Monday, March 10, 2008

Tread Lightly

I came across this article today. Apparently, Southern Baptist Leaders have done an about face concerning their stance on global warming. At the convention last summer, a resolution was passed stating that the SBC should " proceed cautiously into the debate on global warming due to a lack of consensus" on whether it even exists or its causes.

Today, I learned that there exists a Southen Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative. You can view their website here. I am considerably perplexed by this sudden foray into this arena. It concerns me on several levels:

1. I think the decision made to be very careful in what the SBC involves itself in is prudent. There is absolutely no consensus concerning global warming and whether it is caused by man. Just last week, the founder of The Weather Channel was on Fox News speaking against global warming. He recently called global warming the "greatest scam in history." It concerns me that the SBC would jump so quickly into this after affirming a much more cautious approach.

2. By putting the SBC title on this document and initiative, it will appear to most people that the Southern Baptists as a whole have endorsed these actions. One of the tenets of the SBC is the autonomy of the local church. We can and do have the right to pray and seek God's direction over issues for ourselves. I am always concerned when denominational leaders "speak out" for the convention on controversial issues. ( Let me note here that I am firm believer in being good stewards of the creation that God entrusted to us. I am concerned that the SBC will engage this "issue" at the expense of issues that are more clearly delineated in the Bible, such as helping the poor, the sanctitiy of life and preserving the sacredness of marriage, among others.)

3. I spent some time looking at the website. If we are going to venture into this area, there needs to be clear and persuasive scientific evidence that leads to this conclusion. In fact, the actual document states that there is no "special revelation" that led to this initiative, but the same information that is available to all. I did not see any scientists or specialists in climate-related fields listed on the website or associated with the initiative. Given the fact that this issue is so divisive, I would think that a mountain of evidence would be needed to show the reason for the founding of this initiative.

All in all, I am mostly concerned by the fact that my denomination is throwing its "collective" hat into this ring. Let me state again that I admire the hearts of people that take God's command seriously to be good stewards of His earth. However, there are clear things that can be done to take care of creation, such as recycling, reforestation, etc. I remain mostly unconvinced that global warming is solely a man-made phenoma and I cautiously view it as more of a political issue than anything else.

I would like to know more about the initiative, specifically pertaining to how it relates to the SBC, how it is funded and how it plans to be involved in this particular issue.

Let me finish by stating that this is solely my opinion, based on my own personal research. It is not the offical stance of my church. I am aware that there are much smarter people than I (engineers, scientists, etc.) that may be able to help me see other viewpoints. If so, I welcome them.

Until then, I would advise much prudence in this issue, especially when we, as southern baptists, begin to dip our toes into this pool. We need to make sure that this is a priority in line with the mandate given to us by Christ.

9 comments:

BryanY. said...

I'll have to do more research into the SBC initiatives. I've watched for too long as the church sat silently by while our earth is polluted and destroyed. This is a justice issue.

I for one am glad that the SBC is recognizing that the church should be involved in being and teaching people to be good stewards of the earth. Now, I'm not a global warming convert by any stretch of the imagination. But I will say this: most (not all) of the initiatives aimed at reducing the emission of greenhouse gases (such as CO2) also reduce emissions of other well-known toxic compounds. Heavy metals, like mercury and lead, get into our bodies and cause nervous system damage. Nitrogen and sulphur compounds cause acid rain. All of these are released when we burn fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas. If reductions in the emissions of these toxic compounds come intentionally or indirectly, what difference does it make?

Now, as I said I am not a global warming convert. I do not support the huge waste of money we are spending researching CO2 capture and storage. Pumping CO2 into the earth where it will eventually seep out someone else is not a good plan.

Thanks for the link... I'll definitely peruse it and let you know what I think.

alison said...

I should send this to my dad...I wonder if he has seen it.

The Canada's said...

Very well said Scott. What you wrote captures my feelings to a "t"

To Bryany, you wrote: "I for one am glad that the SBC is recognizing that the church should be involved in being and teaching people to be good stewards of the earth." I am curious where/if you have encountered preaching/teaching to the contrary of what you typed. I have never experienced anything but preacing/teaching to be a good steward, and never had the environment exempted. I have never heard or been taught to diregard and not be a good steward to our world that we know was created by God's own hands in Genisis. This is not a justice issue. (just my humble opinion)

Alison, I would be VERY interested in hearing your Dad's response.

BryanY. said...

To the Canada's: Honestly, most of the stewardship sermons I've heard have been exclusively about the stewardship of MONEY. Rarely have I heard one that includes TIME, TALENT, and RELATIONSHIP stewardship. Never have I heard one that includes environmental stewardship.

I'm a practical guy. Churches provide opportunities to learn how to manage your finances through ministries like Crown Financial or Financial Peace. Never seen a church (SBC anyway) sponsor anything about recycling or energy reduction or the like.

Lastly, I've never seen it as a priority within a church organization. Never seen a church implement things like daylight harvesting, alternative fuels, or just plain sound energy management practices. If you don't live it, you don't believe it.

By the way, I haven't exactly seen a church handle their money very well either. They're usually paying tons of it to banks in interest... not something looked upon as favorable in my reading of scripture.. but I digress.

This is a justice issue. Those of us that are most capable of living lifestyles and running organizations that are environmentally friendly are not. Those that will pay the penalty the most are those that cannot afford bottled water, cannot afford to move where the air is fresher, and then cannot afford the health care. If that's not a justice issue I don't know what is.

How I live my life affects others. Yours does too.

Scott said...

Guys,

Thanks for your thoughts on this issue. I didn't state it in my post, but one of my biggest concerns is that the spokesmen has no scientific credentials whatsoever. I have a BS in Chemistry and may be more qualified. (I don't think I am, but you see my point).

