Onward Wayward Christian Soldiers
What is the evangelical church doing sticking its toe into the global warming cesspool?
NYT reported on Feb. 8 that 86 evangelical leaders, including Rick Warren of Saddleback Church (where I accepted Christ), called for federal legislation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Here's their manifesto and names.
Fellow SoCal Blogger Alliance bloggers John Schroeder and Rick Moore have good criticisms of their actions at Blogotional and Holy Coast, respectively, and Joe Carter writes well on the subject at Evangelical Outpost.
Chuck Colson, James Dobson and other giants of the faith have not signed on, and rightly so. Most of those opposing evangelical involvement in the global warming debate focus on just that: the debate. They say energy that should go into preaching and reaching will be dissipated on a matter that is hardly incontrovertible scientific fact. I agree.
But there's a more important reason for evangelicals to shun this debate. As I wrote last December in a post called Cure HIV and Malaria or Fritter Funds on Global Warming?, it is ridiculous to spend money "fighting" global warming. The Copenhagen Consensus, drafted in 2004 by a number of leading economists, came to this conclusion, according to my favorite environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg:
God told us to be stewards of the earth's resources. One of those resources is money, as virtually every pastor on earth reminds us each week before the offering plate is passed. The 86 evangelicals who signed onto this global warming nonsense have forgotten than fact, just as they've stepped into a quagmire that will suck energy away from evangelism.
Update: ExPreacherMan opines.
illustration: Fragilecologies
NYT reported on Feb. 8 that 86 evangelical leaders, including Rick Warren of Saddleback Church (where I accepted Christ), called for federal legislation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Here's their manifesto and names.
Fellow SoCal Blogger Alliance bloggers John Schroeder and Rick Moore have good criticisms of their actions at Blogotional and Holy Coast, respectively, and Joe Carter writes well on the subject at Evangelical Outpost.
Chuck Colson, James Dobson and other giants of the faith have not signed on, and rightly so. Most of those opposing evangelical involvement in the global warming debate focus on just that: the debate. They say energy that should go into preaching and reaching will be dissipated on a matter that is hardly incontrovertible scientific fact. I agree.
But there's a more important reason for evangelicals to shun this debate. As I wrote last December in a post called Cure HIV and Malaria or Fritter Funds on Global Warming?, it is ridiculous to spend money "fighting" global warming. The Copenhagen Consensus, drafted in 2004 by a number of leading economists, came to this conclusion, according to my favorite environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg:
They found that dealing with HIV/AIDS, hunger, free trade and malaria were the world's top priorities. This was where we could do the most good for our money.Implementing Kyoto would require $150 billion in actual funds and lost opportunity. $27 billion would prevent 28 million people from getting AIDS. $12 billion would cut malaria cases by more than 1 million cases a year. We would still have $111 billion to spend on alleviating poverty and spreading education and health care.On the other hand, the experts rated immediate responses to climate change at the bottom of the world's priorities. Indeed, the panel called these ventures -- including the Kyoto Protocol -- "bad projects," simply because they cost more than the good that they do.
God told us to be stewards of the earth's resources. One of those resources is money, as virtually every pastor on earth reminds us each week before the offering plate is passed. The 86 evangelicals who signed onto this global warming nonsense have forgotten than fact, just as they've stepped into a quagmire that will suck energy away from evangelism.
Update: ExPreacherMan opines.
illustration: Fragilecologies
<< Home