Click here for a printer-friendly PDF version of this article.

GLOBAL WARMING: A DIALOGUE WITH UNCOMMITTED CHRISTIANS

By

Peter Wong[1]

Preface

President Bush's threatened veto, partisan politics, and a lack of consensus has considerably slowed congressional efforts on a climate change bill. If Congress doesn't pass legislation by April 2008, attention will then turn to the 2008 presidential/congressional elections, followed by the loss of momentum with a new Congress in 2009, causing one political pundit to predict that we may not see federal legislation on climate change until late 2010. (See Zachary Coile, "Enacting federal climate change legislation ends up being long, hard slog," San Francisco Chronicle's SFGate.com, September 24, 2007, click here for that article.

 [page_break]

1. INTRODUCTION

This article provides an Example Dialogue on how we, as Christians, might effectively talk with our brothers and sisters in Christ who are uncommitted to mitigating global warming, while leaving each other whole and with goodwill at the end of the discussion. It should be noted that many Evangelicals, along with moderate and progressive Christians, are in the forefront of combating global warming. Thus, support for global warming action transcends religious and ideological divisions.

Christians have various reasons for being uncommitted about global warming. They include the beliefs that (a) global warming is a sign of Christ's Second Coming, (b) no global warming problem exists, (c) it is inconvenient to adjust our energy-rich lifestyles, and (d) even if there is a global warming problem, there is nothing individuals can do to change it. In the dialogue below, we attempt to address the last three reasons. If individuals are convinced that global warming is a sign of Christ's Second Coming, it is unlikely that any dialogue will convince them that they should do something about it.

The Example Dialogue is excerpted from the author's syllabus entitled: Let's Dialogue With The Christian Right-A syllabus of strategies, moral values, and Biblical citations (hereafter referred to as "Syllabus"). The Syllabus explains the underlying framework, rationale, and strategy in dialoguing with the Christian Right on "hot button" topics such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and embryonic stem cell research and, in the case of global warming, with uncommitted Christians. The Syllabus is intended to stimulate discussion and additional research on how to dialogue with our brothers and sisters in Christ, and is suitable for use in workshops and small group discussions. The Syllabus will be available for free downloads from www.micahscall.org in early 2008. The anticipated table of contents is in the Appendix.

 [page_break]

2. LANGUAGE OF MORAL VALUES

A rational discussion with our brothers and sisters in Christ on "hot button" topics can be emotionally explosive and damaging to family relationships and friendships, if not approached with the recognition of and sensitivity to the other side's deep religious convictions. This is why we often studiously avoid such discussions with friends and family.

We take the approach here that any such discussion on "hot button" topics must be based on a common set of moral values. Because as Christians we are disciples of Jesus and acknowledge him as Lord, as our Lord, Jesus' teachings must be our supreme moral guide. Jesus' teachings are the "lens" by which we scrutinize our actions and decisions. Therefore, Jesus' teachings are the backbone of the Example Dialogue below. A more detailed discussion of Jesus' teachings as our supreme moral guide (along with a catalogue of Jesus' teachings) is provided in the Syllabus.

 [page_break]

3. RULES FOR NONCONFRONTATIONAL DIALOGUE

Below is a set of nonconfrontational dialogue rules. They are similar to those rules espoused in marriage counseling sessions to deescalate potentially confrontational dialogue between spouses. Here, we have modified the rules to deescalate a potentially confrontational dialogue with a fellow Christian on "hot button" topics. More discussion of these rules is in the Syllabus.

• Rule 1: It Is Not about Winning. Set your expectations at the beginning of the dialogue that it is not about winning.

• Rule 2: Engage in Active Listening. Use an expression like "I understand that you believe _________" to communicate to the other side that you have been attentive to and understand what they are saying about their beliefs and values.
• Rule 3: Use "I" Messages. Respond by using an expression like "I feel (or believe) that ____________," which is a nonaccusatory and nonjudgmental way to express your beliefs and values.

• Rule 4: Listen for Underlying Primal Concerns. Try to understand the other side's primal concerns that perhaps lie beneath the camouflage of rhetoric (e.g., simply citing a Biblical passage as authority, when fear of foreigners is an underlying primal concern). If we can understand the other side's primal concern, we may be able to deal with it and make more progress in the dialogue.

