages. Democrats' support for same-sex marriage shifted faster By 2004, the legalization of same-sex marriage started to unfold at the state level. That year, Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex couples to marry. President George W. Bush, a Republican, championed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage on the campaign trail, while Democrats vying for their party's 2004 presidential nomination said the legalization of same-sex marriage should be left to the states. At this time, Americans' support for same-sex marriage was still somewhat limited, and the divide between Republicans and Democrats deepened. About 4 in 10 U.S. adults agreed that same-sex marriage should be permitted, according to the Gallup data. Among Democrats, that agreement was higher — about half were in favor — compared with 22% of Republicans. Since then, Americans' upward movement on support for same-sex marriage has been driven by Democrats and independents. Throughout Gallup's trend, Democrats have been more supportive of same-sex marriage than Republicans have. Since 2006, at least half of Democrats have supported same-sex marriage, and independents started to see consistent majority support in 2012. The gap between Democrats and Republicans, meanwhile, stayed wide. By 2015, the year of the Supreme Court's ruling, about three-quarters of Democrats — but only about one-third of Republicans — supported same-sex marriage. But Republicans did become somewhat more supportive of same-sex marriage between 2010 and 2020. While Democrats continued to lead the shift, Republican public opinion also moved during this decade — signaling a broader movement toward acceptance of same-sex marriage across party lines, even if it wasn't always linear. Republicans' support for same-sex marriage dropped in recent years About 7 in 10 Americans think marriages between same-sex partners should be recognized by the law as valid, according to Gallup data from this year, which is similar to the latest General Social Survey data showing 63% of U.S. adults agree that same-sex marriage should be considered a right. But while the public's support for same-sex marriage ticked up in the years following the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling — from about 60% in 2015 — it has been relatively steady since 2020. At the same time, Republicans' support has fallen in each of the past three years. Now, about 4 in 10 Republicans say marriages between same-sex partners should be recognized as legal, down from a record high of 55% in 2021 and 2022. This latest decline by Republicans returns their views to their 2016 measure, when 40% supported legal same-sex marriage. Gallup Senior Editor Megan Brenan said Republicans' recent shift in opinion on same-sex marriage is dramatic. 'This was a much steeper fall from 2022 through 2025,' she said. 'And now, of course, we have the widest partisan gap that we've seen in the trends.' Younger and older Republicans split on same-sex marriage Even as overall Republican support for same-sex marriage declines, a generational split within the party suggests that opposition may not hold in the long run. Among Republicans under age 50, about 6 in 10 say same-sex marriages should be legally recognized, the Gallup poll finds. That stands in stark contrast to just 36% of Republicans over 50 who say the same —- suggesting that views on the issue could continue to shift. Overall, younger adults are significantly more likely to support legal recognition of same-sex marriage. About 8 in 10 adults under 35 are in favor, compared with roughly 7 in 10 between ages 35 and 54 and 6 in 10 among those 55 or older. Brenan noted that younger Americans are more accepting of same-sex marriage than older adults are, and it's an issue that especially appears to divide Republicans today. 'I think that's a key to where things will be headed, presumably,' Brenan said. 'Historically, people have become more conservative as they age, but this is an issue that's so ingrained in society today and especially younger society.'