Last month, forty prominent members of the Southern Baptist Convention signed A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change declaring that, as a denomination, they have been “too timid” in speaking out on environmental issues and affirmed a Biblical responsibility to address climate change.  While they are certainly not the first evangelicals to offer their help to the global warming crisis, this declaration was remarkable because the Southern Baptists represent the largest Protestant denomination in the nation and traditionally take conservative stances.

By issuing this declaration, they joined hands with perhaps the majority of environmentalists, scientists, politicians, entertainers, journalists, and other news makers.  The issue of climate change and catastrophic global warming enjoys the support of the most outspoken people in the world.  In recent years we have seen numerous people step forward to champion this cause.

At the forefront of the debate, former Vice President Al Gore has probably done more than any other person to increase awareness about this issue.  Starting in 1992 with his best seller Earth in the Balance, Gore has continued his campaign in the political and entertainment spectrums.  Most recently he is famous for his 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which not only won him the Nobel Peace Prize, but also took home two Oscars.

Mr. Gore and his supporters believe that left unchecked, human green house gas emissions will cause the earth’s temperature to steadily rise, eventually wiping out human existence as we know it. The consequences of global warming include: more violent rainstorms, more violent hurricanes, more droughts, more wildfires, higher sea levels (and destruction of our coast lines), extinction of 20-30% of all animal/plant life, ad infinitum. [Source: Natural Resources Defense Council]

The evidence also suggests that most people are inclined to believe these reports. A 2006 Time Magazine poll reported that 88% of Americans believe global warming presents a risk to future generations. And why not believe it? With politicians on both sides of the aisle giving lip service to the issue, campaigns on television and print encouraging us to get involved, and celebrities dedicating their time to the issue (with other celebrities giving them awards for doing so), the casual observer would be foolish to dissent.

As Christians and intelligent, thinking people, we have several obligations when analyzing the validity of any position, whether political, scientific, or both.

Most obviously, we must read the Bible. What, if anything, does the Bible have to say about global warming and environmentalism/stewardship?

Fortunately, the Bible has much to say about the future, God’s sovereignty, and our relationship with the world we were created to inhabit. From Genesis to Revelation, we may learn several important things:

1. God knows the future and nothing can prevent His will from being accomplished (Isaiah 46:10) 
2. God does not lie or change his mind…like we do. (Numbers 23:19)
3. God created the universe, including the earth. (Genesis 1:1)
4. God left us as stewards of the earth. (Genesis 1:28)
5. God has promised not to destroy the earth by flood. (Genesis 9:9-13)
6. God owns the earth. (Psalm 24:11)
7. Jesus holds the universe together. (Collosians 1:16-17)

In this list I have focused only on the conceptual role of God and man as presented in the Bible. If we were to delve into eschatology, it seems clear from scripture that the end of the earth will not be man created or due to climate change. (See Revelation 9, etc)

Furthermore, if we believe in the adequacy of scripture, we have to believe that the Bible tells us literally everything we need to know. Not everything we want to know but everything we need to know. (If it doesn’t, God has not adequately prepared us and we would be right to question whether we should trust Him at all!)

Looking beyond purely Biblical reasoning, we have several more things to consider.

What are the idealogies of those who have researched and currently propel global warming ideas? Majority opinion is not a sufficient reason to believe something. If it were, we would be obligated to disbelieve the Bible, believe in the Theory of Evolution, “good people” go to Heaven, and many other intolerable positions.

Unsurprisingly, most of the research and support for catastrophic global warming theory comes from humanist sources.  It is easy to see why this is true.  Logically speaking, if you do not believe in God, or do not trust in God, you are likely to fall back on mankind and their actions as the hope of the world.  If you do not believe in heaven or eternal existence, you are likely to view the earth as the only important realm or environment. If you do not believe anything (or Anyone) holds the future, you are likely to fear what the future could be.  If you do not have an eternal purpose, you are likely to seek a temporal purpose.

For all of these, reasons global warming is the perfect cause.  Not only does it provide something bigger to believe in, it places the crux of the issue on the individual.  It is easy to see why the refrain of pundits like Al Gore sounds more like religious opinion than scientific opinion.* This is no more evident than in the use of the term “Mother Nature” to personify and romanticize earth as an agent worthy of our respect and service. However, just as majority approval does not guarantee an idea is truth, it also doesn’t prevent an idea from being truth. Neither is an idea false simply because the supporters of if are liberal humanists.  To claim such would be fallacious.  However, these facts are instructive not irrelevant and we may safely use them as we build our position.

We should also consider the motivating factors for global warming research. Million and millions of federal research dollars are available to those who can produce research which predicts catastrophic climate change.  Research that is not alarmist in nature is not news worthy.  Just as in polling and statistics, it is results that are outside of expectations that are most likely to make headlines.  No one is interested in research that confirms what everyone already suspects.  Imagine an article predicting hair loss among older males.