• Rule 5: Establish Common Moral Values. Try to establish a common set of moral values based on Jesus' teachings (e.g., Golden Rule, justice, righteousness, compassion, sharing abundance, mercy, reconciliation, forgiveness, tolerance, accepting the outsider, peacemaking, and stewardship) and then pursue the discussion from this common set of moral values.

• Rule 6: Pose Thoughtful Questions. Pose thoughtful questions that flow naturally from the common set of moral values, which may cause the other side to reflect and rethink his/her position. We emphasize thoughtful questions, as opposed to assertions, because they tend to elicit a less defensive response. Thoughtful questions are the agency of conversation and dialogue.

• Rule 7: Illuminate a Moral Dilemma. The key is to attempt to illuminate a moral dilemma, based on posing a countervailing set of moral values based on Jesus' teachings, exposing unconsidered facts, exploring unappreciated consequences, probing inconsistencies, and/or dealing with primal concerns.

• Rule 8: Seek Agreement on Sub-Issues: Although we may succeed in illuminating a moral dilemma, very likely that moral dilemma will not be resolved during this one encounter. Rather than pushing for resolution of the moral dilemma, it may be more appropriate to shift gears and try to come to some understanding and agreement on a set of sub-issues.

The above rules can make possible a nonconfrontational framework for dialogue that will leave everyone whole and perhaps cause a person on an opposing side to rethink his/her position, either during the dialogue or after reflection. These rules set the context for the Example Dialogue below.

 [page_break]

4. DIALOGUE ON GLOBAL WARMING

Caveats: The Example Dialogue below is an illustration, not a prescription. The dialogue is in skeletal form and missing after each thoughtful question is the implied admonition to listen to the other side's response, and if the response is not what you expect, invite further explanation and discussion. To be thoroughly prepared, you should be ready to discuss in greater depth Jesus' teachings and facts presented in the Example Dialogue. Citations to supporting Biblical text and facts are provided. Also, there are more arguments presented here than can be discussed in a single conversation, and you may not feel that all the arguments are equally compelling. Use only the ones that you feel most confident in discussing and that you believe are the most compelling. In addition, consider reordering the Example Dialogue arguments in a manner that makes more sense to you. Of course be prepared to deviate from your plan depending on the other side's response.

Depending on the circumstances, you might consider deviating from the emphasis on thoughtful questions and using a different mix of assertions, explanations, and questions. Furthermore, your dialogue should be supplemented, where appropriate, with your own personal examples, anecdotes, and arguments not covered below. In sum, you will need to customize the Example Dialogue to your personal style and spontaneously adapt your dialogue to the situation.

  [page_break]

EXAMPLE DIALOGUE

Active Listening

1. I understand that you are not convinced that global warming is a scientifically proven problem and, furthermore, you do not feel it is your problem. Is this correct?
2. I have a different view based on the most recent scientific findings, and the teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament.
3. Are you aware that Christians all across the theological/ideological spectrum-from conservative to progressive-are joining together to fight global warming?
4. Is this a subject you feel comfortable talking about-sharing points of view?

Overwhelming Scientific Agreement

5. I'd like to share the most recent scientific findings about global warming.
6. Are you aware that on February 2, 2007 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report concluding that evidence of global warming is unequivocal and that this warming is very likely caused by humans? (Richard A. Kerr, "Scientists Tell Policymakers We're All Warming the World," Science, February 9, 2007, Vol. 315, p. 754, hereafter referred to as "Kerr.")
7. This report was coauthored by 600 of the world's foremost climate scientists from 40 countries. (Ibid.)
8. The report warns that if nothing is done, the problems caused by global warming will get worse. (Ibid.)
9. Are you aware that the Bush administration has accepted the report's findings, but opposes any regulation of greenhouse gas emissions? (Zachary Coile, "Report spurs calls for aggressive action," San Francisco Chronicle, February 3, 2007, p. A6.)
10. Would you agree that the debate on global warming has been for the most part settled among scientists?

