;)
The Greening of the SBC (Part I)
Posted by Geoff Baggett in Uncategorized
When I finished writing this post, I realized that it was more like a novella than a blog post. So, I’ve divided it into two parts (as best I could). Sorry for the long-windedness, but I found a little passion as I was writing. – Geoff
• • •
You won’t find a more fervent environmentalist than me. And for good reason. You might say that I live a bit closer to our environment than most city folk I know.
I live on a beautiful Kentucky hillside. I can only see five distant houses from my little “ranch.” My sprawling 2 ½ acre “spread” also has a pond that is fully equipped with unreasonably large catfish. In my five years in this home I have discovered that I share a piece of land with a den of foxes, a covey of quail, one gangly bobcat, two mating doves, a veritable herd of opossums, a couple of raccoons, and the occasional skunk. One of my true joys is to watch the songbirds who feast at my bird feeder outside my living room window. (The little chirpers are eating me out of house and home … around 10 pounds a week now!)
And I enjoy many other environmental pursuits. I enjoy hiking the fields and creeks near my home. I am an avid (some say rabid) fisherman. And I try to do my part to help maintain the Kentucky whitetail deer population at a manageable level. 
Yes, I love my Lord’s creation. I adore His workmanship. And I do my best to preserve it. I do not pollute the land. I dispose of all waste in a responsible manner. I take very seriously the responsibility of stewardship that God bestowed upon man when he told Adam to, “… fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” (Gen. 1:28)
But I also understand that I am merely God’s steward. He is the Creator. I am merely part of His creation. I do not hold the power or the “keys” of global destruction in my mortal, fallible hands. To assume that I could hold such incredible power would be nothing short of prideful and presumptuous folly. Oh, we can make some messes … to be sure. Love Canal, Chernobyl, and the Exxon Valdez come to mind. But in each of those cases God’s creation has done a magnificent job of righting itself. And we can be assured that even if we unleashed a wave of nuclear destruction upon this planet, it would, in time, bounce back.
Which is why I am so greatly concerned that a group of Southern Baptist leaders seems to have tacitly embraced the notion that this planet … which God created and faithfully sustains … is now in mortal danger from man-made global warming (Sorry … “climate change” … I’m still not up to speed on my PC code-speak.) by adding their names as signatories to the recent “Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change,” published by something called the, “Southern Baptist Climate and Environment Initiative.”
With regard to global warming (sorry … “climate change”), the declaration’s authors state:
“There is general agreement among those engaged with this issue in the scientific community.”
To this I must simply say, “So what?” And you can quote me on that. I am reasonably sure that if you were to poll this same group of scientists that stands in “agreement” on the issue of climate change, you will also find that the vast majority will also agree that there is no Creator God and that we are all the products of Darwinian evolution … among other things. Should we embrace those ideas, as well, in light of the overwhelming scientific “consensus.”
The embracing of a notion or idea simply because there is group consensus is the predictable folly of humanistic, postmodern thought. Indeed, anymore it seems that it doesn’t matter if we’re wrong … as long as we’re wrong together … in community with one another.
And then there are these disturbing (to me) quotes …
“We have recently engaged in study, reflection and prayer related to the challenges presented by environmental and climate change issues. … But now we have seen and heard enough to be persuaded that these issues are among the current era’s challenges that require a unified moral voice.”
“Humans must be proactive and take responsibility for our contributions to climate change…”
Whoa, fellas! Not all of us are so easily convinced. And the issue is far from settled. Indeed, in recent days one group of over 400 scientists have spoken in unity against the notion of global warming. Of course, we could argue all day and all night about the reality of global warming (sorry … climate change). I have my own opinion. Let’s just say that if the planet is warming (a notion which remains arguable), I tend to look at the huge, molten ball of flaming gas about 93 million miles away as the root cause … rather than my lawn mower or the incandescent bulb in my bathroom. But I’m sure each reader has his/her own opinion with regard to the issue.
Ultimately, we must ask this question … “Is the combating of global warming (sorry … climate change) a real priority in the church’s mission … in the “Great Commission?”
I just don’t think so…
And I suppose my biggest issue with this “Declaration” is centered upon its purpose. Why make such a statement? Why a “declaration,” of all things? Why signatures? Why “signatories?” Why such a big deal? Why did it get released to every major national news outlet? Why the sudden effort to make the SBC look hip and “green?”
