Top 10 Tuesday: Why I Signed The Evangelical Climate Initiative
September 11th, 2007 | by Scott |I never intended to be on the front lines of evangelicals and the environmental movement. When the ECI was first released back in February of 2006 there were 86 Christian signatories to the document.
I was the 87th.
I sent an email to the coordinators of the document expecting that there would be a rush of people like me, ministers and religious leaders aware of climate change, who wanted their voices to be heard. That was not the case. For a while there were just 87 of us.
And, somehow, I received 14 of my allotted 15 minutes of fame for being a signatory. In the last year and a half I have talked to The Dallas Morning News, The BBC, Scientists at Yale University, A reporter for The Washington Post trying to get me to release details about a press release prior to its release (I refused), NPR and a host of smaller entities.
It has never failed in each of these interviews and conversations for a certain amount of incredulity to arise. That is largely due to the fact that just two of us who are affiliated with the Churches of Christ have signed the initiative (Royce Money of ACU being the other). But also it has to do with the fact that so many of us on the conservative end of the Christian world seem to be almost violently opposed to any acknowledgment of climate change. It has even been likened recently to paganism.
Now, fortunately, most Christians who don’t subscribe to the idea of climate change are not as offensive and dismissive as the author of the aforementioned link. But there is a wide-spread rejection among many.
Invariably one of the questions I am asked is what I am doing to incorporate this position into my preaching and teaching. My answer has been uniform: nothing.
This was a personal decision and I have no interest in arguing with anyone or imposing my conclusions upon others.
However, the reasons that I signed the initiative are many and relatively important to me. Here are the top 10 reasons I signed the initiative:
10. I realized that science and faith do not need to be at war with each other. I plan to blog more in the coming weeks and months about how I came to make peace with science.
9. I realized that I had allowed my political beliefs to inoculate me from honest inquiry. What I had missed in my earlier days was that this was not a political issue and warranted greater attention.
8. The evidence seemed overwhelming in favor of climate change. We can argue and debate whether or not that is true, whether or not it is simply cyclical and whether or not it is aided and abetted by man. But, to me, the evidence was clear.
7. I wanted to underscored that God’s giving man dominion over this world does not mean domination. True, godly stewardship involves care and compassion. It involves judicious responsibility and awareness.
6. I wanted my children to see their father commit to being environmentally responsible. It’s their world and I wanted them to know that I acknowledge that and live as if that is true.
5. I wanted to give people pause from painting climate care advocates as simply “tree-huggers” and “environmentalist wackos.” The tendency we have to paint people with pejorative labels is neither conducive, intelligent or holy.
4. I was concerned with my own consumerism highlighted by my dependence on energy and oil. Being on the front lines of this issue caused me to make my own lifestyle changes. Rather than signing this document and forgetting about it the continued media coverage has spurred me to remaining vigilant.
3. The matter is urgent. The impacts of this reality can already be felt among us.
2. We can make a difference. What we do now truly matters. And by being a voice in this cause maybe we can assure a better tomorrow.
1. If climate change is real, and I believe that it is, then the greatest effects and consequences will be passed down to the least of these, the world’s poor, forgotten and marginalized. And that is a holiness issue. If we are to truly love the least of these and give them hope then we must be aware of the fact that they will bear the brunt of our decisions.
That, in a nutshell, is why I signed the initiative.
12 Responses to “Top 10 Tuesday: Why I Signed The Evangelical Climate Initiative”
By Shane on Sep 11, 2007 | Reply
It figures you would post this on the day of the first cool front this year! Even though I am not as convinced as you about this, I admire your courage. We would certainly be better off if this discussion was less politically charged. As for me, I am just as cynical about the anti-capitalists who believe capitalism is killing the planet as I am of the theo-capitalists who believe that environmentalism is the new religion of the secular left. Still, whether climate change is the result of human abuse or some naturally occuring shift that occurs from time to time, Christians in America need a reality check when it comes to the way they view the environment and their responsibilities to be good stewards of that environment.
