Last week I suggested that vegetarianism was intimately linked with the issue of environmental stewardship, for the simple reason that raising meat is an resource-intensive process, and most immediate problem is the deficit of water. Since the meat-raising process is energy intensive, this also has implications for global warming.
In a recent debate, the issue of climate change became a divisive topic within the Evangelical community. The opposing sides are the National Association of Evangelicals (with its embodiment being Richard Cizik, the NAE’s Washington representative), and James Dobson, his most publicly combative opponent. Dobson and about 25 other leading Evangelicals called for the resignation of Cizik in a recent letter to the NAE board (http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/NAELetterFinal.pdf). The central theme of their complaint is Cizik’s focus on climate change, a subject which they believe to be “controversial” in three respects: whether it is actually happening, whether humans are causing it, and what we should do about it.
Dobson’s concern is that Evangelicals should not go chasing around some cause promoted by the “liberal” media, especially since it might turn out to be mostly hype. His thinking is that if Evangelicals act and we are wrong, this will soil the name “Evangelical”. Certainly, there is some controversy on the issue of climate change and what needs to be done, but I believe that Dobson’s position is unacceptable for three reasons.
First, he lumps all environmental concerns into the basket of “climate change”, and then, since there is “controversy”, he throws the basket out the window. As I argued last week, even if you think that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy to ruin the already nearly impoverished oil companies, there is still the undeniable fact that we are not good stewards of our natural resources, and that the Western approach to natural resources cannot be sustained for even two or three more generations. There is no “controversy” here. This is the first reason I regard Dobson’s position as disingenuous. If he actually cared at all about the environment, he would think hard enough to recognize this very simple fact.
Secondly, he has his head in the sand regarding NAE’s position. He thinks that if it turns out that humans aren’t contributing as much as we think to global warming (for example), then everyone will laugh and point to Evangelicals for chasing after “liberal” causes. But this will not happen. Even if it turns out to be illusory, Evangelicals will lose nothing by being concerned and socially aware. If it turns out to be real, Evangelicals will lose everything. In that sense it is like Pascal’s wager. I remember that in 1999 Dobson had some special programs about the Y2K scare. Focus on the Family’s official position was that Y2K was not definite but probable, and so all churches should hoard long term supplies just in case as a public symbol of love for their communities. Why can’t they have that same position now?
However, the deepest problem here is a pride problem. Dobson has spent his entire professional life fighting “tree-huggers”, and now to join forces with them seems anathema. For him, this would be like the Americans and the Nazis taking a break in the middle of WW II to have a beer together. As he states in his letter, those who are concerned with the environment have “watered down” the three important moral issue of the day as defined by Focus on the Family: 1) abortion, 2) gay marriage, 3) sex ed in public schools. For him, the issue of “creation care” (as the NAE has taken to calling it) can only take attention away from The Big Three. The implication, of course, is that God is not nearly as concerned with environmental stewardship as with gay marriage (of course, the Orthodox Heretic spent nine blogs arguing that the conservative church is backwards on the issue of homosexuality, but that’s beside the point). Next week, I propose to look more closely at whether environmental stewardship is anything to be concerned with from a Biblical perspective.
