Subscribe to Posts
what do we owe this guy?
My new grandson, Micah Timothy, that is. Born Saturday night, 18 minutes after arrival at the hospital. His dad, my son, had every father’s dream come true: driving the car with horn blasting and lights flashing because momma went from zero to fifty in the labor lane and caught everyone off guard. But now he’s here. The future, that is, with a name and a face. Outfitted, is he, for decades to come that many of us will not see. What are we doing to insure that the world he inherits isn’t too grim a place to inhabit? Not enough right now. Instead, many in my own wider faith tribe are acting as though this talk of looming distress is a load of boo-honkey. We’re betting against the facts, I humbly submit, wagering the likes of Micah’s future.
Look for more and use up what we’ve already found seems to be the best wisdom we can generate, with the help of the talk radio entertainers we so love to listen to, because they wave our Christian flag, while they call the science that says otherwise “phony.” The radio talk show voices who know so much better, because they are up late at night reading the studies, checking the math….or simply hearing the sound of their own voices in the echo chamber?
These are the facts that pertain to Micah’s future, the ones that cannot be contested. The human population is on an unprecedented growth curve, having more than doubled in my lifetime. At the same time, there is an historic rush toward the American dream gone global. Economic lift in India and China and places like Brazil means that billions more people are eating more chicken and beef, requiring way more grain feed than they could ever consume before; they want cars to drive that require gasoline, and air conditioning when it’s hot outside, and who can blame them for all this? It’s just our dream gone global.
But it’s putting an enormous strain on the system. Food and fuel, in the global economy, are joined at the hip. It takes fuel to make food and food to make fuel (thanks to ethanol.) And we’re seeing what happens. Food prices skyrocketing, causing food riots in the developing world. Fuel prices soaring, causing anxiety here at home. Over the last year, we’ve seen greater demand in all our homeless ministries offering food to those on the margins. This is not chicken-little squawking.
No one denies that fossil fuel, especially oil, is a non-renewable resource on it’s way to running out. Supplies are destined to shrink while demand continues to rise.
You would think that those who love and read the Bible and take it to heart would be the first to say, let’s consider future generations. Let’s think about Micah and his friends who are in the process of appearing. Let’s think a little longer term than the stock market might force us to.
No. Instead, many of us have gotten into our brains that fuel is in short supply because of the powerful environmental elite which doesn’t want us to increase domestic oil supply by tapping new reserves off-shore or in Anwar or wherever. Maybe, before this thing is done, we’ll have to. Especially if we continue to be so passive about transitioning from fossil fuels to something else. But it all rings hollow to me–this blaming the “environmental elite”–in the absence of a recognition that we’re on a path that is not sustainable. Not so much over the next few decades. We’ll get by. But in the decades after the next few. Micah’s decades.
I’ve been listening to my friends, dear ones and respected, who believe that climate science is phony science. I haven’t been convinced by their arguments. To me, phony science is the science funded by the tobacco companies that denies smoking causes cancer. Industries have been known to fund their own science to come up with their own conclusions. But I’ve personally met leading climate change scientists–the so-called environmental elite and the so-called whackos–and there is nothing phony or whacked about them. What they love is science, a discipline based on skepticism, not credulity. And sure, it’s possible for scientists to live in their own echo chamber–and on some issues some of them do. But I don’t see it on this issue.
I’m trying to figure out why so many leaders in my faith community (I’m speaking on a national scale here–I love my church!) lean toward skepticism on climate science. Some view acceptance of the broad outlines of climate science to be a lack of spiritual discernment, or worse, a dabbling in the dark side. Did you ever wonder why evangelical pastors lean toward skepticism on this issue (after leaning toward credulity on the Y2K thing)? It is, I think, for cultural reasons, not scientific ones.
