Jonathan Merritt is a young theologian in Atlanta who broke into the national conversation this month by championing, within the conservative Southern Baptist faith, the declaration of a new set of principles regarding creation care and climate change.
While noting continuing debate on some global warming questions, the declaration made a point of stating that we as a species can damage the planet and that such actions are wrong. The declaration stressed that "we do not believe unanimity is necessary for prudent action," and that "humans must be proactive and take responsibility for our contributions to climate change -- however great or small."
The declaration was signed by three of the four most recent presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention, including the current office holder, Frank Page. In a phone interview, Merritt conceded that the resolution, like all resolutions issued by the SBC, is non-binding, but he and his fellow counselors are pleased that, since the declaration made the national news, hundreds of prominent Southern Baptists have signed on, including divinity school presidents, pastors, seminary professors, and missionaries.
Merritt said that it represented an "evolution" of the Southern Baptist position on the issue, but the mildness of that description is debatable. In the Resolution on Global Warming issued in June 2007, the Southern Baptist Convention used the dismissive rhetoric of climate change denial, claiming the science was "divided" on the question of global warming and that measures to reduce emissions were "very dangerous" and costly. Because the Southern Baptist denomination is the second largest in the country, with over sixteen million adherents, the church's position on social issues makes news.
Not only do these believers stake out a new position on the issue, but they use the language of repentance to describe the change, which makes their change of heart sound almost like a conversion experience. The declaration mentions the "study, reflection, and prayer" the signatories underwent before reaching consensus on the declaration, and added in a widely-quoted statement:
We believe our current denominational engagement with these issues have often been too timid, failing to produce a unified moral voice. Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed.
I asked Merritt about this language, saying that if I were a reporter in a courtroom, I would describe this as a statement as "remorseful."
He agreed.
"There was a certain amount of humility and a certain amount of remorse," he said, and added that he attended Jerry Falwell's Liberty University as an undergraduate, graduating with a degree in chemistry and biology, but he hadn't seriously considered the issue of global warming until he went to divinity school. In a theology class, as he told an AP reporter, he was struck by a professor's comparison of destroying part of God's natural world to tearing a page out of the Bible. Merritt said, "That broke me, and that was the impetus that began a life change, a shift of perspective for me."
In recent weeks, Merritt has written columns for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, defending the declaration against attacks from the likes of Tony Perkins of the conservative Family Research Council, a spin-off of James Dobson's Focus on the Family parachurch, who criticized the declaration and those who signed it for "lending credibility" to the environmental movement. Merritt also defended the declaration against attacks from Nashville minister James Parham, who called it "fainthearted."
On the phone, Merritt stressed that it would be a "horrific travesty" for anyone who believes that the natural world is part of God's revelation to stand by and do nothing as part of that world is destroyed.
"Younger evangelicals have a more extensive political repertoire," he said. "We are still committed to the sanctity of life and to a biblical definition of marriage, but we are not a single-issue or a double-issue denomination." Merritt went on to mention a poll in Relevant, an online magazine for young evangelicals, that asked thousands of young readers (among other questions), "Who Would Jesus Vote For?"
The answer? Barack Obama won overwhelmingly with almost 29 percent, beating even Baptist minister Mike Huckabee and leaving the likely Republican candidate, John McCain, in the dust at 6.6 percent. (The poll was apparently taken before the Jeremiah Wright controversy, but still -- impressive.)
Just 1.8 percent of evangelicals believe that Jesus Christ would vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008.
Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU
Comments
View as Flat
gmobus Posted 11:36 am
27 Mar 2008
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
LGT Posted 3:32 pm
27 Mar 2008
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 1:06 am
28 Mar 2008
Saving Seals
Our duties in this world, and beyond
by Brenda Peterson
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/5 ...
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:18 am
28 Mar 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 1:53 am
28 Mar 2008
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:49 am
28 Mar 2008
Far more important, and more worthy of public discourse, about what divides Christians from non-Christians than such superficial and inessential matters as whether women may terminate their pregnancies, or whether same-sex unions may be in any way condoned or even acknowledged (for non-Christians may hold the far-right positions on those things, and many good Christians are liberal and permissive about them), is what Christians believe to be the purpose and value of life, or existence in this universe such as it is.
Christianity is essentially eschatological. The Lord's Prayer (the "Our Father"), which all Christians of every stripe have in common, enunciates the basic Christian world-view of disappointment with the world as it is, and the confidence that God will presently (in God's own time) radically improve this world, such that it will manifest God's now obscured will. ("Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.")