Industry Campaign to Deny Global Warming (Optional)

11. In an investigative report, Newsweek reports that industry associations representing petroleum, steel, autos, and utilities have been engaged in a well funded media and lobbying campaign to refute global warming, with misinformation such as: global warming is a hoax; there is too much scientific uncertainty; global warming is a theory not a fact; global warming is caused by the increased temperature of the sun, not humans; global warming is a naturally occurring phenomenon; fixing global warming is too costly; and the consequences of global warming do not imperil the earth. (Sharon Begley, "The Truth About Denial," Newsweek, August 13, 2007, pp. 20-29.)
12. Newsweek also reports that an Exxon Mobil funded think tank offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the February 2, 2007 UN IPCC report authored by 600 of the world's foremost climatologists. (Ibid., p. 21.)
13. Why would industry groups and companies engage in misinformation to refute 600 of the world's foremost experts on climate change?
14. Do you think this media campaign has influenced how you and others feel about global warming?

  [page_break]

Satellite Confirmation of Arctic Sea Ice Decline

15. One of the predictions of the UN report is the melting and eventual disappearance of the Arctic sea ice.
16. On May 2, 2007, the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that satellite photos show the Arctic sea ice is smaller and melting faster than predicted in the UN report. (Jane Kay, "Arctic sea ice smaller than ever, melting faster than predicted, satellite images show," San Francisco Chronicle, May 2, 2007, p. A2.)
17. Satellite photos have tracked the Arctic sea ice for the last 30 years, and scientists have concluded that the melting of the Arctic sea ice is 30 years ahead of earlier climate model projections. At the current rate of melting the Arctic sea ice could disappear between 2050 and 2100. (Ibid.)
18. Are you aware that what happens in the Arctic affects the rest of the planet because the sea ice provides a cooling effect as it reflects sunlight back into space? (Ibid.)
19. Are you concerned about the disappearance of the Arctic ice?

Potential Catastrophic Consequences

20. Are you willing to talk about some of the other findings of the UN IPCC report?
21. The report predicts the following: (a) global temperatures will rise between about 2 degrees F and 12 degrees F by 2100, causing longer and more intense heat waves; (b) if glacier melting continues to accelerate, sea levels could rise more than 4 feet by 2100, swamping low-lying coastal cities; and (c) we can expect more intense tropical storms. (Bryan Walsh, "Raising the Climate Stakes," Time, February 19, 2007, p. 18.)
22. Let's look at the human consequences of these predictions.

Consequences for North America

23. The implications for North America include these effects: (a) summer temperatures will likely increase 10 degrees F in a broad band from California to Texas; (b) the snow season will be shortened with a contracted snow cover, thereby, threatening the summer water supply of California and the Pacific Northwest; (c) the East Coast will be wetter and cloudier; and (d) tropical hurricanes will become more intense, reaching peak wind speeds and bringing more heavy rains. (Jane Kay, "Grim global warming prognosis for Western U.S.," San Francisco Chronicle, February 3, 2007, p. A1 & A6, hereafter referred to as "Kay.")
24. Scientists are also predicting that the Southwest will return to the dust bowl conditions that were prevalent in the 1930s. (Dan Vergamo, "Study forecasts new ‘Dust Bowl,'" USA Today, April 6-8, 2007, Weekend Edition, p. 8A.)
25. Would you agree that changes to North America as a result of global warming would be significant?

  [page_break]

Consequences for the World

26. The global implications of are as follows: (a) the Arctic sea ice will all but disappear; (b) extremes of heat, heat waves, and heavy precipitation will be more frequent; and (c) rain in the lower latitudes will decrease. (Kerr, p. 755.) Because of the decrease in rain in latitudes near the equator, there will be more wild fires and drought. More droughts will lead to endemic famine for tens of millions of people. Would you agree the world would be facing a humanitarian crisis of gigantic proportions?
27. Exacerbating the global warming problem, rising temperatures and drought near the equator could cause the Amazon rainforest to die, which would remove from the earth these vast forests that now absorb carbon dioxide. (Fiona Harvey, "Climate change sparks events ‘that have not happened in 650 years,'" Financial Times, February 3, 2007, p. 5.)
28. With regard to the potential 4-foot rise in sea levels by 2100, there are an estimated 100 million to 200 million people worldwide living within an altitude of 3 feet from sea level. (Bret Schulte, "Temperature," U.S. News & World Report, June 5, 2006, p. 36.) The impact of a 4-foot rise in sea levels is that hundreds of millions of people will lose their homes and become dislocated. Would you agree that lack of food, water, sanitation, and shelter for the hundreds of millions of displaced peoples would likely create a catastrophic humanitarian crisis?
29. To make matters worse, the sea levels will continue to rise after 2100, rising more than 20 feet in later centuries. Putting this into context, much of Manhattan, Florida, Louisiana, Western Europe, Southeast Asia, and Bangladesh would be under water. (Seth Borenstein, Associated Press, "Scientists: It's not too late to reverse global warming," Palo Alto Daily News, February 3, 2007, p. 14.)
30. Scientists are also predicting that tropical diseases that thrive in warmer climates, such as malaria, will progressively spread to higher latitudes in North America and Europe, with the developing world bearing the greatest onslaught. (Andrew Jack, "Climate change bites-How rising temperatures are taking a toll on human health," Financial Times, April 25, 2007, p. 9.)
31. Would you agree that the consequences of global warming for the world are grim if we don't do something about it?

Costs of Mitigating Catastrophic Consequences

32. Scientists agree that some of the consequences of global warming are inevitable due to past greenhouse gas emissions, but that cutting these emissions now and in the future could vastly reduce the catastrophic effects. (Kay, p. A6.)
33. Some say that mitigating global warming is too costly; consequently, they argue that the U.S. should do nothing about regulating greenhouse gases.
34. Are you aware that on May 4, 2007, the UN IPCC issued another report finding that mitigating climate change is affordable, and that it is a fallacy that it is too costly. The UN IPCC estimates the costs of improving the world's energy infrastructure to reduce greenhouse gases is less than a 0.12% per year reduction in the annual global GDP growth rates. (Ronald Bailey, "Fixing Climate Change Is Cheap," Reasononline, May 4, 2007, at www.reasononline. com/news/show.)
35. Would you agree that a 0.12% per year reduction in the world's GDP growth rates doesn't seem like a high cost to pay to mitigate global warming, when compared with the cost of human displacement and suffering?
36. In the case of gasoline combustion, this 0.12% mitigation cost translates to an additional 25 cents to 50 cents per gallon of gas. (Andrew C. Revkin, New York Times, "Climate panel says it's time to change," San Francisco Chronicle, May 4, 2007, p. A8.)
37. To mitigate the carbon released from driving your car, would you be willing to pay an additional 25 cents to 50 cents per gallon?
38. A UN IPCC spokesperson told reporters that the UN report on costs should stifle arguments by skeptics that combating climate change is too costly, or that it would suppress development in poor countries. (Megan Sever, "IPCC says climate change mitigation is affordable," May 4, 2007, Geotimes Online, Web Extra, American Geological Institute, at www.geotimes.org/ may07/ article.)
39. Would you agree with the UN IPCC experts that costs should no longer be an excuse for not being aggressive about climate change?

  [page_break]

What Our Allies Are Doing

40. Did you know that the Bush administration pulled the U.S. out of the Kyoto Protocol, which contained protocols designed to begin mitigating the harmful effects of greenhouse gases?
41. In contrast to the U.S. position, on November 29, 2006, the European Union ordered tougher greenhouse gas emission targets to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. (Fiona .Harvey, et al., "EU orders tough new targets on emissions," Financial Times, November 30, 2006, p. 3.)
42. Moreover, on March 9, 2007), the European Union decided to go beyond the Kyoto Protocol and adopted rules requiring that one-fifth of all energy use come from renewable sources by 2020. (Elizabeth Bryant, "Europe gets tougher on climate control," San Francisco Chronicle, March 10, 2007, p. A1 & A8.)
43. Tony Blair, when he was Prime Minister of the U. K, and Gordon Brown, former Chancellor and present Prime Minister, have both committed the UK to take a leadership role in the fight against climate change, announcing that the world can't afford to wait. ("Climate change fight ‘can't wait,'" BBC News, October 31, 2006, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/ 6096084.stm.)
44. Germany's Prime Minister, Angela Merkel, stated that she would make the fight against global warming the centerpiece of her presidency of the European Union. (Deborah Cole, Agence France-Presse, "Merkel Demands US Share the Burden on Climate Protection," TerraDaily, November 8, 2006, at www.terradaily.com/reports/Merkel_Demands_ US_The...)
45. France's newly elected President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has promised he will make global warming a top priority of his government. (John Thornhill and Hugh Williamson, "Sarkozy to focus on global warming," Financial Times, May 17, 2007, p. 1.)
46. Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has said that Canada must act to curb global warming. ("Canada ‘must act' to curb global warming: Harper," CTVglobalmedia, February 2, 2007, at www.ctv.ca/servlet/ ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/20070202/gl....)
47. Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, stated he supports carbon trading to control greenhouse gases. ("Howard in carbon trading shift," BBC News, November 14, 2006, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6146122.stm.)
48. Would you agree that most of our allies are stepping up to the plate to aggressively fight global warming.

Supreme Court Rebukes Bush Administration (Optional)

49. Are you aware that on April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration for refusing to regulate greenhouse gases as mandated under the 1970 Clean Air Act. (Bob Egelko, "Ruling helps California battle global warming, "San Francisco Chronicle, April 3, 2007, p. A1.)
50. Do you think the U.S. should continue to drag its feet or become more active in trying to mitigate greenhouse gases?

  [page_break]

Federal Court Says Bush Administration Is Violating Federal Law (Optional)

51. Are you aware that a 1990 federal law requires the government to produce a scientific report every four years on climate change and its effects on the environment. (Bob Egelko, "Judge: Warming report is overdue," San Francisco Chronicle, August 22, 2007, p. A12.)
52. The Bush administration has failed to produce the mandated climate change reports, drawing a stern rebuke from Federal District Judge Saundra Brown that the Bush administration has "unlawfully withheld action they are required to take." (Ibid.)
53. Do you think the President should comply with federal laws?

Negative Global Opinion About Us (Optional)

54. Are you aware that in a recent sampling of world opinion in which 45,000 people were surveyed in 46 countries, the Pew Research Center found that pollution and environmental concerns are increasingly seen as the leading threat the world faces. (Susan Page, "Many in global poll see pollution as biggest threat," USA Today, June 28, 2007, p. 10A.)
55. In world opinion, the U.S. is given much of the responsibility for these problems, as well as the responsibility to respond to them. (Ibid.)
56. Do you think this is fair?
57. The poll found that in the U.S., pollution was ranked lower as a concern than in any other industrialized nation. (Ibid.)
58. Why do you think this is the case?
59. Do you think the U.S. should be providing more moral leadership in preserving our planet for our children and those of future generations?

What Individual States Are Doing

60. Did you know that California is not waiting for the Federal Government to act? On September 27, 2006, California took the nation's lead in passing legislation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. (September 27, 2006 Press Release, "Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs Landmark Legislation to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emission," California Climate Change Portal, at www. climatechange.ca.gov.)
61. As of April 2007, 11 states are following California's lead in not waiting for the Federal Government to act, and are enacting state laws to combat global warming. These states are Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Maryland. (April 24, 2007 News Release, Environmental Defense, at www.environmentaldefense. org/pressrelease.)
62. Also, 11 states are suing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for the weak gas mileage standards-these 11 states are California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont. (Marcus Wohlsen, Associated Press, "Court hears arguments in suit over federal gas mileage rules," Palo Alto Daily News, May 15, 2007, p. 6.)

  [page_break]

Bush Administration Lobbying To Scuttle California's Climate Initiative (Optional)

63. Are you aware that Secretary of Transportation, Mary Peters, with the approval of President Bush, personally lobbied governors and House members to block California from placing limits on greenhouse gases? (Zachary Coile, "How White House attempted to scuttle state's climate law, San Francisco Chronicle, September 25, 2007, p. A1.)
64. Do you think the Bush administration is concerned that the 11 other states committed to climate change legislation will follow California's lead?
65. Do you think the federal government should interfere with states that want to take stronger action on climate change?

What U.S. Businesses Are Doing

66. Are you aware that on May 8, 2007, 17 of the leading fortune 500 companies are calling for federal legislation, modeled after California's climate change laws? These leading companies, which formed the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), include: Alcoa, BP America, DuPont, General Electric, Caterpillar, Pacific Gas and Electric, Lehman Brothers, FPL Group, PNM Resources, Duke Energy (one of this country's leading users of coal), AIG Insurance Group, Dow Chemical, Deere & Co., Johnson & Johnson, PepsiCo, Shell, and General Motors. (May 8, 2007 Press Release, "Major Business and Environmental Organizations Join Call to Enact National Climate Change Legislation," United States Climate Action Partnership website, at www.us-cap.org.)
67. Did you know that on March 14, 2007 the CEOs of the 4 largest car companies-GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Toyota-recently appeared before a Congressional committee and agreed to cooperate with legislation to tackle global warming? Furthermore, they agreed to cooperate in devising a scheme to limit carbon emissions. (Edward Luce, "US car chiefs back tough laws to combat global warming," Financial Times, March 15, 2007, p. 1.)
68. Also, on March 19, 2007, a coalition of leading U.S. institutional investors-including Merrill Lynch, Calpers, Allianz, and Calvert-with more than $4,000 billion worth of investment capital, issued a statement urging Washington to set mandatory targets to cut carbon emissions. (Edward Luce, "Business lobbies for emission restrictions," Financial Times, March 20, 2007, p. 1.)
69. In addition, the Business Roundtable, composed of 160 Chief Executives of the largest corporations in America, has joined the chorus calling for action to reduce the risk of global warming. (H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press, "U.S. business group joins worldwide call for climate fix," Palo Alto Daily News, July 18, 2007, p. 15.)
70. Moreover, Citigroup is committing $50 billion in investments to climate change projects over the next decade. (David Wighton, "Citigroup to scale up its green spending," Financial Times, May 8, 2007, p. 1.)
71. Would you agree that it appears that many people and organizations are beginning to see the seriousness of the problem and are willing to do something about global warming?
72. Are you willing to join with others to help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions?

Fighting Climate Change Promotes U.S. Security

73. Are you aware that on April 16, 2007, 11 top retired U.S. generals and admirals issued a report warning that the U.S. faces future security threats unless it does something about global warming? (Frank Davies, MediaNews, "Climate change now threat to security," San Jose Mercury News, May 17, 2007, p. 1A & 10A.)
74. The report calls attention to the "threat multiplier" effect of global warming, namely, climate change will cause instability throughout the world, and instability helps religious extremists and terrorists. (Ibid.)
75. The military experts conclude that the U.S. must join with other nations to curb greenhouse gases to promote our own security. (Ibid.)
76. Former Army Chief of Staff and General Tony Zinni (former commander of Central Command in the Middle East) said, "We will pay for this one way or the other. We will pay to reduce greenhouse gases today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or, we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives." (Ibid.)
77. Do you think it is better to pay now, rather than to pay later in terms of human suffering and lives?

  [page_break]

Bush Finally Outlines Proposal on Climate Change (Optional)

78. Are you aware that recently on September 27 to 28, 2007, President Bush held a conference in Washington D.C. of some of the world's largest industrial countries and greenhouse gas emitters, and finally acknowledged there is a global warming problem and we must do something about it? (John Carey, "Bush's Climate Meeting: Talk, But No Action," BusinessWeek.com, September 28, 2007, at http://www.businessweek.com/print/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2007/db20070927_950775.htm.)
79. Although most of the world has already agreed to binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by signing the Kyoto Protocol, President Bush emphasized at the conference that the US will support only voluntary measures for each country. (Ibid.)
80. Because of the seriousness of the global warming problem, do you think voluntary measures by each country will work? Why or why not?

No Responsibility to Act?

81. As I understand it, you do not feel any responsibility to act. Is this correct?
82. Are you aware that one of the most powerful pressure groups now lobbying Congress to become more aggressive in regulating greenhouse gases are Christian Evangelicals?
83. The Rev. Rich Cizik, the Public Policy Director for the National Association of Evangelicals, warned at a recent news conference that "God will judge us for destroying the creation." (Zachary Coile, "Congress moving on climate change," San Francisco Chronicle, January 29, 2007, p. A1 & A7, at p. A7.)
84. Would you be willing to explore with me what the Bible says about our responsibility in regard to global warming?

  [page_break]

We Are Stewards of God's Creation

85. Recall that God, speaking through the Psalmist, reminds us that the earth belongs to God-not to us. "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those that dwell therein." (Psalms 24:1, RSV.)
86. Also recall that in Genesis, shortly after the creation of the world and its inhabitants, God entrusted us with the keeping and caring of God's creation. "The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it." (Genesis 2:15, RSV, emphasis added.)
87. Essentially, God entrusted us to be the trustees and stewards of the creation. Would you agree?
88. Recall again, according to Genesis, when God finished creating the earth, God deemed God's creation to be very good: "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good." (Genesis 1:31, RSV, emphasis added.)
89. Would you agree that as God's stewards, we should do all in our power to ensure that the goodness of God's creation is preserved?

Supremacy of Jesus' Teachings

90. As Christians we acknowledge Jesus as Lord-would you agree?
91. Because Jesus is our Lord, we believe his life and teachings must be our supreme moral guide-would you agree?
92. Because Jesus is our Lord, when confronting a complex moral issue, we should ask ourselves: What would Jesus do based on his teachings? Would you agree?

Jesus' Teachings about Faithful Stewardship

93. Let's examine what Jesus says about being faithful stewards.
94. Recall Jesus' parable of the three talents (Matthew 25: 14-30). A master goes away on a long trip and entrusts his three servants with the stewardship of his property. Upon returning from the trip, the master rewards two of his servants who made his property flourish, but as to his third servant, who did not make his property flourish, the master "cast[s] the worthless servant into the outer darkness." (Matthew 25:30, RSV.)
95. We normally associate Jesus' teachings with love, compassion, and forgiveness. Would you agree that these are unusually harsh words for the "worthless servant"?
96. Jesus is emphasizing in this parable that we must be faithful in the stewardship of what God has entrusted to us. Would you agree?

  [page_break]

Paul's Admonition about Being a Trustworthy Steward

97. Recall Paul's admonition to the Corinthians that we are to be trustworthy stewards: "Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy." (1 Corinthians 4:2, RSV.)
98. Would you agree that being a trustworthy steward of God's creation means preserving its beauty and abundance for our children and all future generations?

We Have a Fiduciary Duty to God

99. Are you familiar with the concept of a "fiduciary," found in the law? This legal concept offers an analogy for what God expects of us as trustees and stewards of God's creation. Let me explain.
100. When we occupy a special position of trust-as a steward or trustee-to care for the property of another, we are deemed under the law be a fiduciary to the property owner. (See "Fiduciary," Wikipedia, at www.wikipedia.com.)
101. As a fiduciary we are held to the highest standard of conduct in the performance of our stewardship, because of our special position of trust. This higher standard of conduct is called our "fiduciary duty." This fiduciary duty requires us to act with the utmost good faith, loyalty, and trust in carrying out our duties. (Ibid.)

It's The Future Generations' Problem

102. As I understand your position, you believe that global warming is the future generations' problem-not our problem. Is this correct?
103. Let's see if we can find some common ground based on our shared Christian values. This may allow us to understand how and why we have a difference of opinion.
104. As Christians we acknowledge Jesus as Lord-would you agree?
105. Because Jesus is our Lord, we believe his life and teachings must be our supreme moral guide-would you agree?
106. Would you agree, because Jesus is our Lord, when confronting a complex moral issue, we should ask ourselves "What would Jesus do, based on what we know of his teachings?"

  [page_break]

Second Great Commandment and the Parable of the Good Samaritan

107. Recall that when Jesus was asked what is the greatest commandment, he said there were two: First, love God. Second, love your neighbor as yourself. (Matthew 22:36-40, RSV.) We often refer to the latter as the Second Great Commandment.
108. Also recall that someone who wanted to duck his responsibilities under the Second Great Commandment asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?"
109. Jesus responded by telling the parable of the Good Samaritan. In this parable, the Good Samaritan helps a complete stranger injured on the road, whereas the Priest and the Levite ignore the stranger and walk on by without offering any help. (Luke 10:29-37.)
110. Jesus teaches in this parable that your neighbor, to whom you should show compassion, may be someone you don't know-a complete stranger.
111. At the end of the parable, Jesus says, "Go and do likewise." (Luke 10:37, RSV.) There is no equivocation is Jesus' command for us to show compassion to people we don't know, who are in need.
112. Would you agree, in the context of global warming, our "neighbors" are our children in future generations?

