The Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI), as we have previously noted, is a statement issued by 83 Evangelical Leaders, calling for action on the issue of Global Warming. You can scroll down and read the other two posts where I try to make three points:
One of the more distressing aspects of this funding is that it comes from a foundation that is one of the leading funding sources for Pro-Abortion efforts in the world. This is not an ancillary connection, and a Six Degrees of Separation excuse, as one apologist for the movement has already attempted, also will not do. This is a direct funding for the sole purpose of creating the ECI. One would hope that the 83 Evangelical leaders were unaware of this connection, but it hardly seems likely none of these otherwise bright people were oblivious to this fact.
I had originally thought to avoid discussing the individual signers of the ECI. But there are some observations that are important. Nearly half of the signatories (37/83) are presidents of Christian College and Universities. The rest are fairly evenly divided among pastors, academics, and leaders of parachurch organizations. The institutions and individuals overwhelmingly represent a theological stance in the Arminian tradition. Rick Warren, of Purpose Driven fame, is perhaps the most recognizable name on the list and the ECI is the latest in a series of causes that Warren has identified with. There are a couple of interesting observations to be made. Jack Hayford, the well-known pastor of The Church on the Way and President of the King’s College and Seminary is a signatory, but he is not listed with these credentials, but rather as the President of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. Also listed in Ron Sider, President of Evangelicals for Social Action. Sider is a well-known political liberal, professor, and writer (most famously perhaps for Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger), who is probably more correctly classified as a Christian socialist.
Also on the list is one of the Emerging Church Leaders, Brian McLaren. Interestingly, McLaren actually identifies himself as a "post-evangelical" and theologically is a person that D. A. Carson stated "has largely abandoned the gospel" (Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church [Zondervan, 2005], p. 186).
What then is an Evangelical? As we noted in the first entry, there isn't a great deal of agreement on a definition or even what one needs to believe to be an "evangelical." The Evangelical Theological Society simply requires the affirmation of the orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity and the Inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures for membership. In the widely respected Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Pierard and Elwell note that theologically, Evangelicalism, "begins with a stress on the sovereignty of God," affirms that, "the Scriptures are inerrant in all that they affirm and serve as the adequate expression of God's will and purpose," it affirms the "total depravity of man," the absolute need for salvation accomplished by "Christ's substitutionary atonement" apart from, "any kind of good works or penance" on the part of the individual to earn or merit God's favor. "Heralding the Word of God is an important feature of Evangelicalism," as is the expectation of "the visible personal return of Jesus Christ to set up his kingdom of righteousness" (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 406).
Importantly, Pierard and Elwell also state in the section on preaching the Word of God, that:
Holiness involves not withdrawal from the world and detaching oneself from evil but rather boldly confronting evil and overcoming its effects both personally and socially. In this fashion the church brings the lost to a knowledge of Christ, teaches the way of of discipleship, and engages in meeting human needs. Social service thus becomes both the evidence of one's faith and a preparation for the proclamation of the gospel.
Christians must care about climate change because we love God the Creator and Jesus our Lord, through whom and for whom the creation was made. This is God's world, and any damage that we do to God's world is an offense against God Himself (Gen. 1; Ps. 24; Col. 1:16).
Christians must care about climate change because we are called to love our neighbors, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and to protect and care for the least of these as though each was Jesus Christ himself (Mt. 22:34-40; Mt. 7:12; Mt. 25:31-46).
Christians, noting the fact that most of the climate change problem is human induced, are reminded that when God made humanity he commissioned us to exercise stewardship over the earth and its creatures. Climate change is the latest evidence of our failure to exercise proper stewardship, and constitutes a critical opportunity for us to do better (Gen. 1:26-28). Love of God, love of neighbor, and the demands of stewardship are more than enough reason for evangelical Christians to respond to the climate change problem with moral passion and concrete action.
The ECI is correct when it affirms the responsibility of Christians to care for the less fortunate. As James declares, "This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit the orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world" (James 1:27). But as we noted above, this type of social service is not an end unto itself, but a means of proclaiming the Gospel that saves souls (Matt 10:28 is vital here). There is not a single reference to salvation or the Gospel in the statement. In fact on the ECI web page there is not a single place where one can even click to see what the Gospel is! I don't agree with the ECI position on the reality of global warming; but I would be less critical if this so-called evangelical group had taken a more historically evangelical stance in using the opportunity to proclaim the Gospel. I also don't agree with the approach of the ECI in their call to action; but I would be less critical if that call included a more traditional evangelical affirmation that the sinful actions of sinful people can only be militated by their embracing the Gospel that saves souls and transforms lives.
In the last part of the ECI's third claim, the statement is simply misguided. Note the phrasing of the statement:
Christians, noting the fact that most of the climate change problem is human induced, are reminded that when God made humanity he commissioned us to exercise stewardship over the earth and its creatures. Climate change is the latest evidence of our failure to exercise proper stewardship, and constitutes a critical opportunity for us to do better (emphasis mine).
Is the world climate changing? Probably. It changes regularly and in history dramatically so on several occasions. These changes are often severe and not beneficial to man. For instance at some point in history the Sahara desert was a subtropical forest. The famous city of Ubar on the Arabian Peninsula was consummed by a sand storm in 300 AD and not rediscoverd until the 1990's. One of the things a study of meteorology quickly shows is how little we actually know about the world-wide weather systems, how they operate, and why they actually change.
One major climate story making the rounds now is that the glaciers on Greenland are melting more rapidly than thought (which should make more of the large land mass of Greenland habitable). The fear is that all of this ice melting will raise the levels of the oceans and those living in low-lying areas will be displaced. If this scenario does play out it is improbable that this will happen either immediately or in one fell swoop. But, if the climate change is moving in that direction, the actions suggested by the ECI and other liberal advocacy groups is something like standing braced with outstretched arms trying to prevent a moving train from hitting someone, instead of helping the person get off the tracks and out of the way. People populate areas that they probably shouldn't (New Orleans, a city built largely several feet below sea level, kept dry only by man-made levees comes to mind) and that is an issue; but it is an issue of government policy and land use not an evangelical call to political action.
The ECI is based on questionable science, questionable application of Scripture, and an abandonment of a traditional evangelical view of social action. While it is undeniably evil when the planet, the living creatures, or people are wantonly disrupted, damaged or destroyed by the greed, sinfulness or ignorance of other people; laws, regulations, and political action will not and cannot reverse that trend.
In the short term Christians are to be about the business of preaching the Gospel, making disciples, and teaching the Scriptures in their fullness; which instruction does call on us to care for the less fortunate and those with pressing needs. But in the long term it is only that other great Evangelical distinctive, "the visible personal return of Jesus Christ to set up his kingdom of righteousness" that will repair the cumulative damage of sinful men over all the generations since the fall.