All Comments for: Climate Change Is Here to Stay | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > March (Web-only)

Christianity Today, March (Web-only), 2007 |

Climate Change Is Here to Stay

Debate over global warming has only intensified since conservatives targeted Cizik.

Sheryl Henderson Blunt | posted 3/30/2007 10:30AM

The evangelical debate over global warming has only intensified since Focus on the Family chairman James Dobson, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, and 23 other conservative evangelicals ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 27 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

Mike Atkins (South Africa)

Posted: April 07, 2007 1:38 PM

As a Christian, I would prefer to see a little less "verbal warming", and a little more respect. We all agree that we must be good stewards of the earth What we differ over is the most appropriate means to accomplish this. The very first issue is whether and how much the earth is warming - we seem to agree that it is, but maybe not the extent. Logically, the second issue is whether and how much human activity has contributed to this. Serious doubts have been raised, but it is difficult for the layman to know who to believe. How should we spend our resources to address the issue? Of prime importance is the extent to which poorer peoples will be affected. This imposes a duty (of love, not guilt) on the more well-off to care for those affected. Whether the world should spend on reducing carbon emissions or on dealing with the effects depends on the certainty of the link between increased CO2 and warming. Let us put more facts than rhetoric or interests on the table.

Felipe Roman

Posted: April 05, 2007 8:11 AM

I am amazed that this debate is even happening. I know many scientists and Christians do not agree regarding how creation happened in the past, but to question what is happening to nature in the present, namely global warming, and to call that "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people"... wow?!!??! The evidence, consensus and science regarding global warming is much more solid now than ever so to call it a "hoax" is either an incredibly ignorant or irrational comment to make... especially since its an international issue, not just an "American" issue. As a Christian I think we should not lose focus that our Christ calls us to love our neighbor and if the risks to our poorest and least-able-to-cope-with-them global neighbors are potentially great, why wouldn't we jump in and do something about it??? At the very least, look into it more if we're so suspicious. I hope the real reason for not acting is not that we are asking "who is our neighbor?" in our hearts.

Josh	Posted: April 04, 2007 10:17 PM


Wow, calm down, we can barely predict what the weather will be tomorrow yet we now call Climate Change Fact? Thats the same as saying so many people believe in evolution that it must be true... sigh Many Thanks to the mass media for this pleasant mess...

Douglas Brown

Posted: April 04, 2007 10:05 AM

Unfortunately what many people fail to realize is that Global Warming at its root really is a moral issue. Why do we continue to live a lifestyle of excess and consumerism without considering the consequences? Let's not get stuck on the 'Global Warming' moniker. Our entire society - at least western society is all about me and what I own, not about caring about our environment or our neighbour or people less 'fortunate' than us. Until the balance tips in favor of those who do care, our future is on a rapid descent. Do you really think God cares more about those 'moral' issues than his Earth? Without the Earth providing for us, those moral issues are a moot point.

Paul Iverson

Posted: April 02, 2007 1:43 PM


The dress down was appropriate and was deserved. When you purport to represent an organization you should not make statements about the organizations policies, without approval of the body you represent. This shows disrespect for others.

Jim Berkley

Posted: April 02, 2007 12:19 PM

Leith Anderson is an honorable man and fine leader, so I hesitate to call into question what he said. However, he must have forgotten the very stark and to-the-point instruction to Cizik by the NAE executive committee to ""stand by and not exceed in any fashion our approved and adopted statements concerning the environment." This statement, if I remember correctly, happened within the last year. It was a rather public dressing down of Rich Cizik, and ought to have put him in his place and toned down his drum beating. But Cizik has continued his advocacy work unabated, leading people to believe that evangelicals associated with the NAE are uniformly in his camp, which they are not. I would think that THIS reprimand is exactly what Senator Inhofe was referring to, and thus I am surprised that Anderson seems not to remember it.

dabigdoodah

Posted: April 02, 2007 10:56 AM

It seems clear that the only social action that people like Dobson want to deal with is with abortion and homosexuals. They don't seem to care about what what Jesus said about taking care of the poor, the orphans, the homeless or countless other issues that Jesus wanted to do. They only seem to be concerned about the ultra conservative Republicans who, they believe, will bring to the country what they themselves want done. I could go on and on about this line of thought, but there is neither the time or the space to do it here!

