Evangelicals have been absent without leave from the climate change discussion, failing to push the Republican Party to take the issue seriously, according to Richard Cizik, the vice president for governmental affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals. Evangelicals, Cizik said, are looking for "prophetic leadership" to champion the climate cause. Surprisingly, he said that voice may not come from traditional conservative circles.
"The advantage that Barack Obama brings to the equation is that he doesn't have the rest of his party -- a significant wing of his party -- telling him to go slow or do nothing," Cizik told Grist last week when he was in Seattle for an exhibition of wildlife photography at the Burke Museum on the University of Washington campus. He stopped by Grist's office with LeeAnne Beres of Earth Ministry and Peter Illyn of Restoring Eden to discuss the need for religion to engage in the climate debate and take responsibility for its lack of action on the "moral and spiritual problems" of climate change.
Evangelicals AWOL from climate debate
2008 presidential race
Though unwilling to endorse any political candidate and open about his personal alliances to the GOP, Cizik did express his disapproval of the Republican party's stick-in-the-mud attitude toward climate change. He called for "bold action," and rejected the "climate-light Bushisms" that the party has been dangling before the American people. He said he "always liked John McCain for his green stand," but recognized Barack Obama as the "greener" candidate who could take climate action without having to drag his party along kicking and screaming.
A pro-life view of creation
Known primarily for focusing on abortion and other social issues, Evangelicals are latecomers to the climate debate. However, as Illyn said, "creation care" can be considered a way to strengthen and enlarge the pro-life vision.
Illyn also acknowledged Barack Obama for his climate positions, but he's not eager to give up on John McCain:
The Climate Security Act
On the Climate Security Act, Cizik disapproved of the Senate Republicans' filibuster that prevented debate on the bill. He speculated that moving forward, the only way to change the political complexion in the next Congress is to change the minds of the evangelicals.
Greening churches and congregations
From the Pope to the largest South Carolina association of black churches to the Southern Baptists, religious communities have started to adopt climate change as an issue of faith. Beres said she considers this shift not only constructive for the health of the planet but also positive for the health of religion's role in society. As congregations have adopted green stances, many have seen members return to the church, she said.
The "Book of Nature"
Beyond the political and social benefits to embracing environmental advocacy, Illyn said protecting the "Book of Nature" enhances individual spirituality.
Millions of evangelicals
Above all, to move anywhere on the climate issue, Cizik said evangelicals will need to be part of the political solution. With population numbers of 30 million to 100 million Americans located in key states around the country, the Evangelical voting bloc has the ability to force climate change as a top political priority.
For more on the intersection of climate and religion, see Grist's 2006 special series: God & the Environment.
Russ Walker contributed to this story and conducted the interview.
Americans United praises Congress for passing ACES
Ask Umbra’s video advice on sunscreen
Comments View as Flat
stevenearlsalmony Posted 4:13 am
30 Jul 2008
A question for Richard Cizik.........
Can you explain how so many well-intentioned people are failing so miserably to share a common understanding of what is happening in our planetary home in these early years of Century XXI?
There are moments like this one when it appears to me that we in the family of humanity must be living within some huge manmade construction reminiscent of the ancient Tower of Babel. Whatever the reasons for our spectacular failure to communicate meaningfully and sensibly about what somehow could be real about the workings of the Earth and the placement of the human species within the natural order of living things, these circumstances are incredible and present the human family with a potentially colossal, human-induced threat to life as we know it and the integrity of Earth as a fit place for human habitation.
As an example, let us look at the growth of absolute global human population numbers. In 2008 there are more people literally existing on Earth on resources valued at less than $2 per day than the total human population in the year of my birth. Our population numbers have been skyrocketing in our time and are projected to continue skyrocketing to the middle of this century when our numbers are anticipated to reach 9+/- billion and then somehow, magically I believe, automatically stabilize. The is no unchallenged scientific evidence to indicate how this "demographic transition to population stabilization" can possibly occur. This has not kept many so-called experts from continuing to say that the preternatural 'science' on which they rely is outdated and fatally flawed. A mere 108 years ago, at the beginning of the 20th Century, human numbers worldwide were between 1 and 2 billion. Most people can agree, I believe, on these numbers.
Now let us look at the relatively small, evidently finite, noticeably frangible planet we inhabit. Many experts have asked the question, "How many people can the Earth support?"
No reasonable and sensible person would say that an unlimited number of people can exist in a limited world. That cannot be. It also follows that the size and make-up of Earth naturally limits the growth of human production and per human consumption activities worldwide. The growth of these activities are subject to certain biophysical limitations of Earth. Endless growth cannot occur in a finite world.
What do you expect will happen if human propagation, production and consumption activities continue to grow, given their current scale and expected annual rate of increase? Please know that comments are welcome.
Sincerely,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysouhheast.org/index.php
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:06 am
30 Jul 2008
pro-life vs. pro-[human]-fetus
I am very glad that Peter Illyn raised that hideously important issue of hypocrisy, regarding the battle slogan "pro-life."
The wildlife pictures are gorgeous. The walrus is especially beautiful, IMHO.
For religious people, the politics of these things is of secondary importance. The consciences of believers, churches and pastors matter much much more.
Thanks as always to Steven Earl Salmony for his fine comment.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink