Connecting 'Creation Care' and Economics

Wednesday, July 18, 2007
In a recent CT column, David P. Gushee, Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy at Union University, writes, “I am becoming convinced that creation care and what we evangelicals usually call ”stewardship“ are basically the same thing.” That’s precisely why Acton prefers the term “environmental stewardship” to “creation care.”

But this connection between stewardship and care for the environment means something else too. Gushee concludes that “economic and environmental stewardship go together, hand in glove. Perhaps this rediscovery will motivate us to preserve the health of our planet.”

I’ve made that argument here, “Stewardship and Economics: Two Sides of the Same Coin,” where I contend, “If we hold a biblical view of economics and stewardship, we will not be tempted to divorce the two concepts but instead will see them as united.”

Gushee may find, however, that as his realization of the connection between responsible stewardship and sound economics really sinks in, the positions of the Evangelical Climate Initiative and the Evangelical Environmental Network are in need of some modifications...such that “when economics tells us that there are much more imminent threats and opportunities than global warming, the proper approach to Christian stewardship is to heed these priorities and work to effect changes in the most pressing areas.”

Related: “Study: Organic Farming More Efficient”
Bookmark Connecting 'Creation Care' and Economics  at del.icio.us Digg Connecting 'Creation Care' and Economics Bloglines Connecting 'Creation Care' and Economics Technorati Connecting 'Creation Care' and Economics Bookmark Connecting 'Creation Care' and Economics  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Connecting 'Creation Care' and Economics  at Furl.net Bookmark Connecting 'Creation Care' and Economics  at reddit.com Bookmark Connecting 'Creation Care' and Economics  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

UAW v. MoveOn.org, CAFE v. Cap-and-Trade

Monday, July 2, 2007
It happened last week. In response to Rep. John Dingell’s decision to hold of off consideration of an energy bill that would include new corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards, instead favoring directly targeting greenhouse gas emissions: “That brought a warm response from MoveOn.org, the liberal group that picketed Dingell’s office Wednesday over his stance on global warming and fuel economy standards. At Dingell’s Ypsilanti office, about half a dozen MoveOn supporters received an unexpected welcome from roughly 60 UAW members, including President Ron Gettelfinger, who rallied to support Dingell.”

That’s how the Free Press article concludes, but today’s Ann Arbor News has a longer piece devoted to the dynamics of the dispute between MoveOn.org and the UAW, “MoveOn, UAW face off on CAFE.” MoveOn.org protesters were picketing Dingell’s office, but then were swamped by many more UAW supporters of Dingell.

There’s some commentary over at Planet Gore about the targeting of Dingell by MoveOn, but it doesn’t pick up on the UAW presence.

David Roberts over at Grist thinks the MoveOn.org attack on Dingell is premature: “I don’t think people quite appreciate what Dingell’s done here. He’s the first member of Congress with any power or seniority to even mention a carbon tax, much less endorse it.”

The Evangelical Climate Initiative has called for the federal government “to pass and implement national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through cost-effective, market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade program.”

I question the prudence of making such specific policy recommendations a matter of a lobbying platform, especially when speaking for the church. What if it turns out that cap-and-trade measures aren’t all that effective? Do you need then to revise your “call to action”?

Update: The WSJ editorializes on this topic today.
Bookmark UAW v. MoveOn.org, CAFE v. Cap-and-Trade  at del.icio.us Digg UAW v. MoveOn.org, CAFE v. Cap-and-Trade Bloglines UAW v. MoveOn.org, CAFE v. Cap-and-Trade Technorati UAW v. MoveOn.org, CAFE v. Cap-and-Trade Bookmark UAW v. MoveOn.org, CAFE v. Cap-and-Trade  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark UAW v. MoveOn.org, CAFE v. Cap-and-Trade  at Furl.net Bookmark UAW v. MoveOn.org, CAFE v. Cap-and-Trade  at reddit.com Bookmark UAW v. MoveOn.org, CAFE v. Cap-and-Trade  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Evangelical Environmentalism’s Moral Imperative

Wednesday, March 14, 2007
In this week’s Acton Commentary, I examine recent events surrounding the conflict amongst evangelicals over global warming political activism. In “Evangelical Environmentalism’s Moral Imperative,” I compare the shape of the argument to the debate over the last decade on the topic of poverty.

