London Seminary seem to think so. They’ve invited Dr Paul Mills to lecture on its dangers, particularly to Christian unity this June. Now, I don’t know if London Seminary are going to provide an alternative viewpoint to counter Dr Mills but if I were to respond, it would be a follows.
Stay in lane
I remember the helpful advice of friends during the COVID pandemic that we should be careful, especially as pastors and bloggers of straying beyond our remit into areas where we are not experts. So, it is important to remember what we can and cannot comment on in regard to such a discussion.
Neither Dr Mills nor I are really in a position to comment much on the climate science. Neither of us are scientists in that field. Dr Mills is a highly respected economist. He may well be able to comment on things such as the reliability of statistical modelling and I may have some input to make on the theological and pastoral implications. This matters because:
The crucial question is whether or not climate change is a real threat
Was Winston Churchill an alarmist in the 1930s when warning about Nazi Germany? What about those who warned over a decade ago that our hollowed out defences would put us at risk to a resurgent nationalist Russia? Am I an alarmist when I warn about the dangers of Christian Nationalism or the Bethel movement?
There is a difference between sounding the alarm and being alarmist. What matters is whether or not the warnings are true. How real is the risk? We need to know a little bit about climate science to assess that. This is where it is important to recognise both that there are differences amongst scientists in their assessments however that there is also a strong consensus that we are observing changes to the environment and that at least some proportion of that has been caused by human activity.
One concern I’ve had is with the kind of anecdotal response we see to examples of temperature extremes. Consider how climate change sceptics responded to reports that temperatures recently came close to the previous record for May. That record dates back to 1922. Does the fact that we have seen heatwave temperatures 100 years ago or that we still got snow and ice last winter disprove the argument that our climate is heating up? The problem with such an approach is that it fails to recognise that when looking at data, we are not just looking for the occasional extremes, the outliers. Rather, we are looking at what might have been an outlier 100 years ago but over time begins to fall within the normal range. There may have been mild winters 50 years ago but have snow days become more or less common. We may remember particularly rainy Augusts in our childhood but was that the norm?
The theological/pastoral issue
One reason why people tend to argue that Climate Change has become a form of alarmist religion is because it creates fear. Christians should not have to fear climate change because we have a greater hope for the future. We know that Christ will return, make all things new and put all things right.
The Cold War may provide a helpful analogy here. Throughout the late 20th century, there was great fear of a nuclear war, exemplified by the film, Threads. Were Christians right to be concerned about impending nuclear Armageddon. Indeed, should we be concerned about Putin and Trump’s antics today. Again, we know that our eternal destiny is in Christ’s hand. We know he will return. We know that neither Putin and Trump cannot end the world. However, this does not guarantee that someone won’t type in the nuclear codes. If they do, then the devastation will be real, the suffering horrific.
We know our eternal destiny but that does not change the reality that if there is a climate crisis happening then there is a real risk of devastation and suffering. Our greater hope does not take away from that compassionate desire to protect others from suffering and to take our responsibility for stewarding God’s creation seriously.
Divisive?
Yes, it is possible for the climate debate to become divisive within churches. This is particularly so when either side ups the ante with the rhetoric used and when we make it a first order issue. However, it does not have to be dangerously divisive. It should be possible for Christians to express passionate disagreement over all kinds of second order issues providing we keep the main thing the mainthing.
Faithroots 