Global Warming
A Christian Concern?

In 1998, the Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell, then general secretary of the National Council of Churches was quoted in a New York Times article by John H. Cushman, Jr., that belief in global warming [gw] and support for the Kyoto Protocol should be a “litmus test for the faith community.” Wow! I know what you are thinking, that is the wacky NCC. But, there are other voices too.

Michael A. Bullmore, Associate Professor of Homiletics and Practical Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, wrote in Trinity Journal 19 (NS) 1998, pp. 139-162, an article to lay out foundational Biblical thought necessary for a faithful Christian proclamation about the environment. Although not addressing gw specifically, he was speaking of a Christian environmentalism that would promote an earnest devotion to a Christian life. Add to this those in the Evangelical Climate Initiative [ECI] who are plunging head long into the gw issue and you have a groundswell of sentiment desiring to enter the fray of activism as a result of gw. Is this a valid Christian concern?

To date, the most aggressive move by Christians in the gw issue has been the ECI. Among the signatories to the initiative are Bill Hybels; Rick Warren; W. Todd Bassett, National Commander of the Salvation Army; R. Judson Carlberg, President of Calvin College; Rev. Dr. Paul Cedar, Chair, Mission America Coalition; Rev. Timothy George; Rev. David Gushee, Professor of Moral Philosophy at Union College; Rev. Dr. Jack Hayford; Duane Litfin, President, Wheaton College; Ron Sider, President, Evangelicals for Social Action; Rev. Jim Wallis and many others. They claim to lay out a “moral argument related to the matter of human induced climate change.” They do so recognizing as evangelical Christian leaders the “opportunity and our responsibility to offer a biblically based moral witness that can help shape public policy in the most powerful nation on earth, and therefore contribute to the well-being of the entire world.”

In their statement they make four claims:
1. Human induced climate change is real;
2. The consequences of climate change will be significant and will hit the poor the hardest;
3. Christian moral convictions demand our response to the climate change problem;
4. The need to act now is urgent. Governments, businesses, churches, and individual all have a role to play in addressing climate change starting now.
In prior posts we have argued that points 1 and 2 are not the certainty presented by the statement. The consequences are stated as dire with impacts “from flooding, famine, violent conflicts, and international instability, which could lead to more security threats to our nation.” And in a statement printed in bold type they state: Millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors.”

This is sensationalism of the worst kind. It reminds this writer of Paul Ehrlich. Remember him? In The Population Bomb, publishing in 1968, he said:
“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..." and "a minimum of ten million people, most of them children, will starve to death during each year of the 1970s. But this is a mere handful compared to the numbers that will be starving before the end of the century." Ehrlich was wrong because his model was flawed. Food production grew faster than population, a situation he did not think possible. The evangelical leaders of ECI are accepting a science that is uncertain and not agreed upon. They could be headed for the dust bowl of the history of failed predictions just like Paul Ehrlich.

The moral argument of the statement is that because of love of God the Creator, as well as His creation; love of neighbor and the demands of stewardship, we should all respond to the climate change problem with “moral passion and concrete action.” It seems to me this is a call to evangelism, not environmentalism. If things are as bad as they say, we need to be about bringing forth the message of justification by faith before it is too late for those who do not believe. It is God Who cursed the earth on account of our sin and Paul says all of creation is groaning. There is no question we are to be better stewards of what He has given us. But, He never had in mind salvation of the earth by us but the salvation of men by Him…the sinners who by their action have invited His wrath against sin. After all, He will be bringing about a new heaven and a new earth.

As to the need for urgent action, that is certainly an individual matter. If you are fired up about this matter, go for it. Interestingly, these evangelical leaders and Dr. Campbell agree this is a new “non-negotiable’ for Christians. That should be enough to give us pause. Other evangelical leaders such as D. James Kennedy, Chuck Colson, Richard Land and James Dobson urge that there is room for Bible believing evangelicals to disagree over cause, severity and solutions to gw. Making gw a “new crusade” for the church creates a new diversion for a contemporary church that has difficulty grasping its spiritual mooring already.

Elevating gw to a place of prominence in Christian devotion and conviction surely squeezes evagel out of evangelicalism to emphasize other “isms”. Like most social causes, it will sap the energy of followers and marginalize Biblical, Christian witness and devotion. The ECI also invites alliances with those outside the faith. The New York Times has reported that the ECI has received funding from The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Pew Charitable Trust and the Hewlett Foundation all of whom fund pro-abortion and anti-Christian causes. Hewlett has issued a $475,000 grant for ECI.

This initiative puts its signers on the same team with fern fondlers and tree huggers who worship the creation and not the Creator. They are being funded by Christ haters who fund anti-Gospel causes. It accepts science that is not complete and highly speculative. It posits scare consequences without fact or basis. The ECI has compromised with the world in its makeup and its approach. That is at best unwise, probably foolish error and at worst, sin. Is gw a concern in which Christians can be involved? Certainly. Is it a Christian concern that is a moral imperative demanding the action of all believers and the church? Certainly not.