Subscribe to Posts
climate change: a test? (or here he goes again)
Climate change is testing us–the global human family, that is. That’s what I think. Obviously, you don’t have to agree with me. But climate change is also testing the American church, in particular. Tests on a global scale are promised in Scripture. ” I will keep you safe in the time of trial coming on the whole world, to put the people of the world to the test.” (Rev. 3:10)
This was my response when it first dawned on me back in 2006 that climate change may in fact be real and a serious global problem. What a test of humanity! In order to address a global threat like climate change we have to learn how to cooperate with each other on a global scale–not something the human race is very good at. We have to look out, not only for our own interest, but also the interests of others–again not a skill we have mastered yet.
To pass a test like this might require us to fall at the feet of a merciful and powerful God in ways we haven’t even begun to consider. If ever the world had a need for a Higher Power it’s now.
And it’s a test for the American church, especially the most vibrant part of it: evangelicalism. To whom much is given much will be required.
But many of us don’t take to well to internal critique. We’ve been embroiled in a culture war for the past thirty years in which we have fine tuned the skills of critiquing those we perceive to be outsiders.
We bristle when we hear our own tribe attacked.
Take for example, this broadside leveled against Christianity:
“When we look at the track record of priests and temples, pastors and churches, missionaries and missions, it is obvious that religion in all its forms, including most emphatically Christianity, is a perpetual breeding ground for violence, abuse, superstition, war, discrimination, tyranny, and pride. Religion and spirituality is a bottomless pit breeding illusion, deceit, and oppression.”
Gosh, when you’ve got people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, the new and revived atheists lambasting Christianity like that, you tend to get a little defensive.
But this quote is from the author of the wildly popular biblical translation-paraphrase, The Message. Eugene Peterson says this is why God tests the church from time to time, because we embrace things that have nothing to do with God as though they are the gospel.
Judgment begins with the household of God, said Peter, the disciple of Jesus, the master of internal critique. We shouldn’t be afraid of it. Better now than later.
Climate change is a test because it requires us to wrestle with something we American evangelicals, thanks to our recent fundamentalist roots, have deep suspicions about: mainstream science. Without science, there is no way to know whether the climate is changing and why and what it might mean. But we don’t get along very well with mainstream science because in our view it is dominated by the cultural elites who hold our faith in a kind of polite contempt. So we tend to trust those who distrust any scientific consensus.
Climate change is a test because it suggests that maybe the American dream, based on cheap fossil fuel energy, could be the world’s nightmare if we don’t begin to find other sources of cheap energy. And we have embraced the American dream as if it were the Kingdom of God dream.
Climate change is a test, because it bids us to care, really care, about future generations, at a time when we are really focused on the present and the eternal. We care a great deal about our own fortunes and we care about life after death, but this other biblical concern–for the well being of future generations, is something we haven’t been focused on much.
Climate change is a test because it puts us in the uncomfortable position of considering the deliberations of an organization we deeply distrust: the United Nations.
And climate change is a test because it forces us to use the “s” word and we don’t like the “s” word, except when it doesn’t require any real “s”.
Sacrifice. Climate change might call for sacrifice in the present for the sake of the future. It might call for sacrifices in our lifetstyle. It might call us to sacrifice conveniences we enjoy. And we like to talk about sacrifice (especially if the talk is safely theological) more than we like to do it. Even the most rabid environmentalists don’t like the word sacrifice because they know full well it doesn’t poll well.
But we’re not alone. God is with us. The Spirit has been, is being, and will be poured out for the asking. We can do this with a little help from our friend, the friend of sinners. We don’t need to be anxious or afraid. We can walk on water in the middle of storms when it’s him out there in the midst of the storm calling us to step out of the boat and onto the lake.
Come Holy Spirit, soften our hearts, and renew the face of the earth!
Tags: book of revelation, christopher htichens, climate change, enviornment, Jesus, peter, richard dawkins, sam harris, science, the american dream, united nations
December 18th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
One does not have to be distrustful of ‘mainstream’ science to be unconvinced about global warming. Many scientists themselves are unconvinced about global warming.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Brian, Help me here brother. If (and I know in your mind it’s a huge IF, but IF what the majority of climate scientists are indicating is more or less correct, do you think this could be a test? And that the test might be along the lines that I suggest?
December 19th, 2009 at 12:46 am
Ken,
A majority of climate scientists told us that we were entering the new ice age in the 1970s and 1980s and now you’re telling us this is a test to the church and that we should give power, finances and trust to an organization(the United Nations)that has yet to prove itself trustworthy and honest in financial dealings and in dealing with human rights on a global scale.