Researchers are more likely to attract fame and research money by producing research that is remarkable.  This is unquestionably an incentive for doing so, and when you create an incentive for something, you create more of it.

Again, this does not in and of itself, disprove global warming, which is why we must proceed to analyze some of the science being offered as proof of global warming and dissenting opinion.

It is true that the earth is currently experiencing a warming trend, but just how much is it warming? According to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the average global air temperature has increased 1.33 (plus or minus 0.32) degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years.  [Source]  They conjecture that this warming has been largely caused by a rise in green house gases due to human activity.

In order to support their claims you have to presume that the the temperature changes of the last 100 years are abnormal compared to the 100 years before that and the 100 years before that.  The evidence seems to be to the contrary.

For example, we know that at various times in history we have seen times of rather extreme cooling. These periods have been termed “ice ages”.  In fact, roughly 30 years ago, the prevailing belief was that earth was headed for another ice age.   We also know that areas that are current uninhabitable or agriculturally unuseable due to extreme cold have not always been such.  Melting glaciers have uncovered remnants of farms in climates where it was previously thought impossible to farm.  Between 800 and 1300 AD, much of the world was several degrees warmer than today. People grew wine grapes in England, figs in Germany, assorted crops in Greenland. [Taken from ICECAP] None of this is possible given today’s climate in those regions.

Taking both of these facts together, it seems more rational to conclude that climate swings are normal and that the warming trend we are seeing right now is firmly within historical norms.

It is for this reason that meteorologist John Coleman, most famous for founding The Weather Channel, calls global warming “the greatest scam in history”. He believes it is just as likely the earth will experience a cooling trend in the next 20 years as a warming trend. [Source: COMMENTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING]

Obviously I have only examined one angle of this argument: the known present and past. This is intentional as the present and the past are the only tangible facts in this debate. Future predictions are based on the past, present, and computer based weather models which any meteorologist will admit are unable to consistently predict tomorrow’s weather let alone 100 years from now. There are thousands if not millions of factors which influence global climate.

Summary

So how do we put all of this together? As Christians we can agree with environmentalists that preserving the earth’s resources is a good thing. We can support efforts to clean our air and water and increase our fuel efficiency. We can install compact flourescent light bulps and low flow shower heads. We can raise our thermostat a couple of degrees in the summer and lower it a couple of degrees in the winter. We can recyle.  None of these things are wrong and they are all good.  (I would also say that using incadescent light bulbs and not recycling is also a morally acceptable decision. I also hate low flow shower heads!)

However, we must be very careful to avoid supporting any idealogy which promotes the roll of mankind over the role of God. We must avoid joining hands with or inadvertently supporting those who find meaning in staving off climate catastrophy. The Souther Baptist Convention is failing miserably here.

If we rely on the Bible as our modus operandi, we must arrange our priorities accordingly.

“Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth.” – Collosians 3:2

Kind of puts things in perspective does it not? Additionally, much of Ecclesiasties is devoted to pointing out the vanity of our earthly existence in comparison to our eternal existence.  We cannot get caught up in earth centered missions that conflict with our larger purpose as Christians: being Jesus to a lost world.

I firmly believe there are better uses of a Christian’s time than joining green initiatives and signing declarations to help curb climate change.  Even if we were to discard the idea of God being in control, it is human nature to desire a clean environment and we, as mankind, are unlikely to tolerate those who would trash the planet.

I realize that these last points may prove offensive to some. I don’t know how else to say it:

• Be a good steward of the earth.

• Trust God with the future.

• Spend your time fulfilling the great commission.

I welcome discussion on this issue.  

Suggested Reading:

There is a myriad of information available to refute the claims of environmentalists.  Here are three links which I believe give a good survey of some of that information. If anyone would like more information, please feel free to contact me.  There is much much more where this comes from.

• ICECAP (http://icecap.us)
• FDRS (http://www.fdrs.org/arguments_against_global_warming.html)
• Ohio Roundtable (http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/globalwarmup.html)

*The same is true for those who believe in evolution. In fact, there is a large amount of overlap between these groups.

At the heart of this goal is selfishness. If we are honest, winning others to Christ by keeping the F-word off of public air ways and keeping pornography on the top shelf in Barnes in Nobles is ridiculous. You do not win others to Christ by inmposing Christless morality on culture. (In truth, none of us “win” anyone to Christ. This concept contradicts the saving power that God solely posseses.)

The true goal of this movement is often to protect ourselves. We don’t want to see sex on TV, so we lobby the FCC to ban it. We don’t want gays to marry because it makes us uncomfortable…so we band against it.

