The Southern Baptist Convention has issued A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change, accepting the substantial evidence for anthropogenic global warming and calling for more urgent action on these issues. The statement has been signed by many leading Baptists.
We have recently engaged in study, reflection and prayer related to the challenges presented by environmental and climate change issues. These things have not always been treated with pressing concern as major issues. Indeed, some of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that these are real problems that deserve our attention. But now we have seen and heard enough to be persuaded that these issues are among the current era’s challenges that require a unified moral voice.
We believe our current denominational engagement with these issues have often been too timid, failing to produce a unified moral voice. Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed. We can do better. To abandon these issues to the secular world is to shirk from our responsibility to be salt and light. The time for timidity regarding God’s creation is no more.
It will be interesting to see what impact this statement has on conservative Christians in the US.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
DH 03.10.08 at 4:09 pm
Just because a person is “unsure” about global warming doesn’t mean they are against taking responsibility for the environment or that they are against the environment. This post seems to project that “idea” which is unfounded. I have never said I’m against global warming I have only said I’m not sure. The evidence and changes by scientists promote the definitive on the subject. However, one can still be an advocate for the enviroment and be against the concept of global warming. These issues are not “mutually-exclusive”. My reasons for advocating less CO2 emissions is one from a “quality of air” perspective as opposed to global warming alone. I totally agree with the post given and I don’t see too many conservative Christians being against it except for the global warming part. We ALL need to do more to help the enviroment but we shouldn’t “politisize” peoples belief and project inaccuracies based on one aspect of the environment alone. When helping the environment we also need to look at economic sustainibility. We need to be “efficient” and reasonable when addressing environmental concerns.
Here is a book by an economist who does support the environment but is rational with regard to these issues. I think we all need to read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Global-Warming/dp/0307266923
Richard 03.10.08 at 4:52 pm
Anyone can care about the environment in the abstract. And indeed, everyone does. Even the most polluting, money-grubbing and environmentally-irresponsible will *say* that they care about creation. “But,” they say, “we have to be efficient, you mustn’t distort markets and you can’t stand in the way of growth.” And in so doing, they show where their priorities really lie.
Face it: if the leadership of the Southern Baptists have become convinced that there is a need for action on global warming, the room available for the sceptics is rapidly being squeezed out.
Kim 03.10.08 at 5:46 pm
Ironic that they’ve never doubted “human warming”.
Kim 03.10.08 at 5:47 pm
The electric chair.
DH 03.10.08 at 6:45 pm
Richard, I don’t believe it is a “zer sum game” or mutually-exclusive as you make it out. Also, myself and the southern Baptist are in agreement with regard to that observation as well. If you read my post I’m against CO2 emissions as well but for different reasons than Global Warming that doesn’t make my support for the environment any less important.
Also you might have misunderstood my url I referenced. Here is an analogy that explains the url: With a limited amount of resources, which helps society more or saves lives more: giving $1 billion dollars to eradicate malaria (experts say that is what it would take to do this) or spending $1 billion dollars to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions by 1% (this dollar figure is what experts say would reduce greenhouse gas emissions)? This doesn’t mean we should do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because we do but when faced with some alternatives we need to look at these issues to save the greatest amount of lives. Isn’t the goal of any policy to save the greatest amount of lives and help the standard of life for people as a whole for the greatest amount of benefit as well?
I don’t have to agree with the Southern Baptists to agree with the conclusions with regard to greenhouse gas emissions and the need to reduce them therein. I totally agree with the conclusions of the Southern Baptists we need to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions for the best quality of air we can have.
At the same time what if we spent $1 quadrillion dollars/pounds/Euro’s, etc. on the environment. Wouldn’t this amount of spending make for a greater amount of poor people and thus make the situation worse for people as a whole in the world? Our priorities are not “mutually-exclusive” as well. We can focus on both but in such a way that we are maximizing our contribution to ALL of these issues for the maximized benefit or else we fall into the “law of unintended consequences”.
Beth 03.10.08 at 11:48 pm
The problem, dh, is that governments aren’t spending money on either eradicating malaria or environmental reform. So saying that spending on reducing emissions will reduce spending on the poor is surely a false premise?
Mark Byron 03.11.08 at 12:22 am
The statement seems reasonable and gives a lot of ground for interpretation from various Baptists, a classic Southern Baptist maneuver. It won’t change too many opinions either way, but will give some environmentally-concerned evangelicals some cover for action.
DH 03.11.08 at 4:17 pm
It is legitimate in that it reduces the ABILITY in the future. I agree that governments are not doing as much to eradicate malaria. I will say that governments are doing more in the past but agree they need to do more. What I’m addressing is the fact that governments DO have a limited number of resources and with limited number of resources it makes for choices as to varying degrees that maximize the greatest amount of benefit to society and help to the greatest amount of poor people as well.
So you see by clarifying to what I meant to say with the term “ability” it is not a false premise.
Mark, I agree with Mark that the statement is reasonable.
I really liked my statement here that explains my support with the Southern Baptists:
“I don’t have to agree with the Southern Baptists to agree with the conclusions with regard to greenhouse gas emissions and the need to reduce them therein. I totally agree with the conclusions of the Southern Baptists we need to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions for the best quality of air we can have.”