Arguments
Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
Posted on 13 September 2012 by John Cook
The Centre for the Study of Science, Religion and Society at Emmanuel College are running a series of presentations on Science, Religion and Society. I was honoured to be invited to talk about a Christian view on climate change, which I presented on 03 August 2012. Here is a video of the presentation, with an introduction by Stewart Gill, principal of Emmanuel College.
The talk goes for 50 minutes as I cover climate science, an investigation into a Biblical view of social justice and why climate change is an important issue for Christians. Then I debunk misinformation from the Cornwall Alliance. If you're time compressed and want to jump to a particular section of the talk, here are the key bookmark points:
- 6:06 - Five key facts you need to know about climate change
- 25:15 - Why Christians should care about climate change
- 29:14 - Comparing the Evangelical Climate Initiative to the Cornwall Alliance
- 32:29 - Debunking misinformation from the Cornwall Alliance
I've uploaded the slides for this presentation in PDF format (2.9Mb). Anyone is welcome to use any of the slides from my talk in their own presentations (except the graphics I don't have the rights to such as the Simpsons screenshot or the cute sheep/goat photo). I've also compiled public talks I've given in the past that have made it onto YouTube, available at http://sks.to/talks.
Bert
Interesting that you found the term 'dominion' so prominently featured in the Cornwall document. Their website subhead is 'For the stewardship of creation'. The two dominant views of creation care in Christian theology are dominion vs stewardship, with the former tending to be climate skeptical. They seem to be trying to claim both sides at once.
Did anyone come back at you on theology? It's impossible to build a systematic theology of social justice in 5 mins. Some of the academics might have expected a citation to such a work instead of some, well, 'cherry picked' texts, but I don't think anything you said was exceptionable.
I'm not sure I actually understood your Cornwall cherry-picking example, or wasn't there one? A quick scan of the Cornwall document didn't reveal an obvious candidate. They might have consciously tried to avoid cherry-picking and eliminated any obvious examples.
BTW I note that I must be part of the conspiracy as I have a handlebar moustache! ;o}P
1. Are you post-millenial?
2. Are you an "Old Earth" Creationist?
"villabolo - odd question (what on earth is a "post millenial"). Why do you ask? Its not clear to me why this would be relevant."
My apology for posting such an odd sounding question. I was in a rush and I thought that John would understand but I should have taken the time to explain it to a general audience.
I asked those questions because John’s beliefs are at odds with the beliefs of most (not all) Evangelicals here in the U.S. (I don’t know Australia’s religious demographics).
A particular theology has a lot to do with a persons' world view and different theologies affect how a Christian would view the environment as it relates to "stewardship" over the Earth (i.e. responsibility).
Let's start of with "eschatology" 101 (end-times theology), I'll try to keep it painless.
There are two basic worldviews as they relate to a Christian's view of the world and whether such Christians sees himself as responsible for the physical environment. It gets complicated but the basics are:
1) Pre-millennial:
The belief that we are living in “the last days” in an unredeemable world that is not worth fixing. Christ will come at any moment to take his church away then all hell will let loose socially and environmentally.
After the Earth is destroyed it will be turned into a ‘paradise’ which will last a thousand years i.e. “millennium.”
This worldview assumes it is pointless to fix anything in the here and now. An analogy to their attitude would be: “Why paint the house when it has been condemned and will be torn down and rebuilt by the Landlord any day now?”
This theo-ideology fits hand in glove with the non-religious ideology of the Political and Financial elites, hence the symbiotic relationship between the two in American politics.
2) Post-millenial:
The complete inverse of the above. According to this belief it is Christians who are in charge of restoring the Earth and society before Christ comes.
I assumed that John has this or a similar point of view since his Christian viewpoint clashes with that of most (not all) American Evangelicals.
3) Theistic Evolution:
As to the question on John’s concept of Creation, I was wondering if John was a “theistic evolutionist.” Theistic evolutionists believe in the process of evolution - it does not clash with their Christian perspective.
Many Evangelicals however – at least in the U.S. – are strict creationists with no concept of the Earth’s geological ancientness. They would make poor paleo-climatologists since one needs to have an evolutionary view to understand how climate is rooted in Earth’s history.
I could tell right off that John does not ascribe to that view. I could also understand why the Christian Right, particularly in the U.S., would slander him as they have in the past.
Again, I apologize for the seemingly bizarre nature of these questions but my curiosity about John’s Christianity was peaked.
I don't mind being corrected on my grammar or even punctuation; English is my second language. :-)
It seems that "peaked" is a very common misspelling, Thanks for the correction.
