Tree-huggers unite!
I was really encouraged to hear on NPR yesterday that a large group of evangelical leaders had signed a statement calling for a reduction in greenhouse gases. Essentially, from what I can gather, the statement is a call for Christians to pay more attention to environmental issues. You can read the full statement here. In the conclusion it says:
” Numerous positive actions to prevent and mitigate climate change are being implemented across our society by state and local governments, churches, smaller businesses, and individuals. These commendable efforts focus on such matters as energy efficiency, the use of renewable energy, low CO2 emitting technologies, and the purchase of hybrid vehicles. These efforts can easily be shown to save money, save energy, reduce global warming pollution as well as air pollution that harm human health, and eventually pay for themselves. There is much more to be done, but these pioneers are already helping to show the way forward.
Finally, while we must reduce our global warming pollution to help mitigate the impacts of climate change, as a society and as individuals we must also help the poor adapt to the significant harm that global warming will cause.”
This is a cause I can gladly and willingly support.
On the flip side I read the following comments this morning, from an article published last November. Note this was before the official statement came out yesterday:
"A major obstacle to any measure that would address global warming is Senator James M. Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who is chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and an evangelical himself, but a skeptic of climate change caused by human activities.
Mr. Inhofe has led efforts to keep mandatory controls on greenhouse gases out of any emission reduction bill considered by his committee and has called human activities contributing to global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
"You can always find in Scriptures a passage to misquote for almost anything," Mr. Inhofe said in an interview, dismissing the position of Mr. Cizik's association as "something very strange."
Mr. Inhofe said the vast majority of the nation's evangelical groups would oppose global warming legislation as inconsistent with a conservative agenda that also includes opposition to abortion rights and gay rights. He said the National Evangelical Association had been "led down a liberal path" by environmentalists and others who have convinced the group that issues like poverty and the environment are worth their efforts."
Ah yes, those poor misguided evangelicals who have been led astray by crazy liberals and encouraged to (gasp!) take care of the poor or (the horror!) consider that they might have some responsibility for the environment. Us evangelicals are so easily led astray like that.
"What would Jesus do?" According to Mr. Inhofe, we would probably stop wasting time with those pesky poor people and go buy a Hummer instead. Perhaps he would be interested in Jonathan Swift’s Modest Proposal.
Interestingly, this new focus on environmentalism is not supported by all evangelicals. Mr. Cizik and the NAE, despite being supportive last year, appear to have caved in to pressure from the more conservative elements of evangelicalism, and refused to sign the statement released yesterday. According to an article in Christianity Today:
”Cizik originally signed the statement, but said his name was withdrawn "to display an accommodating spirit to those who don't yet accept the science on the severity of the problem."
Last month Dobson, Colson, and 20 other evangelical leaders, including Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, wrote Haggard urging the NAE not to adopt "any official position on the issue of climate change," due to disagreement among evangelicals over "the cause, severity, and solutions to the global warming issue."
Both Ball and Cizik emphasized that the NAE never planned on adopting ECI's statement on global warming. Despite Haggard and Cizik's absence, 34 signers are members of the NAE's board or executive committee, and another 50 Christian organization heads also have ties to the group, according to a knowledgeable source.”
Honestly it doesn’t surprise me to hear that Colson and Dobson are not supportive of this statement, although it is sad since they appear to be able to exert significant influence on American Christians. Personally, I don’t drive a hybrid, but I look forward to the day when it is considered normal and natural for Christians to be more involved with issues of poverty and the environment.
In the meantime, I'm off to hug a tree.
” Numerous positive actions to prevent and mitigate climate change are being implemented across our society by state and local governments, churches, smaller businesses, and individuals. These commendable efforts focus on such matters as energy efficiency, the use of renewable energy, low CO2 emitting technologies, and the purchase of hybrid vehicles. These efforts can easily be shown to save money, save energy, reduce global warming pollution as well as air pollution that harm human health, and eventually pay for themselves. There is much more to be done, but these pioneers are already helping to show the way forward.