I think we can believe that good stewardship and ecological responsibility is a good thing, but I’m willing to give up national sovereignty to an organization that has shown itself corrupt on the level it has (remember the oil for food scandal?).
Why don’t we take $100 billion dollars and give it to the first person to come up with cheap, alternative fuel that will replace our current fossil fuel needs. Allowing healthy competition and creativity to create something that will do something constructive sounds like a better solution that entrusting billions of dollars to an organization with a horrendous human rights record and bad fiscal responsibility.
December 19th, 2009 at 8:25 am
happylad, You are referring to some tentative concerns raised by some climate scientists in the early and mid-1970′a; with further study it was determined by the scientific community not to be a concern; the science corrected itself; it’s now over 30 years later and much more work has been done, scientists in 80 nations which do climate science have arrived at a very strong consensus; major nation states that have powerful economic interest in denying there is a problem (the US, China, India, etc) have reluctantly agreed there is problem. The Pentagon is including climate change as a significant factor in its security analysis. It won’t likely be solved by binding international agreements, as the recent Copenhagen meetings indicate; no one seems willing to accept binding agreements; nation states will are left to make their own steps within their national sovereignty. I thnk you are unneccesarily afraid of the United Nations–it is at best a facilitating organization with little binding power. The inability to get a climate accord among the nations that accept the science as valid is good example of the UN’s weakeness. But this is a common concern in the American evangelical community, nevertheless: UN bad, US good. What about the Kingdom of God?
December 19th, 2009 at 11:45 am
brian and happylad, if the Catholics are right and we spend time in purgatory, I suppose the three of us would be locked in a room with nothing to talk about except climate change, while the rest of the redeemed party down. Each of us stating and restating our perspectives, ad infinitum. I’d enjoy having dinner with you two, during which time we would be forbidden to discuss climate change. We’d probably have a grand old time.
December 19th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Ken,
I agree about the ‘restating our perspectives, ad infinitum.’ Unfortunately, this conversation doesn’t lend itself to short answers on a blog, so much of what would be helpful to discuss really can’t be in the allotted space (unless we posted pages long responses which I’m sure would violate blog etiquette).
You are aware that “climate-gate” revealed emails dealing with silencing and marginalizing scientists who wrote dissenting papers, right?
It isn’t hard to find reputable scientists who are skeptical of climate change-Lindzen and Spencer are at least a couple names that come to mind. Wikipedia has a whole list of them.
And the list is growing. Does it not bother you at all, or make you the least bit suspicious, when there is pretty solid evidence of an attempt to marginalize and silence scientists whose research calls the ‘consensus’ view into question?
Next time I come through Ann Arbor, I’ll give you a call. Maybe we could do that lunch. No promises about avoiding climate change talk, though.
December 20th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Brian, please do, would love to get together with you…Ken
December 20th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Two issues stand out to me. 1) a test and 2) the play of human behavior.
This morning I was thinking about taking the arc across the Jordan. My understanding (limited) is that the banks might have been quite steep and the river torrid. It took some big faith to step in. AND it was after the committing step was taken that the river parted. It strikes me that the earth (and maybe God) is waiting for that sort of commitment. No major power seems willing to make the commitment to sacrifice its economic security to lead. There is a failure of nerve at high levels. If leadership doesn’t have the guts, I suspect the people most affected will become more active. Since they are the poor, it won’t be by funding powerful lobbying or politicking. My guess is casting blame on the rich countries, violence and riots. It is my ignorant guess. that is all.
2) Human behavior. I see it again here in the criticism Ken gets. Argue, study, argue some more. Make smoke and do nothing. Debate if the “theory ” is perfect enough. Bash organizations run by humans as though you really expect them to spend every dollar wisely. Perfectionists unfortunately get little done and often are the destroyers of relationships.
I also find it interesting that critics like happylad first bash global warming science and then proceed to suggest behaviors that would help solve the problem they started out by denying. Ok- fine, deny global warming theorists and do green because it is just good healthy behavior for each of us personally, for resources and maybe the whole earth.
Yes, we are in the midst of a test. I am unfortunately pessimistic that we can drop the rhetoric and prove our faith with works appropriate instead of bashing. Doesn’t the enemy love it when we fight amongst ourselves and implode. I sadly hear his laughter. And maybe tears; once for Jerusalem, now for the earth.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:06 am
I don’t know, Ken, maybe the lesson for the Church is to descern deception.
