World environment: Do the religious play a part?

[Snowden]

Biblical stewardship

By Daniel Son
May 10, 2006


What responsibility does mankind have regarding the natural environment in which they live? A lot, if you ask the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance. Their mission is simple—that humans exercise a “sound environmental ethic:” proper and prudent stewardship of all that the Lord has created.
Their voice is an increasingly pertinent one, as a growing number of evangelical and religious leaders are weighing in on the environment and the nature of humanity’s interaction with it.

Their starting point, as for any Judeo-Christian group of this sort, is Genesis 1:28, often referred to as the “creation mandate,” which reads: “God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” They also draw upon Genesis 2:15—“The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it”—as Biblical support for the notion that God Himself has put Man in a position of stewardship over the earth.

The conclusions that religious leaders of the ISA draw, however, stand in stark contrast to those drawn by the evangelical leaders who signed onto the Evangelical Climate Initiative —such as Rick Warren, author of Purpose Driven Life, Jack Hayford, President of Foursquare Church and Dr. Timothy George. The ECI essentially warns of the imminent catastrophe of global warming and calls for immediate action for the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

Nobody (at least at the ISA) questions the motives of the ECI—it was clearly drafted with the intent to encourage fellow Christians to be better stewards of the Earth and as a result, craft a better, safer, more equal future for all of the world’s inhabitants. However, not all are convinced that it is good science that is at the root of the ECI, nor is everyone in agreement that what the ECI proposes would actually benefit those that it is ostensibly fighting for: the world’s poor.

In 2000, ISA released its own statement, called The Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship, which has been signed by over 1,500 prominent leaders of the faith—including Dr. James Dobson, Chuck Colson, D. James Kennedy, R.C. Sproul, and Father Richard John Neuhaus. Via the Cornwall Declaration, the ISA proclaims that “in the midst of controversy over such matters, it is critically important to remember that while passion may energize environmental activism, it is reason—including sound theology and sound science—that must guide the decision-making process.”

The Cornwall Declaration differs from the ECI in that it does not see global climate change as an immediate threat that requires emergency action. It states that “public policies to combat exaggerated risks can dangerously delay or reverse the economic development necessary to improve not only human life but also human stewardship of the environment.”
Two groups of religious leaders, one common conviction, yet two totally different conclusions. For the non-scientifically-savvy-yet-concerned evangelical (such as myself), or even the outsider wishing to get a pulse on the evangelical environmental position, this is a difficult situation to maneuver.

In light of the increasing hubbub of the debate concerning correct science and solid theology regarding this matter, the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty and the Institute on Religion and Democracy recently co-sponsored a Congressional Briefing regarding the Cornwall Declaration called “Pulpits, Pews and Environmental Policy: How the Cornwall Declaration is helping define the mandate of Biblical stewardship.”
The distinguished panel of speakers included theologians, scientists, lawyers and pastors alike—all part of ISA, and more importantly, all concerned with shaping a cogent environmental policy, based on solid Biblical principles and well-supported scientific fact. The general tenor of the briefing was to advocate for the world’s poor, and warn once again that ill-advised environmental regulation based on the postulations of environmental doomsayers hurt the globally disadvantaged, not help them. A detailed synopsis of the entire event is available courtesy of Peyton Knight at The National Center for Public Policy Research.

While an inordinate amount of attention is given to distant, theoretical threats of global warming, a tragically minimal amount of attention is given to the life and death problems of today, some of which directly result from policies enacted to stave off the “disastrous” conditions of global climate change.

A clear example of what can result from bad policies can be found in environmentalists blocking DDT use in African nations; DDT has reduced malaria-related deaths by 75% in countries who used DDT programs. An African dies from malaria every 40 seconds—the equivalent of one Boeing full of people hitting the ground with 100% fatalities every three hours. There is no scientific proof that DDT causes global warming, nor that banning it would avert such climate change, yet what could be an effective tool in saving lives is cast aside. Is this the price of protecting the world’s poor from unconfirmed catastrophic global temperature change?

Where is the outcry among activists about the fact that over 2 billion of the world’s citizens do not have electricity, or that over 2.5 billion do not have access to basic sanitation? Where is the outrage that over 4 million preventable deaths occur each year due to tuberculosis and other lung infections stemming from indoor pollution caused by using dung as fuel for fires? What about the 6 million people who die from unsafe water or spoiled food?

These are not hypothetical future deaths; these are real deaths that are occurring right under our noses, which could be easily thwarted if the proper technology were applied to certain poor regions of the world. But often, efforts to bring such technology to these regions are impeded by environmental regulations. Third world countries are told that they cannot build crucial power plants (which would also result in jobs, aside from the obvious health and sanitation benefits) because the wealthy elites of the world give more attention to alarmist conjecture about global warming instead of the present plight of the world’s poor.

As Jennifer Biddison, Coalitions Manager and Associate Editor at Townhall, wrote in her column two months ago, the signatories of the ECI were duped into supporting very dangerous policies that do not help the poor, and can serve only to worsen their condition. She wrote that “more than anyone, Christians should be wary of throwing their money after impossible goals when achievable aims – such as combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and malnutrition – are in sight. That’s the true definition of stewardship.”
And true Biblical stewardship is what the ISA’s Cornwall Declaration is all about.


Daniel Son is an editorial intern for Townhall.com.



http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...10/196667.html