By Justin on Sep 11, 2007 | Reply
I admire your courage as well for standing up for something. I don’t know that this would be something I would sign up for, purely because its become so political, but I think you’re doing what you think needs to be done.
Christians should take care of the earth. I don’t think there is any question about that. The problem lies in figuring out how to take care of the earth best, and still be able to feed people. And still allow people to have freedoms. Seems like private property is the best answer to that, at least to me. Public property is more often trashed than private is. If someone owned the oceans, then polluting in rivers would be a violation of the ocean owner’s property rights. Private ownership would reduce pollution in my view.
Also, interesting to note, that tree farming actually helps the environment. Young trees absorb more CO2 than older ones, and unless a tree is burned (like in the frequent forest fires that happen on public land in the west)the CO2 stays in the wood.
Anyway, this is all moot. Its just good that there are some in our fellowship who are looking after God’s creation, not trying to destroy it under the false notion that once we do, Jesus will come back.
By Belinda on Sep 11, 2007 | Reply
Polar bears are in trouble. Unless something is done, they will be extinct in 50 years. Sad, sad, sad.
Why does it have to be a political issue?? I don’t understand that.
By Steve Allison on Sep 11, 2007 | Reply
I don’t see any way around the data. The last several years it has accumulated in the direction that climate change is human driven. I used to give the denialists the benefit of the doubt, saying to myself that one of these days I’m going to study the issue more and await more information. But with all that has come out recently, most of the objections by the naysayers have by now proven to be the scientific equivalent of urban legends. We should proceed now with our eyes open to finding ways to cut down on CO2 emission. Most seem to believe that market approaches and technology will help us mitigate what is happening.
By greg on Sep 11, 2007 | Reply
that rose dude is a little scary
By Scott on Sep 11, 2007 | Reply
Just a little.
Steve, I agree. The evidence is overwhelming.
And in other news, using Justin’s idea I just placed a little down payment on a section of the Marianas Trench.
By Justin on Sep 12, 2007 | Reply
Mark Rose is nearly everything that’s wrong with the Republican party.
By Justin on Sep 12, 2007 | Reply
Belinda,
I can think of several animals that went extinct or adapted due to climate change many many years ago. Before the industrial revolution, and well before Europeans “discovered” America, the great lakes used to be glaciers. There used to be wooly mammoths and saber tooth tigers. Climate change got them.
Animals and human beings adapt. They’ve constantly been adapting. Its part of evolution. Whether or not the current warming is man made or not is a discussion point, but just because an animal is going extinct (the polar bear is not by the way) its not necessarily man’s fault. Maybe they just didn’t adapt as well as other animals?
By Lane on Sep 12, 2007 | Reply
Scott,
I for one would really like to see some of the evidence that you are pointing towards. I saw the whole Inconvenient Truth documentary, and I really felt like, while it was a neat movie, was not the source I wanted to get any scientific data from, being Al Gore.
I don’t drive big SUV’s or anything like that, but my electric bill this past month was $175 more than it usually is, because we had 12 straight days of 100 degree weather. I don’t have the money just to go and replace everything to make it more energy efficient (the unit is 30 + years old).
Also, many of the people causing the so called human driven climate change are the very ones who preach against it, driving their big cars, flying their private jets, and heating and cooling their monstrous homes.
I’m not saying I disagree with anything you say, but I would love to see you blog a series on human driven climate change, siting some honest and truthful sources I could finally believe, other than the news networks and Al Gore.
By Belinda on Sep 12, 2007 | Reply
I didn’t make up the idea of extinct polar bears - it was on tv.
By JTB on Sep 12, 2007 | Reply
Amen! And YAY for #10!
By Justin on Sep 12, 2007 | Reply
Well, according to the Toronto Star, 11 species of polar bears are thriving, while only 2 species are declining, and people don’t know exactly what is causing that.
http://blog.davidjanes.com/:entry:davidjanes-2006-11-19-0000/