I like what Richard W. Rahn wrote in the Washington Times: Corrupting expectations: On the horn of underlying assumptions http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/16/corrupting-expectations/
“Assume you are a scientist and have been given a major financial grant to prove that the mythical unicorn really did exist . . . as long as you can demonstrate some progress in showing the unicorn might have existed, your financial grant will be renewed each year, provided some other scientist does not come out with substantial evidence that the unicorn could not have existed.
Under such conditions, you would have a very strong incentive to disregard much of the evidence that the unicorn could not have existed and each year provide only the data that could demonstrate that the unicorn might have existed.”
Maybe folks have been chasing those Unicorns, too long . . .
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:15 am
Nick, Do you hear what you’re saying? The science that says climate is warming and human activity is a probable cause (90% probablitity according to the 2007 IPCC report) is a deception. This is what many fellow evangelicals believe. It is a highly suspicious posture to take toward science. It suggests that we should be extremely suspect of science in general, because it proceeds by grants and renewal of grants. Someone wrote to tell me that the Spirit told them global warming was a “lie”–which is another word for deception. Lies, deception–Very strong words in deed. Meanwhile the polar sea ice melts, the Greenland ice sheet melts, the Himalayan ice sheet melts, sea levels rise, the ocean is getting more acidic (an effect of increasing carbon stored there, if I’ve got my facts straight), Polynesian island nations are scrambling to figure out where they might relocate their populations. The national academies of science for 80 different nations concur that these are an effect of warming, and that warming is increased by carbon poured into the atmosphere. Consider, for a moment the missional implications of your perspective. Does this help or hinder the spread of the gospel among those who have not welcomed the gospel, because they can’t trust that the gospel they hear isn’t highly influenced by cultural and political assumptions that may or may not have anything to do with Jesus?
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
I didn’t say lies or deceptions, I think the “Climategate” emails tell us that. But who is inline to profit from Global Warming/Climate Change? Follow the money . . .
Amit Chatterjee, CEO of Hara, a company that sells carbon credits, which is bankrolled by an investment firm partnered with Al Gore.
After admitting that the “carbon market” will be worth a trillion dollars by 2015, and that his company will rake in billions, but then denying that he will profit from lobbying for cap and trade laws as well as any link to Al Gore.
“We don’t have any direct relationship with Al Gore,” claims Chatterjee, despite a June 2009 Reuters report headlined, “Gore-backed Hara sees profit from low-carbon economy.”
“Hara, a 25-employee company that debuted in 2008, provides online software to help companies reduce their carbon footprint — a $2.5 billion market that will grow 10-fold if the proposed energy bill, which will require companies to get permits for emissions, becomes law, Chief Executive Amit Chatterjee said,” states the report.
The Reuters report states that Hara is “An environmental start-up backed by Al Gore’s venture capital firm.”
I guess I become skeptical any time someone shouts, “It’s an emergency, we need to do something now . . .” If I hear a salesman tell me that I have to decide right NOW, my answer is, “Thanks, but no thanks.”
I would suggest more studies be done, but since we can’t trust “peer reviews,” I guess we are stuck. I read many papers and articles, from a variety of sources (http://conservativemeanderings.wordpress.com/category/global-warming/) that seems there is vastly contradictory information.
Some researchers are more inclined to believe we are entering a “mini-ice age.” As much as I hate Winter (ooh, Always winter, but never Christmas . . . I heard about that), anyway, I am convinced there is something within the pyche of man that “needs” a crisis. If it isn’t Global Warming, it’s a Tsunami or an asteroid that will fall on my garage (or all of our garages).
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Oh, another thing that bugs me . . . the whole issue of “Carbon Credits.” So, I can pollute the air, but if I BUY some permits, that makes it okay and balances it all out? Hmmmm. Sounds suspicious to me.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
nick, Again, your comment about not being able to trust the peer review process is yet another way of saying you have no confidence in the scientific enterprise. This is a pretty extreme position. How will you pick and choose what science to regard as trustworthy? Science that agrees with your view of the world already? Or some other criteria? There’s a lot at stake here because the scientific process is responsbible for a great deal of alleviation of suffering. But it’s useless if people don’t trust the results of the process. Why not smoke? How can you be sure that the link between cancer and smoking isn’t yet another government attempt to gain more power over the individual, a tax grab?
December 24th, 2009 at 3:03 am
Just a thought.
Aren’t we spending far too much energy discussing an issue that obviously is not agreed upon by those in the christian community?
Maybe we are beating a dead horse. Aren’t other issues, like evangelism, service and communion with God more pressing?