In the same way that conservatives were accused of not caring for the poor because they opposed an expansive welfare state, critics of climate change politics are being portrayed as not caring for the environment. To the extent that conservative critiques have not made it a point to sharply distinguish between global warming and the broader moral mandate to steward the earth, they deserve blame for this state of affairs.

This fault is exemplified well in the recent letter from James Dobson and others to the National Association of Evangelicals questioning the activities of Rev. Richard Cizik, who is actively promoting federal policy on climate change. The Dobson letter (PDF) challenges global warming but only notes pro-life issues, marriage, and sexuality as “the great moral issues of our time.” While the letter doesn’t explicitly exclude stewardship of the environment as a “great moral issue,” its omission from this list can easily give the impression that the letter’s signatories don’t find environmental stewardship to be a compelling moral imperative.

But it also falls to the responsibility of evangelicals who favor government action to combat climate change to acknowledge “the commitment of their opponents to ‘care’ of the creation, even amidst the sometimes pointed disagreements over the means and institutions responsible for that care.”

Read the entire commentary here.

I also recommend Andy Crouch’s recent review in Books & Culture of Roger Gottlieb’s A Greener Faith: Religious Environmentalism and Our Planet’s Future, in which Crouch writes that Gottlieb’s book “could not be more calculated to inflame the suspicions of the politically and theologically conservative.” Crouch also outlines some of the recent activities and perspectives of groups like the Evangelical Climate Initiative.

Update: Bob Francis of Sojourners/Call to Renewal, reacting to reader comments, acknowledges that “whether the issue is poverty or the environment, well-meaning Christians differ on solutions.”

Kathryn Joyce at The Revealer writes about “the real point of contention between Dobson, Bauer and Perkins on the one hand, and Cizik, on the other. Not so much that Cizik is drawing energy and outrage to global warming and away from gay marriage and abortion, but that, in the mind of many conservative Christians, choosing between pro-life or environmental activism must be a zero-sum game.”
Bookmark Evangelical Environmentalism’s Moral Imperative  at del.icio.us Digg Evangelical Environmentalism’s Moral Imperative Bloglines Evangelical Environmentalism’s Moral Imperative Technorati Evangelical Environmentalism’s Moral Imperative Bookmark Evangelical Environmentalism’s Moral Imperative  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Evangelical Environmentalism’s Moral Imperative  at Furl.net Bookmark Evangelical Environmentalism’s Moral Imperative  at reddit.com Bookmark Evangelical Environmentalism’s Moral Imperative  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

The Good Kind of Skepticism

Thursday, November 16, 2006

[UPDATE: Goldberg at the Corner invokes a variation on the skepticism theme: “Anti-clericalism was certainly partly driven from the suspicion that priests and other clergy were preaching their versions of the gospel simply to empower themselves. I’ve long argued that one of the reasons Washington-based reporters are liberal, or statist, is that if the subject they cover is considered hugely important, then they in turn will be considered hugely important.” A reader responds with Cui bono.]

University of Colorado’s R. Pielke Jr. (hat tip)

If climate scientists ever wonder why they are looked upon with suspicion among some people in society, they need look no further in their willingness to compromise their own intellectual standards in policy debate on the issue of disasters and climate change.

What he’s saying is that the scientific method involves both establishing an hypothesis, and making a diligent effort towards disproving that hypothesis to see whether one’s original assumptions still hold up.

I’m not sure many of the outstpoken global warming moralists in evangelical circles today get this. That’s because people of faith don’t normally operate like this.

