What Cizik's Resignation Means for Creation Care
In response to the NPR interview, President of Family Research Council Tony Perkins wrote on a blog that the lesson is to beware of environmentalism. "This is the risk of walking through the green door of environmentalism and global warming — you risk being blinded by the green light and losing your sense of direction."
Perkins and several other evangelicals called for Cizik's resignation in early 2007 because of his "relentless campaign" on global warming.
Charles Colson, who did not sign the letter calling for Cizik's resignation, said evangelicals saw Cizik as polarizing. "Evangelicals need to be more environmentally conscious, but I think it was the way it was politicized, almost done to the exclusion of other issues," Colson said.
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), said he doesn't think environmental advocacy will disappear as an issue for evangelicals, but there will be more emphasis on stewardship and less on human-induced global warming. The ERLC launched a campaign in May called We Get It! The group affirmed a need to care for the environment but a took a more cautious approach toward stating that global warming as a man-made problem.
"Rich was the media's ideal of what they hoped all evangelicals would be, but he wasn't. Evangelicals have been concerned for the environment for a long time." Land said. He notes as evidence Francis Schaeffer's 1970 book, Pollution and the Death of Man. "Hopefully, we'll see a little more Francis Schaeffer and a little less Al Gore," Land said.
Bradford Plumer, who blogs on the environment for The New Republic, wondered whether Cizik's resignation would hurt the environmental movement overall.
"Whenever I ask climate campaigners for indications that global warming might be becoming a bipartisan concern, they quickly point to the growing prevalence of faith-based groups," he wrote. "But green evangelicals have long followed an uneven trajectory, as Cizik's resignation proves, and I think it's still too early to assess their broader significance."
Time magazine named Cizik one of the world's 100 most influential people earlier this year because of his collaboration on advocacy for the environment with Eric Chivian, co-leader of the "Scientist-Evangelical" project at Harvard University's Center for Health and the Global Environment.
"Evangelicals and scientists have been identified at being at each other's throats on stem cell research and evolution for a long time." Chivian said. "We've barely spoken with each other since the Scopes trial. … [Scientists are] not terribly good at communicating what concerns us, and we see evangelicals as being terrific communicators at the things that concern them."
The new rapprochement "wouldn't have happened without Richard's efforts," Chivian said. "I think it's led to mutual respect, not just scientists for evangelicals, but evangelicals for latte-sipping, New York Times-reading scientists."
Anderson said the NAE will wait until 2009 to begin a search process for Cizik's replacement.
Copyright © 2008 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
Related Elsewhere:
Christianity Today posted a copy of the letter from more than 50 evangelicals to the NAE President Leith Anderson today.
CT also posted a news story on its main site, an interview with Leith Anderson, president of the NAE, and relevant portions of the National Public Radio interview that started it all.
The 'Handicap Icon' Gets New Life
Sidelining the Stigma of Mental Illness
Not part of the community? Subscribe now, or register for a free account.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Join the Conversation
Displaying 1–5 of 28 comments
See all comments
JohnS
To me the question about global climate change is purely a factual one, is our carbon output contributing or not? If it is, we owe a moral duty to the God created Earth and future generations to do something about it. If it is not, at the very least cutting fossil fuel use (particularly imported oil) in favor of cleaner and/or renewable energy makes sense from an economic and strategic point of view. The SHAME in this is Cizik resigned not over that, but that he dared to have an open mind on gay civil unions. Maybe he's wrong, but that the NAE can't even allow for discussion of dissenting points of view is truly disturbing. This is not abortion where arguably babies die, it's givng gay couples the same legal rights as straight couples, and while there are arguments against it, at least it's arguable. I seem to recall a certain Jewish carpenter who got in a lot of trouble with the orthodoxy of his day for thinking outside the box as well...
Bob
Even if there is no concrete evidence that global warming is created by burning fossil fuels [ergo: man made], can anyone argue that we should burn even increasing amounts without concern? Certainly no one could argue that burning fossil fuels is a good thing and should be encouraged. In light of that, care for the creation mandates that we do what we can to maintain the planets well being and trust God to take care of factors beyond our control.
Howard Pepper
There is no benefit to people polarizing on the question of whether or not global warming or "climate change" is man-made. Certainly we know that temperatures and climate patterns have fluctuated a lot over times past, when humans were either not present or only in small numbers, having little environmental impact. What that may or may not say about today's situation is a separate issue. So in terms of Cizik's "green" advocacy, is it not biblical as well as prudent for Christians to advocate that we put high priority on creating as little pollution as possible? And doesn't that hold regardless of who is right on extra CO2 in the atmosphere? I can't see that the issue is either protecting the economy OR creating energy more cleanly and renewably.... Wouldn't a "green revolution" have at least as much benefit for the economy as the ineffective moves made so far? And in the process, be a conservative move -- conserving all we can of non-renewable or slowly renewing resources?
Kaisen
"Creation Care" Thank you kindly to you servants with feet of clay. Is that the dumb cluck phrase you have coined to empathize the seeker sensitive pew warmers just like "Global Warming" is supposed to invoke the secular dumb clucks into lock step? Please work on a new phrase, the cat is out of the bag and "Creation Care" will now be the clue that the harlot of Babylon is propagandizing towards the low hanging fruit that doesn't understand the use of language. Has anyone ever heard of Jesus? Or is the presupposition about environment more important?
jacarch
Evangelicals do not build upon global warming as the principle for appropriate stewardship of the physical environment. We do build upon our identity as humans created in God's image and given the responsibilty of caring for this planet. We do not need political agendas to obey and honor our God. in the long run, we lose credibility and truth in our actions by following the currently correct political agenda. We do seek to protect, improve and enjoy the natural gifts God has given us.