The Voltage Gate

I've been mulling over the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works meet up with Christian leaders over global warming issues for the past couple of days. I'm fascinated by the response from both religious camps - anthropogenic global warming is a sin against God and humanity and we must fix it vs. there's not enough evidence because we believe that the world is only 6000 years old and that Jesus will fill the sky tomorrow.

At the meeting, the Episco-pals, as usual, come out as a shining example of what religiosity could be. Oceanographer turned bishop Dr. Jefferts Schori (yes her doctorate is in oceanography) spoke with her usual elegance, encouraging words from the mouth of a religious leader:

"As one who has been formed both through a deep Christian faith and as a scientist, I believe that science has revealed to us without equivocation that climate change and global warming are real and caused in significant part by human activities," said the Episcopal Church head.

Schori was backed by the pleasantly moderate, Rapture refuting U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and a number of the Evangelical Climate Initiative signatories, part of Richard Cizik's camp. On the other side stood those opposed to the evangelical environmental movement, echoing conservative cries of "not enough evidence." As the article says, it reminds one of Dobson's call for Cizik's resignation last year which more or less solidified the dueling sides within evangelical churches (the evangelicals are not the only ones split on the issue; certain Catholic bishops share this self-serving brand of skepticism as well).

The opposition spoke:

"To tie the authority of the Bible to the shifting and revisable scientific and public policy proposals of one's global warming agenda is unhelpful to the debate at best and trivializing of Christian faith at worst," advised Dr. Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

"The SBC and other like-minded evangelical groups are not opposed to environmental protection," explained Moore, who is the dean of SBTS's school of theology and senior vice president for academic administration. "We are, however, concerned about the ways in which religious arguments are used in this debate, possibly with harmful consequences both for public policy and for the mission of the church."

I agree with Moore in part. Christians are being duped by politicians at every turn because it's so easy. Whatever your stance on an issue you can find a way to contextualize verses in the Bible to back you and Christians will listen, especially the literalists. The Bible is the authority on every aspect of life, and those who have mastered the craft of manipulating its verses have a powerful tool at their disposal.

As far as "trivializing" Christianity goes, religion will always be trivialized when juxtaposed equally with science. Besides, I think Christians do more to trivialize their faith than science could ever manage.

Moore affirmed that Southern Baptists do care about global warming "because the creation reveals the glory of God," but that science does not absolutely support humans being the main cause for global warming and that cutting carbon emissions will be in the best interest for the majority of the world's population.

They claim that regulations to cut CO₂ emissions would negatively affect the world's poor (by world's poor do they mean their pockets?). It's fascinating how skeptical they can be about real world issues.

So here's the deal: On one side, you have religious organizations acknowledging and relying on the science that describes our involvement in climate change and using their faith to encourage others to help fix the problem, and on the other you have religious organizations denying the science and using their faith as an excuse to disbelieve what they choose.

But this choice has nothing to do with faith. Faith becomes a tool to reinforce a human decision to accept or deny evidence. Why do we, as a country, continue to let boldfaced religious politics have an impact in Washington? At what point do these churches become lobbying organizations and lose their tax exemption?

About a month ago, Lou Dobbs, on his monotonous, unending crusade to harp on illegal immigration, confronted a pastor representing a religious movement to provide support for illegal immigrants. Dobbs pointed out that the pastor was taking illegal action against our country's laws, and the pastor replied, basically, that God's laws were supreme, without borders. Dobbs, incensed, questioned the viability of their tax exemptions with that level of involvement in politics.

I don't want this to erupt into a discussion on illegal immigration. The point is that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is there, action needs to be taken and yet these evangelical leaders have clearly lined up with certain conservatives in denying that we are negatively affecting the world's natural systems with our habits. The fact that we are is no longer up for debate (although the extent of the damage certainly is) and the groups that acknowledge that fact are merely accepting the evidence. There is no "other side" on this issue, and the combined measures to fix the problem should be nonpartisan and nondenominational.

*I guess MT doesn't like the infinite symbol...