But I guess I’ll have to talk about that tomorrow. I’ve probably stirred up enough grief already.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Need proof of global warming? Just visit this link:
http://kuyakevin.blogspot.com/2007/03/need-laugh-positive-proof-of-global.html
Dear Geoff
I read your post with a degree of sadness today. Not so much because I disagree (which you can understand I do – but like you I also don’t think my opinion is really the point as its an issue which I like you have little ability to interpret the technical date and actually determine the facts), and not so much because you perhaps unwisely take snide side-swipes at people whose opinions differ from yours (the PC and humanist jibes).
I am mostly disappointed because I think you have asked completely the wrong question. The real question is not why has a new alignment of Southern Baptists arisen with a different perspective, but rather why on earth Southern Baptists have previously been willing to align themselves on a position on global warming that is almost exclusively the purview of one section of America’s partisan political environment, and further to make of themselves to the world an offence when the only offence we are to offer is the cross itself.
You may well criticise these other Southern Baptists, but perhaps like your current SBC President they are aware that the SBC is often known (and I am sure that it is not be fair that it is so!) in un-saved America for being anti-environment, anti-Disney and anti the poor and for being pro-war, pro-gun and pro-torture.
If I were a Sothern Baptist I would definitely want to sign the new declaration – because I agree with it, because signing it would show my agreement openly and allow me to be answerable for my views, and because I would want to undo the political marriage between the SBC and the Republican Party.
Yours
Robert Dando (from the UK)
technical DATA! lol
Kevin … too funny. I think I may link that on Sunday.
Rob,
Welcome back. It’s been a while.
So, we disagree. I can live with that. It’s obvious that we hold vastly different worldviews. But I suppose that’s the product of our respective environments.
I hold a degree in medical, chemical, and biological sciences. And I remain unconvinced that “global warming” is a reality or that if it is a reality, man is the cause. And I am certainly not alone in my understanding and convictions.
As far as the PC and humanist “jibes,” I just don’t see them, my friend. I intentionally worked very hard to avoid “jibes” in my post. Can you deny the influence of political correctness and the talking points of the movement when the very phrase, “global warming,” has now been replaced with the softer, gentler, “climate change?”
I looked for what you may be referring to and found this one statement, “The embracing of a notion or idea simply because there is group consensus is the predictable folly of humanistic, postmodern thought.” I stand by that statement. I believe that these recent notions than man holds holds paramount power over God’s creation must be the product of a thoroughly humanistic indoctrination over the past 50 years or so.
Indeed, I tend to interpret such a declaration as this as a pretty bold “jibe” at people who share my views.
I have not questioned “why” a group of Southern Baptists has arisen with a “new perspective.” That perspective has always been present, I am quite sure.
You said that those of us who hold views that are different from this declaration make ourselves, ” … to the world an offence when the only offence we are to offer is the cross itself.” That makes little sense to me. Are you saying that we should tell people “what they want to hear,” just so they will listen to us? That seems to be a matter of integrity, to me.
With regard to your last two paragraphs … I won’t delve into politics. That’s not my intention here. But your statement that the SBC is known in unsaved America as being, “anti-environment, anti-Disney and anti the poor and for being pro-war, pro-gun and pro-torture,” is proof-positive that you don’t need to believe everything that you’re told. Which goes to my point of believing everything in the media…
I will not sign such a document … a declaration … on a scientific issue that is far from settled. I am openly showing my disagreement and have absolutely no problem answering for my views.
Yes, we disagree. And I thank God that we can do so in an agreeable fashion in this forum.
And, again, I intended no “snideness” toward my brethren. I merely expressed myself with regard to the overall movement.
Geoff,
Nice to hear something from a biblical worldview on this topic for a change.
Les,
I appreciate it. The only problem in this discussion is that, like most debates, everyone tends to think theirs is the biblical point of view.
Geoff,
Perhaps if everyone were as careful a steward of creation as you describe yourself to be in your first paragraphs, then a statement such as these men have offered would be somewhat unnecessary.
It seems, rather, that too many Christians have simply adopted the position of our preferred political candidates/commentators assuming that it must inherently be the “Chrsitian” position on the matter.