Finally, while we must reduce our global warming pollution to help mitigate the impacts of climate change, as a society and as individuals we must also help the poor adapt to the significant harm that global warming will cause.”
This is a cause I can gladly and willingly support.
On the flip side I read the following comments this morning, from an article published last November. Note this was before the official statement came out yesterday:
"A major obstacle to any measure that would address global warming is Senator James M. Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who is chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and an evangelical himself, but a skeptic of climate change caused by human activities.
Mr. Inhofe has led efforts to keep mandatory controls on greenhouse gases out of any emission reduction bill considered by his committee and has called human activities contributing to global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
"You can always find in Scriptures a passage to misquote for almost anything," Mr. Inhofe said in an interview, dismissing the position of Mr. Cizik's association as "something very strange."
Mr. Inhofe said the vast majority of the nation's evangelical groups would oppose global warming legislation as inconsistent with a conservative agenda that also includes opposition to abortion rights and gay rights. He said the National Evangelical Association had been "led down a liberal path" by environmentalists and others who have convinced the group that issues like poverty and the environment are worth their efforts."
Ah yes, those poor misguided evangelicals who have been led astray by crazy liberals and encouraged to (gasp!) take care of the poor or (the horror!) consider that they might have some responsibility for the environment. Us evangelicals are so easily led astray like that.
"What would Jesus do?" According to Mr. Inhofe, we would probably stop wasting time with those pesky poor people and go buy a Hummer instead. Perhaps he would be interested in Jonathan Swift’s Modest Proposal.
Interestingly, this new focus on environmentalism is not supported by all evangelicals. Mr. Cizik and the NAE, despite being supportive last year, appear to have caved in to pressure from the more conservative elements of evangelicalism, and refused to sign the statement released yesterday. According to an article in Christianity Today:
”Cizik originally signed the statement, but said his name was withdrawn "to display an accommodating spirit to those who don't yet accept the science on the severity of the problem."
Last month Dobson, Colson, and 20 other evangelical leaders, including Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, wrote Haggard urging the NAE not to adopt "any official position on the issue of climate change," due to disagreement among evangelicals over "the cause, severity, and solutions to the global warming issue."
Both Ball and Cizik emphasized that the NAE never planned on adopting ECI's statement on global warming. Despite Haggard and Cizik's absence, 34 signers are members of the NAE's board or executive committee, and another 50 Christian organization heads also have ties to the group, according to a knowledgeable source.”
Honestly it doesn’t surprise me to hear that Colson and Dobson are not supportive of this statement, although it is sad since they appear to be able to exert significant influence on American Christians. Personally, I don’t drive a hybrid, but I look forward to the day when it is considered normal and natural for Christians to be more involved with issues of poverty and the environment.
In the meantime, I'm off to hug a tree.
posted by Jonathan Ziman at
2:27 PM
2 Comments:
Cizak is in an extraordinarily difficult position. He has a lot of influence but has to be careful how he uses it. Mark Hatfield, senator from Oregon - I think - wrote a book “Between a Rock and a Hard Place”. In it he said that each day he faced a number of complex situations in which he had to make a difficult choice, the kind that most of us face once or twice in a lifetime. He would have to vote for a bill with something in it that was odious to him but the good outweighed the bad. And he would have to vote against a bill that he wanted to support because an amendment had been added whose negative effect outweighed the good.
So I think Cizak backed away to be able to fight a more effective battle in the future. It is easy for us to see things as black and white but we do not see the whole picture.
By
Anonymous, at 8:11 AM
Yes, you are right, Cizak and the NEA probably are in a tight spot politically speaking. I don't doubt that. I guess I am more frustrated with Dobson et al. for being so stubborn on this issue.
Separately, I am holding out hope that maybe new legislation attempting to curtail earmarking may reduce some of the kind of pressure that senator's like Mark Hatfield have had to face. (Not directly of course, because earmarking is not quite the same thing, but maybe it will lead to clearer bills being written. Maybe.)
By
Jonathan Ziman, at 6:09 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home