No, that's the last thing I would desire as a topic under ordinary circumstances. We have enough to worry about the potential apocalypse of Global Warming without adding mysticism to any rational discussion.
But.....
Since John spoke from a Christian perspective I thought it would be instructive to point out that there are other perspectives from others who consider themselves Christians. The importance of their opposing beliefs lays in the fact that they are politically powerful in the U.S. Their irrationality is becoming the basis of our public policy.
These ‘Christians’ have been demonizing environmentalists and us 'alarmists' and have even slandered John.
It's good to know where your opponent is coming from - how he thinks. Know thy enemy.
Not all Christians are fundamentalist in the sense that underlies much of today's Republican Party in the US. For those raised under the principles of stewardship, we are governed by the mandate to live our lives under the knowledge that we will one day stand for a final performance review of our lives. And that an accounting will be made for everything that we did do...and everything that we didn't do.
For Christians, it is given to none of us to know the day, time or hour; we carry the charge of remaining ready. In that sense, it matters little whether one is Pre-Millennialist or Post-Millennialist. Because under the principle of stewardship, the distinction doesn't matter.
a) Most US evangelicals are pre-millenial.
b) Most US evangelicals are climate skeptical.
Even in the 2007 Pew Forum report, the latter was not the case, and things have shifted since then, see for example the Evangelical Climate Initiative. US Baptists (the largest contingent) are split on the issue. SBC seminary staff are certainly predominantly premillenial, although it is not clear if this is reflected in the church as a whole.
The millenial obsession is primarily a US one: I expect that outside the US few evangelicals could define their position. In the UK evangelicals are spread across the political spectrum, and views on climate are most strongly shaped by political rather than religious views. Creationism is also a minority view among evangelicals over here.
IMHO, it only clouds the issue and in the end (game) the only really significant difference is...do we destroy that which was given to us, whether by some omnipotent FSM, or simply a planet on which life evolved to us, now, or in 1000 years?
I'm doing all I can to stave off disaster as far forward in the future as that future might exist.
My question to John was out of curiosity. IMO post-mil was, at one time, the most pre-disposed to social/environmental concerns. Things have changed radically throughout the past 30 years. (Off topic but worth reading)
An example of American fundamentalist thinking on the environment can be found here and this jewel from the Cornwall Alliance.
"...I've never really taken the time to investigate eschatology and pre/post millenial theology. As for the age of the earth, this blog post should make my views clear.
I know realize that was a silly question, I guess I got up too early in the morning. :-)
I suspect most of this is post-hoc rationalization of a position, where actual views on the environment formed from other influences. (eg. distaste for environmentalistists/Al Gore, perception that environmental care restricts freedom, distaste for taxes etc).
"I suspect most of this is post-hoc rationalization of a position, where actual views on the environment formed from other influences."
Yes, it began that way but now, particularly with a new generation being brought up on denialism, it's become an integral part of their religious views.
But your analysis at @23 seems very plausible to me.
Thanks for this post. As a conservative evangelical christian (originating from Sydney Diocese - good heavens!) stuff such as what the Cornwall Alliance produces dismays me.
It seems to me that the Cornwall Alliance is attempting to use language to push the buttons of various christian groupings within the evangelical spectrum but that they don't quite make it (thats apart from the theological holes large enough to fly a jumbo through). That maybe a cultural thing as they are North American based, but I can still see how it could catch some christian groups other than in North America. I suspect amongst evangelicals this might be the people who tend to view science and scientists as a distinct ideological grouping
On pre-millenial, post-millenial, lets-do-the-hokey-pokey, I like the answer given during a talk I attended by a lecturer from Regent College in BC who when asked what position he took said he was a 'pan millienist', "i.e. it'll all pan out in the end".
On creation and Gen 1 to 3 if anyone is interested, christian or otherwise, and has the time the book, 'In the beginning' by theologian Henri Blocher is a brillaint but dense read. I doubt such a well argued piece of theology will appeal to those who drafted the Cornwall Declaration. Don't knock this if you aren't a christian theist, the best way to answer creationists is via theology and you will find good theology bats away stuff like the Cornwall Alliance material.
Finally, along with John there are other evangelical christians who as scientists have been very vocal in talking about the dangers of AGW including Dr Katherine Hayhoe and of course Dr John Houghton who has been instrumental in talking directly to American and other evangelical leaders on this topic.
One tiny typo on one of your slides: "non sequitur", not "non sequitor".