Matt Copeland

Posted: April 01, 2007 2:00 PM

James Dobson is an idiot. We should be caring for the world because God commands us to be good stewards of his creation. Dobson and Focus on the Family are not family friendly; his parenting books about hitting children should show everybody the type of person Dobson really is; a control freak who would risk the health of God's earth by telling us not to be good stewards; a control freak who recommends hitting children with belts and paddles, even though such treatment has been proven to cause distortions in a child's sexuality (where children fantasize sexually about spanking, because they have been struck on a erogenous zone), and has been likned to longterm increased depression, anxiety, and poor distrusting relationships between parents and children. Dobson is a behaviorist in Christian clothing; his news is not good news. What he supports both in child-rearing and the environment is harmful and appaling. I for one will not purchase any books or resources from Focus On the Family.

Gill Duffee

Posted: March 31, 2007 9:59 PM

It was news to me that environmentalism was a religious belief whose purpose is the destruction of Christian Civilization. Here all along I thought environmentalism equated with good stewardship of God's Creation. And to think that thousands of years of ice strata in the Antarctic and in Greenland and their associated data concerning CO2 levels are nothing but a hoax. The warmest years ever recorded since humans began taking measurements have occurred in the past two decades, along with record seasons of hurricanes and coastal flooding, all nothing but a hoax! Certainly, the human race could never be guilty of such gross perversion of the natural order and such blatant disregard for ecology (don't tell me that's a pagan religion, too?), contempt for the conservation of natural resources, and criminal negligence of public health. But wait, isn't this the same human race that spurned the created order inherent in a relationship with God, that killed the Son of God?

Gord Welch

Posted: March 31, 2007 9:55 PM

We are clearly poisoning our land, our water, our air, the animals we eat - that that means we are poisoning ourselves. I'm quite sure the Creator of the universe did not intend for us to poison each other. But more than that, the Earth is the Lord's (Psalm 24), not ours; we are simply stewards... I believe Jesus had something to say about stewards who mismanage resources (Matthew 25). Perhaps the discussion needs to be theocentric, rather than anthropocentric?

Craig B

Posted: March 31, 2007 9:41 PM


It's depressing to see that evangelicals are still just sucking down whatever the Republican party feeds them. For people so skilled in centering their beliefs on the text of the Bible, it would be nice if they would center their scientific opinions on the scientific literature.

shocked

Posted: March 31, 2007 7:22 PM

wow. I'm with Mr. Sweeten. Are the only vocal Christians the ones with narrow minds and a goal to hurt others with their words? For example, Doug Parris is accusing many a devout Christian of being either stupid or else serving a false god. Meanwhile, Flamethrower is using an article about global warming as a platform to spread anti-Islamic sentiment, and Bette's on a crusade against anyone whom she deems to be a "Leftie." I appreciate the even-handed comments of Dr. Wenz, Mr. Beisner, and Stephen Leonard, who (even if they disagree with Cizik) choose to recognize the issue as more complex than labeling it an "anti-Christian" leftist conspiracy. I've spent years of my life reaching out to non-believers who think Christians are hateful, close-minded psychopaths, and just when I think I have my case complete, people like Doug and the pseudonymous "flamethrower" (I know I'm guilty of pseudonymity too) show up and ruin it. Thanks a bunch...

Flamethrower

Posted: March 31, 2007 4:41 PM

There was an ice age on this planet many moons ago. There was no industry back then. The ice melted and went away on his own. If there is global warming it has nothing to do with with capitalism, business or industry. Doug Parris is right and Cizik is just one of the many apostates foretold in the bible. Keep the faith Doug, God is not going to destroy the USA he is going to use the USA to fight islam. Liberals and liberal christians are pathetic people. Best thing you can do is feel sorry for them and avoid them. The return of Christ is in our life time and he will deal with the haters of Israel. Put "Psalm 83 islam" into google or antichrist islam or beast islam and see what you find.