I think you’d agree that if Christians adopt or reject a “green” agenda, it needs to be the result of careful theological reflection, and not the result of either blind Republican loyalty on the one hand or disdain for the likes of Al Gore on the other. And I think that’s part of the point of the statement in question.
I think I’m most surprised by your question, “Is combatting global warming a real priority in the church’s mission?” Strictly speaking, of course it isn’t. But from a mission perspective, an initiative such as this appears to have far greater Kingdom implications than a Disney boycott, marriage ammendment petition, rallies in support of judicial appointments, graven images of the ten commandments, or official positions on any of a myriad of other cultural issues to which the convention (and not just a small group of convention pesonalities) has spoken over the years.
Frankly, I’d like to see us out of the culture war business altogether, but as long as we’re in it, I’m grateful that this group of signatories realizes that a Christian response to a particular issue transcends the politics of blue vs. red.
Finally, I’d caution against a fatalistic position as it relates to God’s sovereignty over creation. Yes, He created it and He sustains it. But if all creation suffers as a result of man’s sin (Romans
then it seems as though we who are redeemed have an even greater responsibility to be good stewards.
Stuart,
I appreciate your response. And I quite agree on your point regarding Disney boycotts, et.al. Those are certainly cultural “rabbits” which takes us off of the path of the Great Commission from time to time (though I would argue that the protection of the family unit is one vital cause that does demand our attention). I still maintain that this issue is a definite “wandering” off-course from our missional purpose.
Ultimately, we must ask, “How is a ‘statement’ a real ‘response’ to this issue?”
Yes, creation suffers as a result of man’s sin. But, praise God, He has already made provision for creation’s restoration.
What fatalistic position are you referring to? There is absolutely nothing fatalistic about my view. I believe God is in control. My prospects are rosy!
Like I said in this first post … I am all about good stewardship, and I always have been. But I will not … I cannot … affirm the notion of man-induced global warming. The issue is far from settled, despite any apparent “consensus.” And as I pointed out in two quotes from the declaration (see above), it affirms that, “Humans must be proactive and take responsibility for our contributions to climate change…” I heard the young man leading this effort interviewed on Dr. Mohler’s radio program, and he affirmed his view that global warming is real and caused by man.
I’m just not willing to take that leap. And I’m pretty confident that there are many other Southern Baptists who agree. Not because of “blind Republican loyalty” or “disdain for Al Gore,” but because we like to think for ourselves.
Geoff,
One other thought on the “science” of Global Warming, which may help you understand my own position.
I’m not particularly concerned whether or not 50%+1 of scientists agree with or disagree with the notion of climate change, or if they can prove its causes. For believers to engage the discussion at that level is, from my perspective, to miss the point. If scientists proved once and for all that global warming is nonsense, or indeed real, my Christian duties and responsibilities won’t have changed a lick.
As far as my comments about the way politics have shaped many Christians’ response to this, if they don’t apply to you then good. No need to take offense.
I also didn’t say your post was fatalistic. I cautioned against fatalism, lest any readers of the original post assume God’s sovereignty excuses inaction.
I really don’t think we’re that far off on this. We’re just obvously coming at it from different presuppositions. (Notice I didn’t say different worldviews!)
Stuart,
I think we are agreed that Christians should be the best of all stewards of Creation. I think we are … for the most part.
But I guess I sort of take a “prayer closet” approach to such stewardship and practice. It’s great to have convictions about a myriad of issues … but there’s no need to make public “declarations” of those convictions.
Which adds to the mystery of this particular approach to this divisive issue …
geoff,
good post….very good post. i agree with you 110%. and, i, like you, love the nature that is around me.
kevin, that was funny. good comment.
everyone, this world, according to the bible, will still be around when Jesus comes back, and there will still be people living all over the place.
david
David,
There is tremendous peace within the sovereignty of God.
Geoff,
The jury may still be out regarding climate change, global warming, and any possible human involvement in what many have perceived as changes. One issue that I feel is indisputable biblically is our role to take care of God’s creation (Gen 1:28; 2:15). It is because this is God’s good creation, and even as you stated that you are “God’s steward,” that we have a responsibility given to us by God to take care of His property.