But then, let’s concede the point: maybe the vast majority of scientists are in their own echo chamber and their natural skepticism has been completely overrun by cultural bias; they’ve all drunk the Kool-Aid and are leading us off a climate change cliff; Rush Limbaugh is right and Newt Gingrinch is wrong on this thing; Sean Hannity is right and Jim Hansen, the NASA climate specialist who looks like an evangelical pastor, even tucks his tie into his pants, is wrong; Frank Beckmann, the sportscaster turned talk radio host on WJR, the great voice of the Great Lakes, is right and the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, tracking this problem for decades and slowly coming to the conclusion that the recent warming trend is fueled by human activity is wrong. The ranting voice on WJR at night whose name I forget is right, and President Bush and many top oil executives who now admit we’ve got a problem caused by human activity are wrong. Many of my evangelical pastor friends who have searched the Internet and concluded that climate science is phony science are right, and the people who listen to NPR are wrong about the perils of climate change. Let’s just concede the point.
Now what? What about those other facts? Rising population, coupled with rising economies around the world, leading to unprecedented consumption of fossil fuels, recognized by all to be a limited resource. Not likely to ruin our lives here in the United States over the next, say, fifteen-twenty years. Let’s be optimist, and say, over the next thirty years, our lifestyle won’t be seriously cramped. We will be nimble and dodge all the bullets. The people on the margins will have a tougher time, managing all this, but the poor we’ve had with us always.
And then we will die, in the natural order of things. And Micah and his peers will live on. And he will look back on us and say….what?
You’ve got to believe me. I didn’t mean for this post to take this tone. This frustrated, urgent, lecturing tone of mine. A tone of disappointment that so many of my fellow pastors don’t see what I see.
I can imagine myself being annoyed by my own tone. It does sound, I’ll admit, self-righteous. Like I’m in possession of information that others don’t have or weigh rightly. Using the birth of my grandson to rant a little. The recently converted are hardest to suffer, I totally get that. Guilty as charged.
I wanted to be calmer than this. More gentle. More understanding. More winsome. Calm yourself then, Ken, I say to my soul.
Here’s a proposal: let’s keep loving each other. Let’s work at believing the best about our intentions. Let’s keep talking. Let’s search our own hearts: are my perspectives mainly the ones of my echo chamber? Have I gone for information with an open mind outside my echo chamber?
Let’s those of us who value above all voices the voice of Jesus, listen through the noise–the noise of this post for example–to discern his voice. And let’s, please, try to do right by Micah.
Tags: american dream, climate change, echo chamber, environment
June 4th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Ouch! Quite a rant, but it makes sense. When we realize the ones we love are the ones at risk we say something. Kudos to you for walking the plank. If you are offended by your tone it means it is a deeply felt value.
I feel some empathy on most of this.
Could you do me a favor and take a look at my website http://www.darylunderwood.squarespace.com and give me some feedback on the post on Old School and New Ideas. It is entitled “The Times they are a Changin’” and seems to have the same sort of tension you describe. The issues may change but the frustration remains the same.
Here’s to recognizing stuck in a moment echo chambers! Raise glass.
June 7th, 2008 at 11:07 am
congratulations and amen! and thank you. its nice to hear some sanity coming from an evangelical that actually sounds like it may have come from jesus himself!
since becoming a mom … they really don’t like my tone. challenging yourself and others to walk their talk can never really be done in a tone except one of conviction, determination and deliberateness. most people don’t have any intention of doing what they say, so a tone of someone who just does it, well, that’s kinda the tone reflected in most of jesus’ dialog that is actually contained in the bible.
peace & harmony,
elaine
‘freedom must be exercised to stay in shape!’
June 9th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Ken,
Thanks for the “rant.” And congratulations on being a grandpa again!
My concerns about climate change center more on the freedom aspect of things, both now and for our children.
I have a few questions, or things to ponder, about what we are leaving our children as it relates to climate change:
1. Whoever or whatever controls carbon output controls production, at least as things stand for the next 20-30 years.
2. Who or what is this control mechanism? The U.N?
3. Do we really believe China and Russia, or name you local dictatorship, will adhere to carbon controls, let alone tell the truth about it?
4. Do we want to leave our children’s future in the hands of the U.N.? That bastion of love for all things western! Environmental laws, as we have seen in many areas, are usurping local laws. Global agreements will usurp national laws and rights. Do we want that for our children?