John Smith

Posted: March 31, 2007 3:19 PM

I can't bring myself to believe that Mr. Parris and Ms. Filley can mean what they're saying. First of all, environmental concerns existed well before 1972. Second, concern for the environment need not be pagan in nature. Third, there is no conspiracy/movement of anti-Christians out to destroy Christianity. Grow up. Fourth, *Western* culture does not equal Christian Civilization...it's called the Eastern Orthodox Church: read about it. Fifth, the "stupid" headline of this article refers to the debate within the NAE heating up...it's a pun (again, grow up). Finally, the logic that God has the climate under his perfect control (and thus we need not worry) can very well apply to your supposed "job" of winning souls. It's complete inconsistency. Either we should care about God's whole creation (souls, climate and all) or we should just (and I'm quoting you) "leave it in His perfect control" and do nothing. The right answer, of course, is the former...Scripture gives clear mandates for both.

Tony Moreau

Posted: March 31, 2007 8:51 AM

Can someone explain what the theological basis is behind denying that humans are behind global warming? It seems logical that a fallen world + a fallen people =global warming. It also seems that Chrisitans would be the first to get out in front of doing everything possible to be good stewards of the earth. Instead I believe all to often we, American Christians, are more concerned about our prosperity and reaping from the bounty of the earth without thought to being good stewards. Since when do we have to agree with every aspect of someones politics to recognize the truth? If "Big Business" came out and stated that global warming was an economic problem, conservatives would jump on the band wagon and Evangelical Christians would follow!

Doug Parris

Posted: March 31, 2007 3:51 AM

Mrs. Filley is quite correct. In 1972, with the Viet Nam war winding down as a recruiting tool, the American Communist movement mixed junk science, paganism and, of course, radical statism to create Environmentalism, the religious belief whose end goal is the destruction of Western culture (read: "Christian Civilization"). Human-induced Global Warming is one of a whole series of hoaxes invented in service to this anti-Christian cult. No servant of the living God, with adequate intellectual capacity could possibly fall for it. The Church must become deeply political if freedom is to survive. And it must eject frauds like Cizik from any leadership role, now or in the future.

Stephen Leonard

Posted: March 30, 2007 7:08 PM

I too am a good friend and former colleague in NAE with Rich Cizik. I have no reason to doubt his Christian character. He is a good thinker and committed to the authority of Scripture. We as Christians, and especially evangelical Christians, need to be careful not to be drawn into the circus the media likes to create by the way they do journalism or "news." Anyone who has listened to "news" correspondents ask questions would have a good idea of their intellectual prowess. (Not!)What we so much need in our present "climate" is reasonable discussion and thoughtful dialogue. Name calling and the typical ranting and raving we hear from Al Gore and company will never produce wisdom in this or any other matter. I am not a scientest, but I am certain of this, and so should anyone who has any wisdom and mature observation; the science on global warming is not in, at least to the point where anyone can speak with absolute certainty. We need some calm, deliberative discussion minus the politics.

Patrick Gann

Posted: March 30, 2007 5:31 PM

I'm glad to see all the coverage on this issue at CT lately...Though this isn't the first time that CT has manipulated Inhofe's quote (Al Gore's own documentary includes Inhofe's opening clause, "if Global Warming is not true, then it could be..."). Yet, I too am disturbed by the NAE letter. I may be wrong on this, but I would think that the NAE doesn't exist just to reflect the concensus of American Evangelicals, but also to bring to light issues that ought to be important to them. Cizik and his like-minded colleagues do all Christians a service by drawing us out of familiarity and helping us face new problems with the insight of one who follows our Lord. Furthermore, I am greatly distressed by this quote: "It (the NAE) needs to decide if it is going to follow the gospel of Jesus Christ or political activism." If concern for Global Warming is political activism, so too with abortion. If concern for abortion is a part of following the Gospel, then concern for Global Warming is as well.

DocRoc

Posted: March 30, 2007 4:35 PM

"The NEA is at a crossroads . . . It needs to decide if it's going to follows the gospel of Jesus Christ or political activism." It's too bad any area of social responsibility that we Evangelicals don't want to involve ourselves with we liable with terms like "political activism." Jesus not only taught from creation, he also taught stewardship of all things given by God the Father which includes creation. In other words, creation stewardship is part of the Gospel first and "political activism" second. What the Dobsonites don't realize is that their treatment of Cizik is "political activism" (though negative) and not in character with the Gospel, the very thing they accuse Cizik of doing. Perhaps another way to look at this situation is to ask why one would not be concerned about Global Warming. Could it be because of greed? Could it be selfishness? Could it be pride? Neither greed, selfishness or pride are part of the Gospel, while responsibility and stewardship are.