Meanwhile, Christians cleave to the truth of the first story of the Creation, at the beginning of the Book of Genesis, that God looked upon all that God had created, and saaw that it was "good."
The character George, in the Orion story, presents one interpretation of all that. But it is only one.
(And if BioD were one of my students, and had written on an essay nothing more than "Shiver," I would underline it, write "Explain!" in the margin, and downgrade him from an A- to a B+.)
Much of Christianity, Christian spirituality too, does indeed involve waiting. But we wait in different ways. Indifference to this world ought not to be a part of it; many evangelicals say that is OK, but George, and many others, feel differently.
Sitting on clouds with harps for all eternity is obviously not humane. Much more to be recommended is C.S. Lewis's full-blooded eternalization of all that is good and beautiful in this world, as he shows in The Narnia Chronicles.
A familiar conversation in religious families is: Will I meet my little dog in heaven? Those Christians who say, "No," are, IMHO, not true Christians.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
JesusWazzaZombie Posted 6:08 am
28 Mar 2008
this is an intense documentary on the mysteries of Jesus' Bloodline. Those of you who are into `The Da Vinci code' or `holy blood holy grail' will be amazed by this real-life adventure with actual holy relics found.. I was amazed.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:44 am
29 Mar 2008
The fact remains: Global Warming is responsible for the 5 billion additional humans who now populate the planet since 1820.
Someone who is "against global warming" is really favoring a type of abortion or genocide. As one Grister reponded, he would prefer that the population be only 1 Billion.
Do we really want to support this misanthropic vision of the world?
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." -- Galileo
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 11:38 am
29 Mar 2008
If religious "faith" in the Americas had held sway in the Americas over the last several centuries, we'd still have slavery (condoned in the Old Testament), death penalty for pagans and for children who curse their parents (as proscribed in the Old Testament), and we'd be teaching that the sun revolves around the earth (look what happened to Galileo!)
I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but a belief system that insists the world is 10,000 years old, for example, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is not the kind of belief system that I want being held up as a credible basis for evaluating "morality".
George Mobus's comment above is very telling (I'm curious whether it was intentional): Wilson is a very moral man "in spite of" being a non-believer. What do you mean "in spite of"?! I'm aware of no evidence that people who believe in supernatural beings without supporting evidence are any more or less "moral" than anybody else -- they just happen to believe in certain supernatural beings that I don't believe in.
I suggest a reading of Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins for a more extensive exploration of this topic (non-religious bases for human morality).
The bottom line is that I get uncomfortable when anyone uses their supernatural beliefs to justify a particular point of view, even if it is a view that I happen to agree with (e.g., that global warming is a problem for which we need to begin accepting personal responsibility). Taken too far, the supernatural belief that God is on your side and that He (She?) shares your worldview leads to joyous events like highly-educated engineers flying jet planes into NYC skyscrapers full of innocent people.
Permalink
birdboy Posted 1:27 pm
29 Mar 2008
we can always have some more.
There's no need to conserve-
just take what you deserve.
Let God do the rest,
He knows what is best,
and focus your love
on Heaven above;
forsake the worth
of lowly Earth.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
LGT Posted 1:10 am
30 Mar 2008
My next question would have been whether the SoBap 'environmental activists' lie for Jesus, but GonzoDon's already mentioned Richard Dawkins [I'm not a a big fan of Dawkins's, but he delivers a forcible point ...]
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Ri ...
birdboy: Interesting rendition of the Heavenly View
Permalink
LGT Posted 1:16 am
30 Mar 2008
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/handofallah.php
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:43 am
30 Mar 2008
Yes, there is a "belief" that says the Earth could be 10,000 years old. That system is the Consistent Histories Theory of modern physics. It says that in the same way there are various probabilities of what paths the future will take, that the past is equally a probabilistic projection of what may have happened.
As one book on physics explained it, just because there are dinosaur bones in the ground, doesn't mean that dinosaurs existed.
http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CHS/histories.html
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." -- Galileo
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:55 pm
30 Mar 2008
My friend Birdboy has given us a charming little satirical lyric, which unfortunately ought not to be used outside of a small number of well-educated gatherings, because the parody of biblical theology is too simplistic.
The usually more thoughtful GonzoDon has written a number of silly things:
<<
While I'm delighted that the Southern Baptist Conference is beginning to think that we ought to be taking better care of our planet, it seems to me that attitude has little or nothing to do with reading the Bible, or issues of "faith".