5. Who stopped the one energy production industry (Nuclear) in the late 70’s that emits no carbon? And by the way, the nuclear power industry has developed inherently safe reactors…no more china syndrome…just ask your local nuclear engineer.
In short, without the freedoms we enjoy as a nation, and national sovereignty, we will leave little of value to our children. We need to allow these freedoms to lead us out of energy dependence. Congress has left us in a mess by serving up the green agenda without any common sense approach to alternative sources of energy or sensible drilling.
Now, if we can figure this whole thing out without losing those things we cherish as a nation, then I’m all for it. How about a compromise, like you mentioned, like generous tax credits for buying fuel efficient hybrids cars (like $5,000/ car)in exchange for opening up ANWAR? But the green advocates won’t allow it, at least not yet. But they might be forced into it with $5.00/gal gas.
Carbon taxes and cap and trade regulations will only hurt those less fortunate, those who STILL have manufacturing jobs or those who can’t afford their current heating bills. We must allow incentives geared to technology to lead us out of this fossil fuel mess.
At least that’s what the echo chamber in my head is wrestling with.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Clif,
Great comments and concerns… I’m happy as long as Christians open-mindedly consider the science of climate change, rather than simply, for cultural reasons, deny it without due consideration. As to the solutions: it is a global concern, so there is going to need to be some venue for nation states to work together. During the Reagan years, remember when the propellants of deoderants, etc were causing the ozone layer to shrink, leading to increased cancer risk, etc.? The U.S. worked cooperative with other nations in the Montreal Protocol–I think that was convened by the U.N.–and agreements were made to replace the repellants in a way that was economically feasible, and it’s been working.
The bible indicates that we are meant to be a global species, and to rule the earth as God’s stewards, so when we come up with these kind of global problems that need tending, we have to find some venue for working together. If not the U.N., something…. The United States has quite a bit of power in the U.N. being the major contributor, having veto power on the security council, etc. And do we have time to try to gather some other international organization while these things get worse? So those would be big challenges if we were to not use the U.N. as a venue for the communication and treaty makikng. I think in the Montreal Protocol each nation had to approve it through it’s own sovereign methods–so I don’t see a huge risk there. We’re not going to sign onto any U.N. sponsored treaties if they are not in our national interest. Given the fact that China and India are catching up with us as the main contributors to the greenhouse gas problem, I think it would be in our interest to work cooperatively through international treaties.
I agree that nuclear should be on the table, so long as we can solve the waste problem. So far there isn’t a state in the union willing to take the stuff. Both parties keep that from happening. The environmentalists I know are much more open to nuclear power given the advances in plant safety, etc.
Drilling in Anwar, I’m not well informed on. I think we’ve been erring on the side of use, use, use, with little concern to conserve (not a very conservative approach…) So that’ my caution about just drilling in new places like Anwar–great for us, but what about our grandkids? Where is our incentive to conserve. From what I understand the reserves up there would add maybe 5% to the supply, which would be far outstripped by the demand that is growing now that India and China have caught on to the American dream… So I confess ambivalence about that, especially in the complete absence of a comprehensive energy policy. But you’re right, the immediate pressures are so great, everything will be considered, I’m sure.
On the issue of freedom: freedom without the moral constraint of concern for future generations seems to be part of the brew that has gotten us into this position. President Bush asked us to voluntarily
conserve on energy several years ago when he saw the growing evidence for climate change. We’ve used our freedom to ignore his call. This is one of the reasons I’m concerned about the church’s relative silence on these environmental issues and our moral obligation to be beter stewards for the sake of the poor and future generations. We’ve been so suspicious of environmental science, for cultural reasons mainly, that we’ve more been a voice advising delay, non-response, criticism, rather than a voice urging restraint, conservation, and concern for future generations.
I think from a biblical perspective the Christian community has placed too much emphasis on national interest as the guiding principle. What happens when national interest is not in the interest of people who don’t live in our nation? The Democratic candidates have been critical of free trade, because it takes jobs here and sends them overseas, but free trade has been a huge factor in reducing global poverty. For too long, I think we Christians have confused national interest with God’s interests. Speaking big picture here.