Pete Vander Hook

Posted: March 30, 2007 4:34 PM

It amazes me how little common sense people seem to have and how easily we swallow a theory that "Global Warming" is happening. Back in the 70's we were told that the "Ice Age" was around the corner. Remember the Y2K extravaganza? In reality even if "Global Warming" is a reality, how can what is being prescribed eliminate or stop it? Surely, we need to promote clean air, stop polution, and take care of our environment but it is hard to believe that by doing this it will stop "Global Warming." If Gore has such a great concern then why isn't he practicing what he preaches? During the tribulation "global warming" will take place when the fourth bowl of God's wrath will be poured out on "the sun and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. They will be seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify Him." Ultimately, this is God's call for us to repent and glorify Him in how we live!

Dr Bob Wenz

Posted: March 30, 2007 4:26 PM

What I find most disturbing in the criticusm of my friend and former colleague Rich Cizik is that assertion that he is "using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time." To make this assertion is to judge Rich's motives and and to suggest that anyone cares about creation only does so to shift the focus from the only two issues that seem to matter to some Christians -- abortion and homosexuality. Who would suggest that Christian are not capable of caring for several issues at the same time. Can we not love more than two children as parents? And, what, we might ask, are the motives of those evangelicals who would insist that others care only about their two hot buttons. At times the evangelical obcession with abortion and homosexuality -- no matter how important those issues are -- keeps us from seeing other issues that are VERY important to God -- like caring for the poor. Thanks Rich. Lead on.

E. Calvin Beisner

Posted: March 30, 2007 3:29 PM

Richard Land is to be commended for his measured comments on this. It is unfortunate that the Dobson et al. letter was released to the press before going to NAE's leadership. I share Land's concerns over what appears to be Rich Cizik's transgressing boundaries set for him and all NAE staff by the executive committee and announced in a letter January 25, 2006. My efforts to obtain documentation of any official action rescinding those boundaries or endorsing Cizik's involving the NAE in launching a collaboration of scientists and evangelicals and issuing an "Urgent Call to Action" January 17 have turned up nothing. Until the NAE makes clear when, how, and what it authorized Cizik to do, it is impossible to know when he speaks authentically for the NAE and when he doesn't. That, sad to say, undermines the credibility of NAE's public witness, which has been tremendously important for many years. For the health of the nation, NAE needs to clear the record soon.

Mike Craig, PG

Posted: March 30, 2007 2:56 PM

"Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time," This statement is greatly disturbing to me as a Christian, inhabitant of this planet, and a scientist albeit I suppose many will consider me one of those "wacko, leftist, scientists." A basic theological maxim all evangelicals seem to agree on is the sanctity of life. By extension this includes the right to survive. Climatic warming (as I prefer to call global warming), if it has not already, will affect the life of every person and living thing on this planet, potentially making survival more difficult or impossible. Please tell me any other "moral" issue that has such far reaching effects. This lack of perception of the seriousness of the issue would lead to a mentality of an ostrich's putting its head in the ground if it were not for people like Cizik. God has given us the knowledge to make choices concerning care of His planet. May we choose wisel

Gary Sweeten

Posted: March 30, 2007 1:49 PM

Yikes! Have we gotten so polarized on every side we can't even discuss an issue like the climate without yelling and screaming? Why are Evngelicals writing letters of accusation and condemnation without first sitting down with the accused as Jesus told us in Mt 18:15? Is every position supposed to be screamed at the top of our lungs and every person with whom we seem to disagree made to look like a pagan?

David Christchurch

Posted: March 30, 2007 1:30 PM

The Resurrection was declared on Mars Hill by Paul; some scoffed, some said they needed to look further into the matter, and some did look and believed. Similar responses are occurring over what it means to follow Jesus today. Some scoff and call people, "Lefties". Some scoff and call people "Right Wing". The huge challenge to follow Jesus is not an either/or response, but a total, global response. Greed and selfishness and the wilful ignoring and abusing of God's patterns of self-care for the planet need to be repented of every bit as much as sexual wrongs and selfishness and abuse (especially by males) in family situations and other social issues. So Christ had to die for our sins and reconcile us to God on all these accounts. It is a huge relief to see leadership among Evangelical Christians taking sin seriously and with a sense of urgency, recognizing its impact on our families and on our world, and especially its roots in our heart attitudes. God is answering our prayer.

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment