The Narnia 3 Blog

Global Warming Warning from Evangelical Leaders: Part Two

The Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) has been one of the most talked about forays of Evangelical Christian leaders into a decidedly non-Christian issue in recent years, that of Global Warming. The statement has been noted widely in both the national and world press. In Part One (of what is now looking like a three part blog series) we introduced the issue and detailed some basic background information. In this entry we want to begin to examine the statement itself and some of what seems to be happening in Evangelicalism as a whole.

The ECI Statement consists of four "claims". Those claims are as follows:

• Claim One: Human-Induced Climate Change is Real
  
• Claim Two: The Consequences of Climate Change Will Be Significant, and Will Hit the Poor the Hardest
  
• Claim Three: Christian Moral Convictions Demand Our Response to the Climate Change Problem
  
• Claim Four: The need to act now is urgent. Governments, businesses, churches, and individuals all have a role to play in addressing climate change starting now
  

As we noted in Part One, the foundational claim on which this initiative is built is dubious at best. Scientific records and measurements, that is "hard data," are only available for the last 150 years or less. All information about the climate before that time must be gleaned from studies of secondary sources, which then must be interpreted. The methodology of this data collection and particularly its interpretation is an issue of constant debate (see www.junkscience.com). Even without debate on interpretation, the information obtained can only be of the most general sort; the reconstruction of precise and exacting data is simply not possible. This is extremely important, because even the ECI admits that since, "all religious/moral claims about climate change are relevant only if climate change is real and is mainly human-induced, everything hinges on the scientific data."

The ECI makes much out of the fact that the scientific information that has driven them to their conclusions is from "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's most authoritative body of scientists and policy experts on the issue of global warming, has been studying this issue since the late 1980s." According to the IPCC Web Page the IPCC was formed as a result of:

Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.

Cleverly, perhaps, this introduction presents an appearance of a United Nations organization (UNEP) coming together with an outside scientific group; however, the WMO is a "United Nations Specialized Agency" as well. The IPCC is a creation entirely of the United Nations. That the United Nations apparatus often has its own rather biased agendas (often the grist of conspiracy theorists) may be debated; but, it is nonetheless accurate to state that the UN and its agencies have not always been a model of factual objectivity in their reports and conclusions. The WMO for example was leading the charge in the 1960-70's on another climate related issue, Global Cooling! There were many studies done by this and other advocacy groups that tried to show that world temperatures were decreasing “at an alarming rate” from 1945-70. This was at the height of the Cold War and the talk of the day was "Nuclear Disarmament" (mainly directed at the United States). Those old enough to remember those day will remember all the dire predictions of a "Nuclear Winter" (one of the key Green Peace issues when I was a member back then).

We are reminded of what the great Princeton theologian Charles Hodge, stated during the time when evolutionary theories were invading the church.

It would be a lamentable spectacle to see the Church changing its doctrines or its interpretations of Scripture, to suit the constantly changing representations of scientific men as to matters of fact (Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:57)

The ECI also includes in the first claim that "from 1988-2002 the IPCC's assessment of the climate science was Chaired by Sir John Houghton, a devout evangelical Christian." Of course whether or not Houghton is a "devout evangelical Christian" is beside the point and a fallacious insertion. By all accounts, President George W. Bush, who has been unyielding in his opposition to the Kyoto Accords, is also a "devout evangelical Christian." Whether or not a proponent (on either side of the issue) is an evangelical is meaningless.

This brings us to a key issue. Many other "evangelical leaders" did not sign onto the ECI and have issued statements against it. However, for the most part their objections have been political, scientific, and economic; not Biblical or theological. These have been the leaders of what has become known as the "Religious Right," evangelical leaders who are largely conservative in their politics and economics. In many respects what the ECI represents is a galvanizing of what we may call the "Evangelical Left." This would be different that the normal "Religious Left" who are largely those of the mainline denominations who are the descendants of the theological and social liberalism discussed in Part One .

The Religious Left abandoned Scriptural inerrancy and evangelical theology decades ago and now really only uses the Bible for illustrative purposes (generally out of context). This new "Evangelical Left," led by the signers of the ECI, will likely at least attempt to bring the Bible and evangelical theology to bear in forming their social views a little more seriously, at least for a while. I think one thing is certain; this group will make forays into other social issues in the future. Their establishment is in place, the site has an Action Page that details all sorts of typical social action methodology (how to contact your congressman, how to write a letter to the editor, etc.).

Lest you think I am overly cynical and simply believe that this Evangelical Left will simply move to the complete liberalism of the establishment Religious Left, I remain ambivilent. It may or may not happen (I would think it is safe to guess that there will certainly be some "fraternal" operations between the two in the future) and historically, it is certainly probable, but not inevitable. However, I am just as leery of the "Religious Right" and am also critical of the associations they have forged to further their aims. I think too many Christians and way too much of their financial resources have been diverted from missions, evangelism, and local church ministries to political efforts designed to get certain people elected, get certain judges approved, and get certain laws established.

John MacArthur was entirely on point in his book, Why Government Can't Save You: An Alternative to Political Action (Word Publishing 2000). You can check out the text of a sermon by MacArthur, along the same theme, entitled, "The Deadly Dangers of Moralism." but here is a key excerpt:

There are people who think that if America becomes moral, God will bless America. There are people who think if America becomes moral and religious, then God will doubly bless America. So, let's put God back in the public discourse; let's put prayer back in the schools. Let's put the Ten Commandments up on the wall in public places, in courtrooms. Let's stop abortion; let's stop rampant homosexuality; let's stop pornography, et cetera. And if we can just bring about some kind of morality and, better yet, some kind of commitment to God, then we will be blessed.

Well, let me make a very clear point at the outset here. Morality and religion will not invite or secure the blessing of God. They never have, and they never will. A more moral America, a more moral and religious America, does not advance in divine favor one inch. A more moral and a more religious America will not escape divine judgment, any more than Pharisaic Judaism in Jesus' time escaped the devastating judgment of God in 70 A.D. when hundreds of thousands of Jews were slaughtered by godless Romans. Jesus warned about that on several occasions. There is only one thing God blesses, just one. And that is He blesses saving faith in and love for His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. That's the only thing He blesses. Anybody who does not believe in and love the Lord Jesus Christ is among the cursed, right?

As Christians, of course, we are for morality. We're not for immorality. And we can do some topical, some superficial good. We can through political means, because we live in a republic and a democracy, we can mitigate public indecency in some ways; we can mitigate public scandal, can use our democratic privileges. But that does not advance us in divine favor, either individually or collectively. In fact, in 1st Corinthians 16:22 it is said unmistakably: "If any one man doesn't love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema." Cursed, judged, damned, condemned. There's only one thing God will bless, and that's faith in and love for His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Well, that sort of sets the picture for you. And some of those truths are in my book Why Government Can't Save You."

That says it better than I could have.

The very nature of Evangelicalism is also changing. As Elwell and Pierard note political involvement on the part of Evangelicals is, "a relatively new phenomena" (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 409) and it started on the right. While there have always been Evangelicals on the political and social "left" the sort of organization that the ECI represents is brand new. The current problem of Evangelicalism is that:

The very nature of evangelicalism never was a unified movement but a collection of emphases based on a common core of belief--a core that itself is now under discussion (ibid).

That the "theological core" which held evangelicalism has been breaking down over the last decade or so is unmistakable (Again I would refer to my essay on Spurgeon and Evangelical Boundaries for a historical parallel). The Evangelical or Religious Right certainly did not intentionally, or even knowingly, add to the breakdown of the core; but I would submit that they were certainly misguided in what they hoped would be accomplished and are largely responsible for many Christians losing focus on the centrality of the Gospel in favor of political action. I think this new Evangelical Left will certainly add to the problem and one wonders if evangelicalism will even be able to be clearly defined theologically in the very near future.

Next Entry: More on the ECI Statement

Posted by Narnia3 at February 12, 2006 4:06 PM | TrackBack