The Intimidation Factor. Charles Redfern

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ logic would render us fickle if we failed to smoke marijuana as well; after all, it’s there for the asking). His organization veered close to rendering anthropogenic climate change a theological impossibility in its Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming: “We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.”27

      That’s naïve. Our species is not immune to world-wide calamity. Remember the fourteenth century, when nature and human activity wed in a ghoulish marriage. Commerce flowed over new trade routes between East and West and conveyed flea-bearing rats. The fleas leaped onto humans and infected them with the Black Death. Roughly half of all Europe died.

      I long to ask: Who defines unity? Is assessing evidence and asking questions inherently disruptive? Is it wrong to seek solutions to a potentially grave problem—especially since there are virtually no doctrinal risks (Beisner notwithstanding)? Apparently, yes. We’re pagan “earthism” worshipers. We’re divisive conspirators in a leftist plot—never mind that Perkins was flourishing a rhetorical ploy with a one-two punch: levy a nebulous charge no one can disprove; then, as the opponent reels, accuse him of divisiveness. Any challenge fulfills the charge. Few can stay calm and ask: Who is calling whom names? Who flings the accusations and mows down the straw men? Who is really divisive?

      But none of those questions stems the accusatory tide. Deniers of climate change grab any real or imagined flaw. I’ve been warned, over coffee and doughnuts, that I’m falling prey to Al Gore, who, apparently, is evil incarnate and wields hypnotic power. The ice caps will recover if he vanishes—just like the Vietnam War would have evaporated if a tiger ate Dan Rather. I try to tell people I’ve never seen An Inconvenient Truth, but no one believes me.

      Gotcha . . . Maybe Not

For a brief moment in 2009, it looked like the deniers were onto something. Computer hackers stole more than 1,000 e-mails from a research unit at Great Britain’s University of East Anglia. The e-mails, dating back some 13 years, held reams of information, “everything from the mundanities of climate-data collection to comments on international scientific politics to strongly worded criticisms by climate-change doubters,” to quote Bryan Walsh of Time.28 There seemed to be references to oppressing opposition, withholding information, pressuring editorial boards of academic journals, and skewing research.

      Besides, the e-mails weren’t nice.

      The unit’s head, Phil Jones, took a leave of absence pending an investigation.

Nothing came of it. Parliamentary and university reports exonerated Jones. Perhaps he could have been more forthcoming and more couth, but, in the words of the parliamentary committee: “In the context of sharing data and methodologies, we consider Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community.”29 References to performing research “tricks” were in-house slang for legitimate scientific procedures—and yes, Jones and his e-mail partners were a little rough in their private e-mails. They didn’t anticipate their theft.

      What a scandal.

      The Moderate Voice—or lack of it

      At first, the moderates—epitomized by the gentlemanly NAE—vied for the lead on this issue. The NAE’s 2004 framework for social engagement, entitled “For The Health of the Nation,” delineated seven vital arenas: religious freedom, family life and children, the sanctity of life, caring for the poverty-stricken and helpless, human rights, peacemaking, and creation care. One eventual outcome: Dorothy Boorse’s 56-page pamphlet, “Loving The Least of These: Addressing A Changing Environment.” The Gordon College professor stressed that “environmental change” strikes the poor most severely. Richard Cizik, the organization’s vice president of government affairs, spurred seismic shifts that would free the movement from reactionary captivity. Climate change was one of his top priorities.

Push-back arose, of course. James Dobson tried to get Cizik fired, but the NAE president at the time, Ted Haggard, was unimpressed: “The last time I checked,” he told Dobson, “you weren’t in charge of the NAE.”30 A more muted approach came early in 2006 from the so-called “Interfaith Stewardship Alliance,” the Cornwall Alliance’s predecessor. The signatories—among whom were the distinguished Charles Colson along with a who’s-who in the Religious Right, including James Dobson (again), John Hagee, the late James Kennedy, and Richard Land—said they “appreciated the bold stance that the (NAE) has taken on controversial issues like embracing a culture of life, protecting traditional marriage and family, promoting abstinence as AIDS prevention, and many others,” but they requested it lay off climate change: it was “not a consensus issue.” An “official stance” should be filtered through official channels, and “individual NAE members or staff should not give the impression that they are speaking on behalf of the entire membership, so as not to usurp the credibility and good reputation of the NAE.” Then came the twist: “We respectfully ask that the NAE carefully consider all policy issues in which it might engage in the light of promoting unity among the Christian community and glory to God.”31

      To underscore: NAE officials were “bold” when advocating the signatories’ positions but potentially divisive (“. . . in the light of promoting unity . . .”) on climate change. Invoking “unity” often knocks the debate off the merits. Suddenly, a thousand eggshells rattle across the floor, freezing us in our tracks lest we break our delicate bonds. Don’t even dare ask: What about your position’s potential divisiveness? Have you pondered our possible disunity with Christianity’s other legitimate branches, such as Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and traditional Protestantism? They’ve endorsed the scientific consensus.

      It worked. The NAE blinked. Haggard answered in late January by defending the organization’s pro-environment stance but demurring on climate change. His executive committee directed NAE staffers “to stand by and not exceed in any fashion our approved and adopted statements concerning the environment contained within the Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility.” Catch a glimpse of American evangelicalism’s blind spot toward the end. Haggard said: “I believe there are pro-environment, pro-free market, pro-business answers to the environmental questions facing our community.”

      Do the Scriptures rally to free enterprise? Cultural standards were now mixed into a back-to-the-Bible organization, a charge evangelicals often levy against theological liberals. And pro-creation statements ring hollow without identifying its destructive agents. Imagine federal authorities banning the mention of cigarettes while promoting cancer-free living.

The year, 2006, proved pivotal. In February, 86 evangelical leaders—including pastors, 39 Christian college presidents, and not a few current NAE board members—signed the “Evangelical Climate Initiative,” which asserted the reality of human-induced global warming and said it imperiled national security and the poverty-stricken: “Love of God, love of neighbor, and the demands of stewardship are more than enough reason for evangelical Christians to respond to the climate change problem with moral passion and concrete action. Christians must care about climate change because we are called to love our neighbors.” In May, one of the last creditable denial hold-outs, Gregg Easterbrook, cried uncle: “Based on the data I’m now switching sides on global warming, from skeptic to convert.”32

But then calamity struck. In November, Haggard resigned in the wake of a sexual scandal. Anderson, who served as president before, was recalled and brought his steady hand. The evangelical world breathed a sigh of relief. “There’s an enormous trust that people have with (Anderson), and that allows him to lead,” said Jo Anne Lyon, general superintendent of the Wesleyan church.33 The Minnesota megachurch pastor brought administrative efficiency and showed he was no right-wing СКАЧАТЬ