Good Christian tree-huggers

  • Via townhall.com::

    An impres­sive list of evan­gel­i­cal Chris­t­ian lead­ers has recently signed onto the “Evan­gel­i­cal Cli­mate Ini­tia­tive” (ECI), a state­ment call­ing for Amer­i­cans to do what they can to com­bat cli­mate change.

    Some of the state­ment seems rea­son­able and bib­li­cal. Yes, Chris­tians are called to be stew­ards of the earth. Yes, we’re charged with car­ing for the poor. Yes, we want to stand for what is right, and even get involved polit­i­cally when an oppor­tu­nity arises. These asser­tions are agreed upon by nearly all evan­gel­i­cal Christians.

    “How­ever, these Chris­t­ian lead­ers step out­side of their areas of exper­tise when they take on the issue of cli­mate change. They assert, “Over the last sev­eral years many of us have engaged in study, reflec­tion, and prayer related to the issue of cli­mate change,” but the major­ity of them are not sci­en­tists. They are also not econ­o­mists, so they seem to be totally unaware of the eco­nomic ram­i­fi­ca­tions of the ideas they are proposing.

    “The Kyoto treaty, for instance, would reduce cli­mate change only min­i­mally while impos­ing economy-crushing reg­u­la­tions on busi­nesses and indi­vid­u­als around the world.”

    I know there are Ortho-bloggers that say they favor the polit­i­cal left for its stands on a cou­ple things, and usu­ally the list includes their atten­tion to the poor and their stand on ecol­ogy. But it’s things like this well-intentioned effort of the evan­gel­i­cals that keep me from being able to agree. When­ever you bor­row your rhetoric from the left, you seem to end up with hol­low promises that aren’t yours to keep, sloppy math and sci­ence, and a de-emphasis on per­sonal respon­si­bil­ity, as if con­cepts like stew­ard­ship and char­ity could be dic­tated by the gov­ern­ment and not be, at bot­tom, coercion.

    I know I come off like a shill for one side, but believe it or not, I really do think these things through. (Not to say that a quan­tity of thought nec­es­sar­ily equates to a qual­ity of thought, but at least it’s some­thing.) I hope I wouldn’t mind being in the lib­er­als’ camp once in a while. I just need them to have a cou­ple bet­ter ideas and think them through a lit­tle bet­ter. For instance:

    Chris­t­ian lead­ers should look toward the Copen­hagen Con­sen­sus if they’re seri­ous about being good stew­ards. More than any­one, Chris­tians should be wary of throw­ing their money after impos­si­ble goals when achiev­able aims – such as com­bat­ing HIV/AIDS, malaria, and mal­nu­tri­tion – are in sight. That’s the true def­i­n­i­tion of stewardship.

    Hope­fully, we can all give an amen to that.


    Related posts:

    1. The per­va­sive­ness of the Chris­t­ian idea
    2. Is Hol­ly­wood “a very Chris­t­ian town?”
    3. Are hur­ri­canes racist?
    4. No room at the inn. Or the megachurch.
    5. So are we doing “Merry Christ­mas” or “Happy hol­i­days” or what?

    February 28th, 2006 | Grace | No Comments |

Leave a Reply

* Name, Email, and Comment are Required