I long for the day when Christians will view stewardship of the earth’s resources as something that’s integrated with Christian discipleship. Right now, I just think we (we as in “the American church at large)are too defensive on the issue, too critical of the people outside of the church who do care about conservation, and in that sense are closer to God’s perspective than we are.
As per usual, you raise great issues….and if we can all get outside our own echo chambers we’ll have a better shot at hearing God’s voice….
June 15th, 2008 at 6:59 am
On “I’m happy when Christians open-mindedly consider the science of climate change” theme,I recommend a book by Lawrence Solomon, titled “The Deniers.” It is eye opening, and to my point that I was trying to make above…let’s make sure the cure is not worse than the disease.
And Solomon is no cultural conservative. He is a Canadian environmentalist who uses eminent scientists to challenge the popular culture myth of a catastrophic outcome, and the rush to do something, anything, now.
Pete Du Pont wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal on June 9th expressing concern about the “cure” some are trying to get through congress (cap and trade legislation that recently failed, but will come back next year with a new President).
If even half of what he says is true concerning the changes coming, it is scary.
I am defensive on this particular issue because the cures everyone is talking about are so extreme. I do think that we have freedoms in this country that the world longs to have. Encasing those freedoms in more bureaucracy won’t help anyone, in our country or the world. Allowing technology and free markets to flourish will. The Montreal agreement that you mention above is small potatoes compared to the new cap and trade legislation being proposed.
I admit, I worry more about my kids getting a good job in the future than about the sea level rising a few inches over the next 50-80 years. How that all plays out in regards to discipleship is a subject way to deep to try to resolve here. A new good Samaritan parable perhaps…who do I help first, my own children, or the ones in the third world? Perhaps, through technology we can help both.
Blessings!
June 16th, 2008 at 9:50 am
“A new good Samaritan parable perhaps…” What a trenchant observation! It’s exactly what we need–in
a global world where our actions impact people around the globe, who is my neighbor?
June 17th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Ken,
Were you worried about “global cooling” back in the 70’s when so many scientists were concerned about it? Then it became “global warming”. Now it’s “climate change” ’cause we can’t figure out which is happening.
I say leave the pseudo-science to the pseudo-scientists and just preach the gospel. I’ve read the Book, and “heaven and earth will pass away…”
June 17th, 2008 at 11:02 am
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080617110633.aspx
“But, I will tell you that there’s a lot of people who have gotten very, very wealthy – filthy rich off this subject. I think former Vice President [Al Gore] collects a minimum of $200,000 per speech on this and all of this money – it can corrupt anybody, and I just think it’s all about money.”
June 17th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Hmmm. The oil companies spent millions on a campaign to raise doubt about the legitimacy of climate change science. The most powerful senator resisting any action on climate change is from Oklahoma and has received enormous sums of money from oil companies.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Rick, There was a concern about cooling in Europe in the 1970’s. It turned out not to be a concern. I believe it was related to the possibility of the gulf stream, which takes warm water from the South up toward Europe,being disrupted. This turns out not to be a likely problem. Science is always dealing with the unknown, and requires an accumulation of evidence over time. The evidence about cooling didn’t accumulate. However the evidence for warming (average global temperatures, that is) has been accumulating for over thirty years now. The reason for the shift from “global warming” to “climate change” as the phrase of choice is simply related to the fact that the warming is of the entire system–which means that some part of the earth may be cooler, some warmer, but on average the global temperature is increasing. When the phrase “global warming” was used, people would point to the fact that some parts of the earth are cooling and say, “See it’s all pseudo-science.” So the term of choice became “climate change.” I suppose it’s easy to refer to any science as pseudo-science. I just don’t think “pseudo” is the correct description of the science behind climate change. The tobacco companies referred to the science of cigarette addiction and cancer from smoking, “pseudo-science.”
On heaven and earth passing away. Our bodies will also pass away, but this doesn’t justify abusing them, does it?
Regarding the gospel: isn’t it the power of God for salvation? Doesn’t salvation include healing our bodies from time to time? Isn’t the gospel meant to be good news for the individual, and for societies, and for humanity given all the fixes that we’re in? Let’s say that you have a step up on the people who regard climate change science as legitimate, and that you’re correct–it’s all cooked up.