Other than notables like McDowell who found Christ while trying to disprove him, Christians are geared from children’s church onward to absorb and apply church doctrine based on the concerted studies of biblical authorities, or in the case of Scripture, first-hand witnesses inspired by the Holy Spirit. While we might critically analyze biblical truth as it applies to our lives today, we rarely set ourselves toward disproving the Bible itself as a way to establish it’s veracity.

There is an important distinction, then, between aggressively promoting environmental stewardship as a God-ordained moral ethic (which it is), and aggressively promoting a particular area of human-derived environmental science as a moral ethic (which it is not).

Being salt and light in the world means making this distinction evidently clear to all.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world… — 1 John 4:1

[Don’s other habitat is The Evangelical Ecologist.]

Bookmark The Good Kind of Skepticism  at del.icio.us Digg The Good Kind of Skepticism Bloglines The Good Kind of Skepticism Technorati The Good Kind of Skepticism Bookmark The Good Kind of Skepticism  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark The Good Kind of Skepticism  at Furl.net Bookmark The Good Kind of Skepticism  at reddit.com Bookmark The Good Kind of Skepticism  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Beisner Responds

Saturday, October 21, 2006
In the latest Interfaith Stewardship Alliance newsletter, dated Oct. 21, Cal Beisner passes along his response to the letters sent by Bill Moyers’ legal counsel (background on the matter with related links here).

Here’s what Beisner says as related through his own counsel:
Your letter of October 18, 2006, to Interfaith Stewardship Alliance and your letter of October 19, 2006, to Dr. E. Calvin Beisner have been sent to me by my clients for reply.

I have carefully examined the language in the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance Newsletter dated October 9, 2006, that you contend in your October 18 letter is defamatory of your client, Bill Moyers. My examination of that language in the light of applicable United States Supreme Court opinions and those from other jurisdictions as well as major treatises on defamation forces me to the opinion that the language is not legally capable of a defamatory meaning. I would be pleased to review any authority you have that you believe supports your position.

Dr. Beisner is troubled by the fracturing of the relationship with your client and desires to attempt to restore that relationship outside of the civil courts as Christians are admonished to do in First Corinthians chapter six. He was preparing to do this before he received your first letter, which necessitated his seeking legal counsel. He sincerely believes that he accurately summarized in the newsletter his recollection of a private conversation with your client that was not recorded prior to the interview on camera. He also believes his recollection may have been influenced by a conversation he and your client had on the way to the airport following the interview. Finally, he stands by the opinions expressed that you challenge in your letter.

Accordingly, your demands in your letters are rejected. Should you be able to call to my attention applicable authority in support of your position which is persuasive, then your demands will be reconsidered.

Beisner concludes by saying of Moyers, “While I understood from the conversation that he was a Democrat, I accept his representation that he is an independent.”

In the meantime, Don Bosch has compiled a series of quotes from Moyers which show the political direction of his thinking about evangelicals and climate change. “How wide is the gap between a ‘political agenda’ and expressing a point of view,” wonders Don. With the “circumstantial evidence” in hand, Don writes, “A long stretch to ‘dividing the evangelical vote?’ I’ll let you decide that for yourself.”
Bookmark Beisner Responds  at del.icio.us Digg Beisner Responds Bloglines Beisner Responds Technorati Beisner Responds Bookmark Beisner Responds  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Beisner Responds  at Furl.net Bookmark Beisner Responds  at reddit.com Bookmark Beisner Responds  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

An Evangelical Response to Global Warming

Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Today in Washington:
Christian Newswire -- Amid mounting controversy among evangelical Christians over global warming and climate policy, the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance presented “A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming” at the National Press Club Tuesday morning. The paper is a refutation of the Evangelical Climate Initiative’s “Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action,” released last February, and a call to climate policies that will “better protect the world’s poor and promote their economic development.”

ISA’s 24-page paper has been endorsed by 130 leaders, including 111 evangelical theologians, pastors, climate scientists, environmental and developmental economists, and others, plus non-evangelical experts on climate change. The paper presents scientific, economic, ethical, and theological evidence that mandatory carbon-emissions reductions to mitigate global warming would “not only fail to achieve that end but would also have the unintended consequence of serious harm to the world’s poor, delaying for decades or generations their rise from poverty and its attendant high rates of disease and premature death, and robbing them of the very tools they need to protect themselves from catastrophes.” It argues that foreseeable warming will “probably be moderate, within the range of natural variation, and may on balance be more beneficial than harmful to humankind.”

Read the full news release here. Download ISA’s “A Call to Truth” here.
Bookmark An Evangelical Response to Global Warming  at del.icio.us Digg An Evangelical Response to Global Warming Bloglines An Evangelical Response to Global Warming Technorati An Evangelical Response to Global Warming Bookmark An Evangelical Response to Global Warming  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark An Evangelical Response to Global Warming  at Furl.net Bookmark An Evangelical Response to Global Warming  at reddit.com Bookmark An Evangelical Response to Global Warming  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Transcendence and Obsolescence: The Responsible Stewardship of Oil

Wednesday, July 19, 2006
In this week’s commentary, “Transcendence and Obsolescence: The Responsible Stewardship of Oil,” I ask the question: “Why did God create oil?” I raise the question within the context of debates about global warming and the burning of fossil fuels, including Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth and the work of the Evangelical Climate Initiative.

I argue that nonrenewable resources, especially fossil fuels, “have the created purpose of providing relatively cheap and pervasive sources of energy. These limited and finite resources help raise the standard of living and economic situation of societies to the point where technological research is capable of finding even cheaper, more efficient, renewable, and cleaner sources of energy.” Nuclear power is one source that meets these criteria. The NRO blog Reconcilable Differences passes along this NYT magazine story about the potentially bleak future for nuclear power in America, “Atomic Balm?”

The point about nuclear energy is important because the burning of coal accounts for over half of the domestic use of electricity, and that high-profile campaigns like “What Would Jesus Drive?” paper over this key fact. I wonder “just how many coal-powered SUVs have you seen lately?”

Well, it turns out that there is technology that allows us to turn coal into oil, although it is costly and potentially ineffecient. Even so, the high costs of oil are currently turning this into a more feasible economic possibility. For more on this, see this NYT story, “Mining for Diesel Fuel; The Search for New Oil Sources Leads to Processed Coal” (TimesSelect required).

Read the entire commentary here.
Bookmark Transcendence and Obsolescence: The Responsible Stewardship of Oil  at del.icio.us Digg Transcendence and Obsolescence: The Responsible Stewardship of Oil Bloglines Transcendence and Obsolescence: The Responsible Stewardship of Oil Technorati Transcendence and Obsolescence: The Responsible Stewardship of Oil Bookmark Transcendence and Obsolescence: The Responsible Stewardship of Oil  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Transcendence and Obsolescence: The Responsible Stewardship of Oil  at Furl.net Bookmark Transcendence and Obsolescence: The Responsible Stewardship of Oil  at reddit.com Bookmark Transcendence and Obsolescence: The Responsible Stewardship of Oil  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Evangelicals and Earth Day

Saturday, April 22, 2006
Check out my Detroit News column today, “Humanity’s creativity helps environment,” in which I give a brief overview of the conflicting evangelical views of environmental stewardship.
Bookmark Evangelicals and Earth Day  at del.icio.us Digg Evangelicals and Earth Day Bloglines Evangelicals and Earth Day Technorati Evangelicals and Earth Day Bookmark Evangelicals and Earth Day  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Evangelicals and Earth Day  at Furl.net Bookmark Evangelicals and Earth Day  at reddit.com Bookmark Evangelicals and Earth Day  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Stewardship and Economics: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Thursday, February 16, 2006
In yesterday’s Acton Commentary, I argued that the biblical foundation for the concepts of stewardship and economics should lead us to see them as united. In this sense I wrote, “Economics can be understood as the theoretical side of stewardship, and stewardship can be understood as the practical side of economics.” I also defined economics as “the thoughtful ordering of the material resources of a household or social unit toward the self-identified good end” and said that the discipline “helps us rightly order our stewardship.”