>>
Well, we would have to ask Jonathan Merritt, and other Christians, whether evangelical or orthodox or something else, who are committed to "creation care," environmentalism, conservation and animal welfare, what place biblical texts, and other sources of authority and inspiration, have in their attitudes on these things. It is indeed true that much of the Bible seems to have been written from a deplorably anthropocentric viewpoint; and it is similarly true that most Christian traditions seem satisfied with that kind of viewpoint. Nevertheless, it would be foolish of us to presume that we have fathomed the limits of what biblical texts, Church traditions and other ways of directing Christian consciences can ever attain.
<<
If religious "faith" in the Americas had held sway in the Americas over the last several centuries, we'd still have slavery (condoned in the Old Testament), death penalty for pagans and for children who curse their parents (as proscribed in the Old Testament), and we'd be teaching that the sun revolves around the earth (look what happened to Galileo!)
>>
The original, most prominent, influential and successful abolitionists were Evangelical Christians and Quakers, who demanded that the rights of Africans be recognized on religious, biblical grounds. Meanwhile, the secularist, pseudo-humanist scientists were examining with scientific disinterest the virtually enslaved Hottentot Venus, and the specimens from Tierra del Fuego.
The legal code of Torah was not enforced strictly and absolutely even in ancient Israel. More recent groups have cherry-picked from Torah. Usury -- contractual lending, with interest to be paid on top of the original loan -- is a horrendous, hideous biblical sin; but, obviously, all modern economics requires it, and so the great majority of Christians find they have no problem with it. Adultery is at least as grave a sin as homosexual relations, and is very much more often mentioned, and condemned; and yet, one would not know that, from listening to many right-wing homophobic Christian preachers.
The death penalty is strongly opposed, across the board, by very many Christians, of various denominations, for religious reasons, usually having to do with the biblical notion of human beings being created in the image and likeness of God. The idea that some convicts "deserve" death is not essentially Christian. Those Catholic Christians who condone the death penalty do so for two reasons, neither explicitly biblical: the convict cannot be safely confined (the worthier reason); and, the execution of the convict will deter those who might consider a violent criminal action in the future (the much less worthy reason).
The Catholic hierarchs and teachers who silenced Galileo were trapped in an anti-intellectual social network, which remains a grave problem in the Catholic Church. But Galileo was himself a pious Catholic, who understood that nothing in his scientific researches and discoveries challenged his faith; and very many Catholics and other Christians are entirely in agreement with him on that.
<<
I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but a belief system that insists the world is 10,000 years old, for example, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is not the kind of belief system that I want being held up as a credible basis for evaluating "morality".
>>
First, it is not clear what "belief system" is being referred to here.
But it should be very clear: It is as ill-educated and narrow-minded and crass to think that all Christians by definition believe the world (the universe) to be no more than 10,000 years old, as it is to believe the world (the universe) to be no more than 10,000 years old.
I.e., the latter fault manifests a deplorably deficient education in the sciences; but the former manifests a deplorably deficient education in the humanities, specifically in religion.
There are indeed Christians who reject deep time. But they are on the intellectual fringe, and do not represent the orthodox mainstream, who have no problem with Cosmology and the Big Bang, or with Darwin and evolution.
Secondly, it is not at all clear why a moral agent's understanding of the age of the universe should influence any present moral decision. Please refer to SpaceShaper on that, and what he means by "sustainability," and what he means by planting a tree that will only reach maturity after the planter is dead.
But it is an interesting problem, which deserves further thought.
<<
George Mobus's comment above is very telling (I'm curious whether it was intentional): Wilson is a very moral man "in spite of" being a non-believer. What do you mean "in spite of"?!
>>
I am not acquainted with George Mobus. I agree with GonzoDon's complaint here: There should be no surprise at all that non-religious people are also committed to ethical conduct; indeed, I would go further, and say that their rejection of religion is often an ethically noble act of conscience.
As for E.O. Wilson: I love that man, and I very much enjoyed his recent book "The Creation." But he is woefully ill-educated on the subject of religion, cherishing anti-religious prejudices the analogies of which in the sciences would be at once mocked and stifled.
<<
I'm aware of no evidence that people who believe in supernatural beings without supporting evidence are any more or less "moral" than anybody else -- they just happen to believe in certain supernatural beings that I don't believe in.
I suggest a reading of Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins for a more extensive exploration of this topic (non-religious bases for human morality).
>>
Amen! I do not know Michael Shermer at all; but we should all be familiar with the neo-Voltairean school, in which Dawkins has a prominent place.
