Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99


News Opinion Op-Eds

Taking care of God's Chesapeake Bay

I read with great interest The Sun's recent article about the reaction of churches that are protesting the soon-to-be instituted stormwater fee. The work being done by the churches named in the article is commendable — food pantries, assistance to the homeless, and the like — and their work to keep their ministries solvent in a difficult economy is certainly not easy. Having been part of the denominational church for my entire life, I understand that there's only so much money to go around, and that it's impossible to help every person in need, but that God commands us to try to do so anyway.

Were God not the creator of the world, including the Chesapeake Bay, I would agree with the religious organizations that protest the fee. But the Earth and all that is in it are the Lord's (Psalm 24), and since we are formed out of the Earth, we are part of it (Genesis 2:7) and are called to care for it (Genesis 2:15). Asking a church to pay a higher rate than a resident may be unduly burdensome, but asking a church to pay its fair share according to its amount of impervious surfaces is not unreasonable.

Churches shouldn't get an automatic exemption from paying for stormwater pollution — and it is pollution — just because they are churches and are already doing good things for the world. Impervious surfaces on religious property cause the same pollution as impervious surfaces anywhere else; the church is not immune to the science of stormwater runoff simply because it worships God and serves God's people.

All of us have contributed to the pollution of the bay, just as all of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). At the same time, though, all of us can contribute to making the situation right again through our shared contributions of time, talent and treasure.

Many churches, no doubt, will have difficulty paying the stormwater fee, having not planned and budgeted for it, and I recognize that struggle. This likely means that the church's stormwater fee will come out of the pockets of the people who financially support the church; and in some cases, many of these people may themselves struggle to pay the stormwater fee on their own properties. In cases like these, it's up to all of us to look out for our brothers and sisters in faith, regardless of denomination. If the present abundance of one person or congregation can assist another person or congregation in need, it becomes incumbent upon those that have abundance to help (2 Corinthians 8:14).

Poverty, hunger and homelessness are ancient problems, but for whatever reason, environmental stewardship hasn't caught on yet for many people as an integral part of a Christian life. The church has been the driving force for so many great social reforms throughout history, but it has lagged behind when it comes to environmental justice. This is not to say, however, that all churches are oblivious to matters of creation care. Religious activism and education organizations like the Evangelical Environmental Network, Lutherans Restoring Creation, Presbyterians for Earth Care, Interfaith Power and Light, and many others actively support greater emphasis on environmental awareness and justice by people of faith. Even Pope Francis has called for environmental justice, acknowledging in a June 5 address that "We are living in a time of crisis" and reminding us that "caring for creation … means nurturing the world with responsibility and transforming it into a garden, a habitable place for everyone."

We in the church shouldn't be protesting this fee — we should be supporting environmental justice in word and in deed. We should be educating our communities about environmental issues and helping them understand that the fee is a result of our culture of waste and our cavalier attitude toward energy and resource consumption that have burdened the planet and the bay with pollution. We should be cooperating with, not opposing, our local governments to promulgate rules that allow for fee offsets for individuals and organizations that reduce or eliminate their stormwater generation.

Most importantly, we in the church should be taking a stand in our own lives and congregations to reduce or eliminate waste and stormwater consumption; to reduce our energy use; and to speak out publicly and act faithfully for the health of God's people, God's bay and God's planet.

Kevin Philpy, an environmental engineer, is a member of First Lutheran Church in Ellicott City and a member of Lutherans Restoring Creation. His email is

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • The rain tax is unfair because not all pay it

    The rain tax is unfair because not all pay it

    I'm for the stormwater management fee if it is paid by all ("End 'rain tax' ridicule rap, repeal and replace law," Feb. 28). It is ridiculous to tie it some counties and not all. In the state of current dynamics, just about all contribute to the problems, and just about all will benefit from the...

  • Sun ignores real cost of 'rain tax'

    Sun ignores real cost of 'rain tax'

    As usual, The Sun gets it wrong on the real cost to homeowners of the "rain tax" ("The bogus 'rain tax' repeal," Nov. 24). According to the Sun's editorial board, the tax only costs about $39 a year for the typical Baltimore County homeowner. No big deal, right? Well, how about the residual costs...

  • The bogus 'rain tax' repeal

    The bogus 'rain tax' repeal

    Despite facing a bigger-than-expected budget shortfall, and although he promised a policy blackout until he takes office, Governor-elect Larry Hogan last week publicly reiterated his support for repealing Maryland's "rain tax" while meeting with fellow Republican governors in Florida. He told The...

  • Rain tax still isn't justified

    Rain tax still isn't justified

    Regarding The Sun's editorial on the stormwater management fee ("Carroll talks sense on stormwater," April 3), let's first explain Gov. Larry Hogan's position in my opinion. He proposed to get rid of the "rain tax," the legislature voted that down and proposed their own biased solution as offered...

  • On 'rain tax,' Hogan has the right idea

    On 'rain tax,' Hogan has the right idea

    The Sun really doesn't get it! Larry Hogan is "repealing" the "rain tax" because it is emblematic of the over-taxing of our state's residents ("The bogus 'rain tax' repeal," Nov. 24). You can engage in all the legalistic finger-wagging you care to, but the people of this state are not impressed...

  • 'Rain tax' not optional

    'Rain tax' not optional

    The recent sub-headline on the editorial regarding the "rain tax" was patently false ("The bogus 'rain tax' repeal," Nov. 23).

  • Time to flush the 'rain tax'

    Time to flush the 'rain tax'

    The Baltimore Sun editorial ("Bogus rain tax repeal," Nov. 24) neglects to mention that in passing the House Bill 987 Stormwater Management-Watershed and Restoration Program, the "rain tax" in response to the 2010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency mandate aimed at reducing the pollution levels...

  • 'Rain tax' a drop in Md. tax bucket

    'Rain tax' a drop in Md. tax bucket

    I agree that the repeal of the "rain tax" is bogus ("The bogus 'rain tax' repeal," Nov. 24). But it would be interesting if The Sun put a table in the paper with the typical cost to Maryland residents of all the 40 or so new or increased taxes imposed upon us by the nanny Gov. Martin O'Malley.