The Bloodwood Tree

What should Christians think? 

There are a range of responses that have come from the Christian community toward Climate Change. Some of these have been Christian by definition (in the same pattern as Christ); others have been motivated not by the character of God, but by cultural beliefs. In the worst cases the responses have left behind trust in God and have been purely human and natural, driven by greed or a selfish response to fear.

What makes a response ‘Christian’?

A Christian response is one that is consistent with the character and priorities of God as revealed in the Bible. The Bible does not talk about human-induced global warming for the same reasons it doesn’t talk about nuclear warfare or stem cell research – they hadn’t happened yet. The Bible does give us God’s priorities, and these are simple regardless of denominational interpretations.

• Christian action is defined by love. Love is the fulfilment of the law (Matt 22:37-39), the mark of a true believer (John 13:35) and without it we cannot begin to understand God, because God is love (1 John 4:8). Any teaching that down-plays love or makes it out to be less important is not Biblical.

• Biblical love is not sentiment but a bold and selfless commitment to put the welfare of others ahead of one’s own (1 John 3:16). Christian policy on Climate Change will consider the welfare of others above our own interests. It will not treat one race or religion more kindly than another (Romans 10:12), will not care less for anyone because of their perceived or actual moral failings (1 Peter 4:8), and will not exclude others because of fear of being hurt by them (Matt 5:43-48). There are other philosophies and descriptions of love that are similar, but the difference is the lengths which we are asked to go to. Human philosophy gives personal fulfillment, the escape from emotional turmoil or some other personal gain as the motivation for love. Biblical love is modelled on Christ - it gives to the other regardless of cost to the giver and looks for no reward, be it physical or emotional (II Cor 12:15).
• Love evokes emotion, but it is not in itself an emotional response. If it is Biblical, a response to an issue such as global warming will be informed, rational and wise (Phil 1:9). It must take into account all of the available science and facts and process them in an atmosphere of faith that God can care for us even if the way ahead is difficult.
• A Christian response recognises that the Bible is God-inspired (II Tim 3:16), so it will accept the authority of the Bible when there is a clear clash with other claims.
• A Christian response is humble, recognising our own limits and deferring to those with abilities we don’t have ourselves (Romans 12:3).
• A Christian response recognises our God-given response to care for the environment, that creation is an expression of God’s character (Rom 1:20) and that we will be asked to give account for our stewardship of everything God has given into our care (Matt 25:14-30). This places a weightier responsibility on us to care for the environment than that recognised by the secular community.

 How do I decide what to do?

Using the Biblical principles described, we need to:

1. Recognise that the claims about the impacts of global warming are extremely serious, impacting primarily on the world’s poor and the environment to an extent not seen before [1]. A love-based response will err on the side of care for these needs and will only change from this course if there is good reason.
2. Recognise that the fossil-fuel, energy and transport industries are an enormous economic power that are being disadvantaged by the move to reduce greenhouse pollution. If we accept that human nature is self-seeking rather than love-motivated, we must also expect that these industries will do their utmost to stop the move toward less pollution. It is wise to be wary of information on global warming that arises from such industry sources.
3. Recognise that the science behind global warming has been more closely scrutinised than probably any other area of science. No other theory has had a panel of thousands of world-leading experts from every political bent debate and examine each other’s science so closely. There is no such thing as a perfect consensus on any science (some people still fervently believe the world is flat), however the science behind global warming has come as close as anything to consensus [2], and says that there is now a 90% chance that humans have caused global warming [3]. If we intend to disagree with the experts, we should only do so if we believe our grasp of the science is equal to or superior to theirs. Any other response is pride-based and foolish.
4. Reason through it. If we don’t act on climate change and it is real, there will be collossal loss to the world’s poor, the environment and ourselves. If we do act on it and the science was wrong, we have lived with less waste, saved money on power and developed new technologies that will give us long-term benefit even if the transition may have temporarily disadvantaged our economy. Which option is wiser and more consistent with the principles of love?