And atheist thinkers do indeed have their work cut out for them, but it behooves them to work at it: to show how a sophisticated, fully humane morality is compatible with an utterly materialistic, womb-to-tomb, period!, view of human existence.
Meanwhile, we must also be aware that many find fault (rightly, IMHO) with their reductionist satires of religion. Cf. John F. Haught, "God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens."
<<
The bottom line is that I get uncomfortable when anyone uses their supernatural beliefs to justify a particular point of view, even if it is a view that I happen to agree with (e.g., that global warming is a problem for which we need to begin accepting personal responsibility).
>>
Let us step cautiously along GonzoDon's bottom line, because before long a great door will drop open, yawning above a fathomless depth, of which GD has neither knowledge, nor a properly scientific courage to acquire knowledge.
GonzoDon's comfort, in itself, really does not count for much, from the perspective of all of us who are going sooner or later to die.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:20 am
31 Mar 2008
It seems unlikely that in the dashed-off comment that George was called on by GonzoDon, George was really suggesting that ethical thought and conduct are naturally appropriate to religionists, but should surprise us when they are found among people of no religion, such as E.O. Wilson. If anything, he was probably just alluding to popular, unquestioned prejudices.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 2:51 am
31 Mar 2008
One could write a book addressing various points you have made -- and many indeed have: people like Wendy Kaminer (in "Sleeping With Extraterrestrials") and Michael Shermer ("The Science of Good and Evil") seem particular insightful and fair-minded to me. (Richard Dawkins, while entertaining, can get a little shrill.)
So rather than spend time I don't have making a point-by-point response, allow me a couple of comments to defend the "silly things" I said:
No doubt many people find inspiration and insight from reading the Bible, and I think that's great. I find many parts to be inspiring to me. But I think it's important to point out the fact that we do not execute people in the United States today for being gay or for worshipping Krishna or for cursing their parents BECAUSE of what the Bible says, but rather in SPITE of what the Bible says. (This is an important point!) So-called "secular values" such as tolerance and multi-culturalism and the value of scientific inquiry have tempered literalist Bible interpretations in our country. And I think that's a good thing. But we don't have the Bible itself to thank for that development. We have secular thought and inquiry to thank for that.
I don't intend to ridicule religious people in particular. We are, all of us, prone to weakness, hypocrisy, self-doubt, mean-spiritness, error. Our time on this planet is short, and often troubled, which is why I think the least we can do is try to be as patient and compassionate with each other as possible. But I think it's also unfair to treat religious belief with any more deference than any other worldview. If someone professed a belief in Zeus it would be considered fair game to skeptically probe the validity of their belief and even ridicule that person; yet Christian belief in seemingly bizarre dogmas like virgin birth is generally treated with kid gloves by the media. (If you doubt that statement, then tell me: who is more likely to be elected president in the U.S.: someone who professes a belief in the virgin birth, or someone who admits to being an atheist? If a news broadcaster were to call Mother Teresa's religious beliefs "silly" -- as you suggested my non-religious beliefs are -- how long do you think that broadcaster would stay on the air?). For all the supposed "persecution" of religious folk in America, their sheer numbers tend to protect them from even mild expressions of skepticism and criticism.
I'm amused by the comment that "atheist thinkers have their work cut out for them". As if, for some reason, religious beliefs that are incapable of being verified due to the very fact that they are issues of faith, not demonstrable/measurable truth, must a priori be taken at face value and somehow "disproved" by those who don't share that faith. I would argue that it is the other way around, if anything like rational argument (as opposed to gut feeling or hopeful thinking) is the issue at play here.
But enough of that. I probably don't even fall into the hardcore atheist camp. Strip away all of the scientific discoveries and all of the religious schools of thought and I still find it utterly amazing and profound that anything exists at all! I still find it a blessing of immeasurable value that life exists on our planet, and that I get to partipate in evolutionary continuum. Mull over that and it seems like a crime not to appreciate every day, not to productively use every minute of our short time on this planet. And also a crime not to protect the wild and fascinating biodiversity of this planet, which is unique, never again to be repeated, and ours to marvel at while we're around. If we don't decimate it first.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:26 am
31 Mar 2008
Be amused and take joy in what you like; good for you!; it is "a crime not to appreciate every day," after all, as I have heard from a very wise man.
Meanwhile, if it is not too unproductive, learn how to spell my name correctly, and you are on your way to learning a great but difficult foreign language.
FYI, "Canis candida" = "white bitch."
But that comes with the starter kit; I offer it as a free sample. The explanation requires another payment of $79.99. : )
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
LGT Posted 10:29 am
31 Mar 2008
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Permalink