Within the context of environmental stewardship in particular, I concluded that economics should play a key role in defining public policy. This is becoming a more pressing issue as a number of evangelical and religious leaders around the world are endorsing specific policy initiatives to combat global warming.

Following the formation of the Evangelical Climate Initiative by a number of prominent evangelical leaders in the United States, general secretary of the World Council of Churches Rev. Samuel Kobia said yesterday, “Just as atomic weapons changed the very way we thought about life, so too the potential of major climatic changes put life as we know it in danger” He said this while emphasizing that all religious people should “speak with one voice” about climate change.

My brief commentary outlined some reasons why Christians may have differing opinions on this point. And Chuck Colson’s BreakPoint feature, “Evangelical Activism,” details some of the other aspects of the debate.

“Now, we all have a stewardship responsibility for God’s creation, but we also have responsibility for God’s creatures. Balancing those interests requires prudence,” he writes. On issues of prudential wisdom, Christians on both sides of a debate may well have good reasons to disagree. Check out his commentary for links to a number of pertinent resources.
Bookmark Stewardship and Economics: Two Sides of the Same Coin  at del.icio.us Digg Stewardship and Economics: Two Sides of the Same Coin Bloglines Stewardship and Economics: Two Sides of the Same Coin Technorati Stewardship and Economics: Two Sides of the Same Coin Bookmark Stewardship and Economics: Two Sides of the Same Coin  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Stewardship and Economics: Two Sides of the Same Coin  at Furl.net Bookmark Stewardship and Economics: Two Sides of the Same Coin  at reddit.com Bookmark Stewardship and Economics: Two Sides of the Same Coin  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Who Argues that the Environment Doesn't Matter?

Thursday, February 9, 2006
The Chicago Tribune has a story about the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) launched February 8th. (See my initial response here.) Most reports of this story have been somewhat fair. But the Chicago Tribune story takes an unjustified swipe at evangelicals who disagree with the ECI statement. The reporter, Frank James, describes the disagreement among evangelical Christians this way:
But environmental issues have proved divisive within the body of believers who identify themselves as evangelicals. Some who believe the world is in the “end times,” with a return of Jesus imminent, have not seen the necessity of protecting the environment for the long term. Others, meanwhile, have taken the view espoused by the evangelicals who unveiled their campaign Wednesday, that humans were given dominion over the Earth with the responsibility to protect it.

This should be printed in journalism textbooks as an obvious case of media bias. Notice the false dilemma: If you’re an evangelical, you either you agree with the ECI or you don’t care about the environment because you’re expecting the Lord’s return any day now. I read several evangelical responses to the ECI yesterday, and this is one argument that I didn’t see. I note that James doesn’t offer any quotes from representative evangelical leaders who make this argument. Hmm. I wonder why?

If I had to guess, I would say that Frank James has the “James Watt Myth” planted in his memory. James Watt was Secretary of the Interior under President Reagan. It was reported that he once said in congressional testimony: “after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.” This calumny has been repeated countless times by figures such as Bill Moyers. There’s only one problem. The story is false. The Chicago Tribune has now made the false story a generic argument of “some evangelicals.” If Frank James can provide some current, direct quotes by representative evangelical leaders (not random loose cannons) who argue that the environment is unimportant because Jesus is about to return, I’ll be the first on record denouncing the argument. If he can’t produce such quotes, then he should retract this statement.
Bookmark Who Argues that the Environment Doesn't Matter?  at del.icio.us Digg Who Argues that the Environment Doesn't Matter? Bloglines Who Argues that the Environment Doesn't Matter? Technorati Who Argues that the Environment Doesn't Matter? Bookmark Who Argues that the Environment Doesn't Matter?  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Who Argues that the Environment Doesn't Matter?  at Furl.net Bookmark Who Argues that the Environment Doesn't Matter?  at reddit.com Bookmark Who Argues that the Environment Doesn't Matter?  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!