But this misses the entire point of the New Testament. Nowhere in Paul’s letters do you see him exhorting churches to change their culture or hold sinners to a higher standard.

Sinners sin. It’s what they do. It’s what we all do apart from God. Boycotting those who do, protesting their actions, feigning horror when they blaspheme (Kathy Griffin anyone?) is ridiculous. 

As Christians, we should expect the unbeliever to behave as such. We should not expect them to tiptoe around our belief system and pay homage to our truths.  This is not a Christian nation and we cannot make it such.

Now, just to be clear: I’m not saying we should not be outraged when someone blasphemes the one true, living God. We should…but that better be the real source. It better not be our own desire to censor unpleasantness.  For a biblical analogy, think of the tearing of clothes as a response to blasphemy. It was an insincere theatrical gesture as often as it was an expression of legitimate grief.  

Our response to public blaspheme and sin…public or private…should be compassion. Compassion for the lost souls that do not know what they say or do.  Sound familiar? It’s how Jesus responded directly to blasphemy as he hung on the cross.

The apostles did not band together and protest Jesus’ crucifixion, nor did Jesus encourage them to.  They tried to lovingly bring others into the light that they had been shown.

That’s what we should do. Any other reaction is a waste of energy and more harmful to the Kingdom than good.

Thoughtfully,
Clifton

There are several reasons for this:

1. I believe human embryos are human life.
2. I don’t believe it is proper to allocate the citizens money towards such a morally ambiguous and controversial issue.
3. I don’t believe that embryonic stem cell research is the “holy grail” of tomorrow’s medical breakthroughs or in anyway a justification for wrong.

However, I find some problems with my own position as articulated by myself and others, including Bush.

It has long been my belief that there are no actual moral dilemnas, only perceived ones.  There are no situations where one is truly pitted between two kinds of evil with no third option.

That being said, the conservative, moral view of embryonic stem cell research seems to leave us with a Catch 22 “Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t” situation.  This reveals itself like so:

1. There are millions of embryos that have been manufactured for various reasons and it is impossible to bring them to full term.
2. Destroying them is wrong.
3. Destroying them for research is wrong.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that looks an awful lot like a moral no win situation, does it not?

Conventional wisdom aside, I think we should consider another way of looking at this.

Our desire to accept any cost to reach a goal has resulted in national immorality. I will not dispute that. We, as an “enlightened” society have chosen to create life, only to discard it because it is convenient to our goals of defeating infertility problems.  I cannot ignore how morally irreprehensible this is.

However, is it possible that the murder has already been comitted?  If there is no way to undue our actions – if there is no way to correct this wrong, doesn’t this imply an end to our moral responsibility?

The alternative leaves us with a moral Catch 22.

I’m not attempting to engage in cheap parlor tricks or justify the wrong that has been comitted, I’m just questioning the location of the moral smoking gun.  I think the murder that has been comitted was comitted at the conception of these embryos with no chance of coming to full term.  We have no real options for righting that wrong.

So what am I saying? Am I saying we should allow federal funding? No. It’s too morally ambiguous. It isn’t right to implicate every American.

However, from a logical standpoint, maybe it would be “better” in some context for research to be done than for them to simply be discarded.  This could bring some meaning, however cheap, to this murder.  (Though I hesitate to even suggest that. I don’t want to get anywhere near the idea that this end is in anyway justification for the wrong that has been comitted.)

I’m not claiming to have the answer. I’m not attempting to side step the issue. I’m not even claiming to be right on this one. I’m attempting to ascertain our true moral responsibility. I welcome your thoughts. If I’m wrong, tell me. If I’m right, tell me.

God rest ye merry, gentlemen
Let nothing you dismay
Remember, Christ, our Saviour
Was born on Christmas day
To save us all from Satan’s power
When we were gone astray
O tidings of comfort and joy,
Comfort and joy
O tidings of comfort and joy

It struck me just how much theology and truth is in this hymn. In fact, it is essentially the gospel message, the “”good news”". It’s really saying:  ”"Don’t be afraid, Christ was born to save you from your sins. This should comfort you and make you happy.”"

And I couldn’t help think about how much truth our culture hears as a result of Christmas each year. How much of Christ is woven even into secular celebrations of Christmas purely through tradition. And I also can’t help deny how few are listening.

If only those who popular singers who can be heard singing songs such as these every year would listen to their words. If only those who buy the CDs would make the connection.

I wish that less people would sing about the truth, and more people would believe it.

I don’t really have a plan of action here, just something to think about. Maybe next time you hear this song, you’ll think about the gospel instead of “”What the heck does “”God rest ye merry gentlemen”" mean!”"

Peace, love, Christmas…and truth!
Clifton