You listed a few ecological disasters caused by human hands, but quite a few more are far more systemic and far more people than Chernobyl and Exxon Valdez. Human hands have caused: the pollution of the air, sea, rivers, lakes, and great aquifers; destruction of rainforests and many other habitats, with terrible effect on dependent biolgical life; deforestation which has deserts to increase and soil loss to be virtually irreplaceable (the Sahara at several kilometers per year); loss of species of animal and plant life effecting essential bio-diversity; etc. You can imagine the economic hardship of the farmer in north-central Africa who only 5 years ago had adequate rain and farmland who now is surrounded by desert and drought. Or the fisherman on the Aral Sea in Kazakhstan, one of the world’s largest freshwater seas, which is now a mere puddle.
God certainly has control of His creation, but I disagree with your statement, “I am merely God’s steward. He is the Creator. I am merely part of His creation. I do not hold the power or the ‘keys’ of global destruction in my mortal, fallible hands. To assume that I could hold such incredible power would be nothing short of prideful and presumptuous folly.” What seems to be behind this statement that as “mere stewards” we don’t need to be rightfully concerned. We may not be able to destroy it totally, but God has given us the ability to wreak some serious havoc on His creation. Taking care of God’s creation is an expression of of our love for Him and our acknowledgement that we don’t own it. He does. Chris Wright states, “In human experience, to love someone means that you care for what belongs to them. Trashing someone else’s property is incompatable with any claim to love that other person” (“The Mission of God,” 414).
Your beautiful Kentucky countryside, fishing pond, and deep population may have yet to be effected, and I pray it never is. But millions of lives around the world have already been and will continue to be effected by the effects of human sin exhibited through selfishness, wastefulness, and total disregard of taking care of God’s creation. The “messes” are a little bigger than the ones you mentioned, and far more people’s lives are affected.
If there is still some debate about “climate change” and human involvement, how about a report card on how well we are taking care of God’s creation? The “Declaration” mentioned above is one feeble attempt to say that we do have a spiritual and moral responsibility to be proactive in taking care of God’s good earth.
In our missionary endeavors we have not hesitated to get involved in the great and urgent issues that affect humanity. That is why we help to battle disease, train people in agriculture, educate people, and battle systems that enslave, brutalize, and exploit people. These are issues of humanity and justice, but they are indelibly tied to our gospel message that sets people free. Why not environmental issues that affect people and harm God’s earth? These don’t sidetrack our gospel message, they are a part of it. We are teaching people to “observe everything” He has commanded, which includes our responsibility to take care of God’s property.
I hate it when I misspell! Paragraph 4 should begin as, “Your beautiful Kentucky countryside, fishing pond, and deer population may have yet to be affected, and I pray it never is. But millions of lives around the world have already been, and will continue to be, affected by the effects of human sin . . .”
There are probably more, but I’m depressed enough by these as it is!
Doc,
Welcome back! It’s been a while …
In my quote that you cited, note that I said “keys to destruction.” I will not argue that man has the ability to wreak havoc on his environment … to pollute and lay waste. I did not and would not claim differently. But I simply do not believe that man has the ability to affect the overall global environment to the point of change and destruction.
I, too, have heard of most all of the instances that you have cited. I find it interesting that they all occur elsewhere on the globe … not in the U.S. … which seems to get “credit” for all of the world’s supposed climate issues.
Again I say, I have absolutely no problem in accepting my spiritual and moral responsibility to be a good steward of creation. But I think this declaration went well beyond accepting that responsibility. If that’s all it was about, I would be pleased to add my name to its cause. But my previously cited sections take it a step or two past the zone of my theological and ideological comfort.
And since the “jury is still out” and will remain so with regard to anthropocentric climate change, I do not believe that this is an issue which must be considered as part of the Gospel message.
In reality, in order to reduce CO2 emissions to the level of reversing the supposed greenhouse effect, we would have to immediately cease all forms of fossil fuel combustion. Immediately. (John Stickley makes some excellent points in a discussion over at Micah Fries’ blog.) Just changing out your light bulbs, while a sweet sentiment, has an infinitely less than negligible effect.
Truly, all creation has fallen under the curse as a result of man’s sin. Far be it from us to somehow “reverse the curse.” The damage is already done. I sincerely believe that the earth and all that inhabits it will be quite intact when Jesus returns.
Meanwhile, I will continue a lifestyle of responsible stewardship. But I need not add my name to a public document which, in every practical sense, does nothing but identify the signatories with a movement that somehow makes an arguable issue into a “done deal.”