Bryan, I agree that the church has to practically be good stewards of the earth. I saw that Prestonwood in Dallas started a recycling program. I think that is great. I just don't want us to chase around the world's view of earth and treat it like a "deity" when we know it will not last forever. It is just our temporary home. Keep raising the call, though, we need to be wise with how we use it in the meantime. All in perspective of the main mission.

Alison, I cannot think of anybody than I would rather hear from than your dad on this issue. Didn't Michael Crichton consult with him before he wrote "State of Fear" (which taught me a lot). Where can I find some of his research on this issue?

The Canada's said...

bryany: Thanks for the response to my response.

I respectfully disagree with YOUR ideology that if the Church is not devoted to tackling every social issue, than the church is silent.

My view, and the Bibles view, is that WE are the Church. Scripture is Scripture whether it is spoken in the pulpit or not, whether it gets written into a study or not.

While I think (and I don't know you so I apologize in advance)you feel that the church should be a reactionary tool of what the media is pumping at us on page 1A each week. As far as the environment/global warming, Scott hits the nail on the proverbial head. I am not ready to rush to judgement, nor should the SBC. But in the meantime, I would be outside of scripture to not be a good steward to the world which God created in Genesis. To do otherwise would be sinful, careless, and reckless. My treatment is part of the legacy I leave to my children and future generations. I feel you probably agree with that.

Those best practices come in a feasible way between each person and God. From what I read about and my personal experience with "alternative fuels" are things that you feel are helping you be a good steward and more useful of the environment. The church has to weigh it out to assure in doing so it will be a good steward of all its resources. Personally, I would argue that if I saw my personal church want to invest in these strategies I would object, for myself and express why I don't go along with these initiatives.... yet! (off subject but relevant to acknowledge that there is debate as to the true savings realized by alternative energies/fuels. I believe we are getting there by at least thinking outside the box, finally, but we aren't ready to declare any winners yet.)

If the SBC up to this point had been advocating, "Take Mother Earth for all she is worth!" -or- once like it did with slavery, once taking an incorrect stand, than yes, correcting that policy would be a justice issue.

Personally, if I was attending a church that was not advocating teachings on "TIME, TALENT, and RELATIONSHIP stewardship." I would find another house of worship and let the previous church leadership no why you were leaving.

The Canada's said...

Wind- Large scale application is Expensive, it works, pays for itself in about 20-30 years. Also gets resistance for appearance and the "not in my backyard" mentality takes over, like all those Democrats that fought the Wind farm in Martha's Vineyard. Small scale, I would like to have a barn that is totally powered by an appropriately sized wind generator.

Geothermal- Affordable with new build, not affordable to retrofit (my next home will have it!)

Ethanol- It is cost neutral at best, thus the overhead in building these plants is wasteful.

Diesel Fuel (biodiesel) additives (and tried to be applied to jet fuel)- lowers the CFC and other pollutant output... However the trucks lost 30% of their fuel economy, as did the jets. In many of the pollutants in the end it was worse.

I had friends making fuel out of French Fry oil in CO for almost 50cents a gallon with very little overhead, but that is not the case now with the supply of used oil and increased demand, it is expensive.

Recycling- The communist state of MI makes us recycle for their benefit. 10cent deposit paid when purchased, redeemed when recycles. Versus you recycle the aluminum and get the proceeds since you own the can. In MI, you own the contents, the State owns the container. There is as much if not more polluting/non-compliance here than states that do not require deposits.

When I get the opportunity to build a home, it will be concrete not wood. Energy efficient, 70% less wood and only 10% more cost!!
and the list goes on and there is so much more out there (Natural gas, propane, hybrid, pure electric, and on and on and on)

But this is what I love about capitalism! Oh there is such a market for new technology. It will make some person/business a hero and wealthy.

BryanY. said...

Scott:
1. We should absolutely not worship at the altar of creation. But, let us not be so afraid of being seen "worshiping the creation" that we end up at the altar of hedonism, consumerism, convenience, greed, etc.

2. Also, let us not be so careless with our temporal home that we forget about taking care of the little things, as Our Lord told us in the parable of the talents.


The Canada's:
1. Let me reiterate from my first comment: I am not a convert to the global warming movement. I am not an apologist for it. For reasons I stated in that comment, I support some of the things that movement supports.

2. I think we are in agreement of an individual's role in stewardship of the environment. We are all individually responsible for the truth that has been revealed to us through scripture, and that includes stewardship of God's creation.

3. I believe it is the church's responsibility of the pulpit to remind its followers of a truth when they forget that truth.

4. I do believe that the church should be involved in social change, but certainly not at the whim of the mainstream media. For the reasons I indicated in my previous comment, I believe the environment to be a social justice issue.

5. There are three ways to know what is important to a person or organization. What they say is important, what they spend their time on, and what they spend their money on. From the budgets from multiple churches I've seen over the last several years, the most important thing is constructing buildings.

6. I agree with you... government is rarely the answer to any problem.

7. I believe in the capacity of the free market to solve problems when the market REALLY is free AND when consumers take the time and effort to make informed decisions that include long term savings and consequences. Sadly some industries enlist the government to stifle the free market and we all lose.

There, now maybe you know me a little better.

Bryan

The Canada's said...

Bryany,

Thanks for the exchange. I feel we probably agree on more than we disagree. As you can tell, I am sick of the media. It is already shaping the news, shaping politics, and I don't want to see it shaping pulpits.

I guess we have no choice but to agree to disagree about whether this all is a justice issue, LOL!

Respectfully, Jason