Speaking for myself, I find myself obsessing over this whole global warming thing and having little energy left for these other concerns I just mentioned.
Maybe if I spend more time pursuing God just to get to know Him better, then I would end up more open to the holy spirit’s promptings on the real importance of these issues in relation to other issues I may be ignoring.
December 24th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Joao, sounds like you need a climate break! My only interest in this topic is in relation to evangelism, service, and communion with God.
December 24th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Hi, Ken.
Thanks for continuing to speak the truth in love to the Christian community. You take a beating for it, but I hear you’re in good company.
It’s hard for me to understand why other Christians are so bent on trying to disprove climate change science. As you point out, the science of climate change is as sound as that of the toxicity of smoking. AND, the story of climate change fits the Biblical story: The earth and all its inhabitants are in a fallen state and greatly in need of redemption. God has a plan for that redemption, but he requires that we participate in that work. He’s just waiting for us to get started.
I bet Satan has a good chuckle when we waste energy trying to disprove climate change science, rather than putting that energy toward healing and saving to the world. When we kick against the goads (plain, scientific facts) like that, it’s all sweat, spit, and frustration. But if we would get the vision of working with God to renew his creation, I believe we would find enabling energy and grace from his Spirit.
God bless all.
December 26th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Kirk Donalson, you said:
“I also find it interesting that critics like happylad first bash global warming science and then proceed to suggest behaviors that would help solve the problem they started out by denying.”
A person doesn’t have to believe in global warming to want to be responsible to care for God’s creation. I grew up in the 60s and 70s. I saw pollution and littering on a monumental scale. I have always loved nature. Therefore, it is no surprise that I want to preserve God’s creation in all it’s beauty. That doesn’t require that I believe in global warming, caused by man-made carbon emissions.
Geologists and those who study ice core samples will tell us that the earth has gone through warming and cooling trends for millennium. These warming and cooling trends had little to do with man-made carbon emissions. This doesn’t negate my desire for good stewardship of the earth if I believe that the earth is simply going through one of many cycles of warming and cooling.
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Ken,
As a scientist myself, having received my PhD in an environmental physical chemistry lab, it saddens me that people are blind to climate change and its anthropogenic causes. I have never met a legitimate scientist that does not accept this. I wish people would investigate the real scientific facts and not buy into the propaganda. Yes, people are trying to capitalize on climate change. but is anyone really surprised? How does the corruption of some negate all the alarming environmental changes in our world? We would be better served by trying to preserve our country and be good stewards than by just denying the obvious.
Faith
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:30 am
Perhaps the reason so many Christians are suspicious and mistrusting of climate change is because the people promoting it have been proven time and again to be liars and promoting their own self interests. They are also led by the Holy Spirit who leads us in all truth. Many who promote earth healing are really in effect promoting harm to their fellow man in their frantic attempt to heal the climate. We are told to feed the hungry. Many of the goals of the climate change proponents will cause the starvation of millions in addition to those already starving. It does nothing to promote the kingdom of heaven. If God wanted us to tackle this issue in the church we would have been given some guidance in the Bible. There is nothing about making a “small footprint” in there. There is alot about being aggressive in our efforts to make our fellow man’s lives easier and spreading the gospel. I just got a newletter from our church filled with climate change news. It even went so far as to say that during Lent we should concentrate on healing earth! Jesus Christ is being pushed out of the center the church by climate change and earth worship. We are to have no other God’s before him. That includes the planet we were given to live on. Most Chirstian have not forgotten that God is still in control of all nature and will be until the end of time. We rest in faith that He will make all things work together for good for them that are called according to his purpose. If there is a test of the church it is this faith: that we must depend on Him to take care of nature while we in the church carry out his orders…feed the poor, clothe the naked, heal the sick, preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you are a Christian getting all wrapped up in Climate change fears, you should sit down with your bible and read it. Then have a long heart to heart with the one true and living God and ask him for direction in your life. Then you should wait for him to answer. And then only then, should you go telling everyone what God wants them to do about Climate change. Last time I read my Bible, it didn’t have alot to say about the church getting their talking points directly from government.
On a purely secular note, (since it seems that is how you want to handle the climate subject), you should also do some digging into the facts. Just because you watched a shiny, whiz bang, movie with lots of scary graphs doesn’t mean you have been educated. It does mean you are easily misled because you don’t check facts. There are many people who have put themselves and their families at great risk to get the truth of climate change out to the public. Placed side by side the evidence is blatantly obvious that this is fabricated science created from profit driven motives. So my question is this: Why is the church so interested in climbing on this profit driven band wagon?