What are the solutions to the problem? Don’t they involve steps that we should be taking anyway given the fact that most oil reserves are located in nations hostile to ours? Given the fact that we are using up fossil fuels at an unsustainable rate, assuming we care about leaving enough for future generations? Given the fact that much carbon is produced by dirty coal burning power plants that spew
pollution affecting poor people more than it does the wealthy? This what mystifies me about why so many fellow evangelicals seem to make it a matter of religious conviction to question climate change science. It just doesn’t add up to me, why this lean toward suspicion regarding this particular branch of science?
Just some thoughts from the other side of the coin….
June 18th, 2008 at 3:17 am
I have been a bystander of this conversation…and I’ll be open and honest of the bat, it’s starting to get under my skin a little. One thing I have appreciated about hanging around the evangelical camp for the last seven years is that there appears to be a genuine conviction to lean into the bible for understanding on any life/world topic….I am just not seeing that approach in these threads. To add to my struggle I typically hear a baby boomer generation who seems to care more about the “economy” than the welfare of earth, the poor and dare I say the rights of animals…and that is more in a response to baby boomers outside of this blog.
What if only scripture could be used to discuss any perspective on this topic. I’ll start…Jesus charged his followers to be “salt of the earth” and “light of the world” and it’s safe to say due to humanities sinful condition we struggle to be either. What I see in the scripture is that the earth, the animals, the land, everything was put into play by Jesus and for Jesus . The new red bike we got for Christmas, was made by Jesus and for Jesus, but he gave it to us to rule over. We can choose to go joy riding on it and bang it up, chip the paint; but one day the gift he gave us to care for and protect, he’s going to take back.
I keep getting directed to the letter Paul wrote to the Romans and the words just seem to ring so loud today. “For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.” That red bike is rusting, it’s bent out of shape, the wheels are punctured, it doesn’t ride like it used to and certainly doesn’t have the same glistening beauty it once exuded. Even the children riding their red bikes are getting hit with diabetes and asthma at an alarming rate.
To bring it back to Jesus’s charge to be the light and salt to the earth, I would venture out to say that our (American) ways are more cancerous than healthy for the body and soul. And the economic prosperity as we know it leads us down a path that few want to discuss, except for the few who buck the trend and those who get labeled “tree huggers”. My concern is that whether it’s global warming brought on by the increase in green house gas emissions or not, there is still cancer in the hearts of men (and women – they don’t get off that easy). Our desire to consume is so great and I say that humbly b/c I would bet that I have the largest house of all the folks who have posted and read this blog…I also drive an S10. Is the earth temperature rising b/c it wants to get rid of the very thing that is looking to destroy it? Will the earth respond with more floods, more fires, more earthquakes to bring down an empire that is of this world and does not resemble that of heaven? As written by Paul to the Romans…”For creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God.” As followers of Jesus we would say we are those children. Adopted into His family to assist in ushering the heavenly kingdom to earth in the here and now.
What path are we on? What path are we taking your children on? As a nation we have more stuff then ever before, bigger homes, more cars per family, but to what avail?
All questions and few answers….let’s continue to seek God’s heart together on this with an open mind and an open heart. When Jesse hands over the red bike to Micah 50 years from now…will it be a gift worth giving?
June 19th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
“Given the fact that much carbon is produced by dirty coal burning power plants that spew pollution affecting poor people more than it does the wealthy?” -ken
this.
“My concern is that whether it’s global warming brought on by the increase in green house gas emissions or not, there is still cancer in the hearts of men…” -phil
and this.
the poor are being hurt. and we’re supposed to care for the poor (luke 18:22, acts 10:4, romans 15:26, galatians 2:10, james 1:27, james 2:2-6, 1 john 3:17-18). we can debate the science behind climate change all we want to; however, you’d be hard pressed to find anyone to debate the health effects of coal burning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_coal
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/10471/abstract.html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
and coal plants simply don’t exist in wealthy areas.