Parable of the Last Judgment

113. Recall Jesus' parable of the last judgment in which he sits on his throne and separates the righteous to his right and the unrighteous to his left. The righteous on his right are sent to heaven, whereas, the unrighteous on his left are sent to hell. (Mathew 25:31-45.)
114. Jesus explains to the people on his right that they are being rewarded because they fed him, gave him drink, and clothed him when he was in need. When they asked him when they did these deeds, he replies: "As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me." (Matthew 25:40, RSV.)
115. Would you agree that "brethren" in this parable applies to our children of future generations?

  [page_break]

Energy-Rich Lifestyle and the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

116. Most of us, myself included, are reluctant to adjust your energy-rich lifestyle.
117. Recall Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. There was a very wealthy man who lived in riches and splendor. He ate the finest foods, while a poor beggar, Lazarus, lay outside his gate desiring to eat the Rich Man's table scraps. But the Rich Man took no notice of Lazarus. Only the Rich Man's dogs took pity on Lazarus by licking his wounds. When Lazarus died he went to heaven, whereas, the Rich Man went to hell. (Luke 16:19-31.)
118. Jesus is teaching us that we must not enjoy our wealth while ignoring the suffering of those less fortunate than ourselves.
119. In the context of global warming, this parable teaches us that we should be willing to make some adjustments to our energy-rich lifestyle to mitigate the suffering of future generations. Would you agree?

Concern That Actions Are Ineffective and Parable of the Widow's Offering

120. I understand that you have a concern that even if we act to limit greenhouse gases, we will not have any effect because other countries-including India and China-will continue to emit greenhouse gases. Is this correct?
121. Recall Jesus' parable of the Widow's Offering. In this parable, many rich people placed large sums of money into the temple's treasury to maintain the temple, whereas a poor widow only put a penny into the treasury. Jesus praised the widow for her penny offering. (Mark 12: 41-44.)
122. Obviously, the widow's offering made little difference to the temple maintenance-it was only a penny. But she was the most faithful worshipper in Jesus' eyes, because she gave all that she had.
123. In the context of global warming, we are called to be faithful in doing what we can to curb greenhouse gases, no matter how insignificant (or how effective) we think our actions may be.

Moral Decision vs. Business-Economic Decision

124. As Christians, if we take seriously God's charge to be stewards of God's creation and the Second Great Commandment to love future generations, our global warming decisions become moral decisions. Would you agree?
125. As a moral decision-as opposed to a business-economic decision-we must act out of moral conscience and not be dissuaded by what others are doing. Would you agree?
126. Would you agree we must not let what India or China are doing control our decision?

  [page_break]

Faith, Hope, and Love to Buttress Our Resolve

127. Recall the words of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians, encouraging us to act with "faith, hope, and love." (1 Corinthians 13:13, RSV.)
128. We need to act out our love to alleviate the suffering of future generations; we need to have hope that we will make a difference, and we need to have faith that God is lord of the outcome.
129. Can you buy into this?

My Position

130. I believe we have a moral duty, based on the teachings of Jesus and other Biblical teachings, to be good and faithful stewards of God's creation.
131. As God's stewards, we are called to do all that we can to preserve the earth for future generations.
132. I believe we are called to faithfulness in trying to fulfill the Second Great Commandment of love.
133. In this case, we are called to have compassion for our children and all future generations, who must live with the legacy of our greenhouse gas emissions.
134. I believe that mitigating global warming is the greatest challenge humanity has faced.
135. To not join with others in curbing greenhouse gas emissions is to ignore the moral values Jesus has taught us.

  [page_break]

APPENDIX

LET'S DIALOGUE WITH THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT

A syllabus of strategies, moral values, and Biblical citations.

By

Peter Wong

***************

CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Personal Story

3. The Christian Right Is Not Monolithic in Belief

4. Understanding the Conservative Mindset

5. Language of Moral Values

6. Rules for Nonconfrontational Dialogue

7. Supremacy of Jesus' Teachings as Moral Values

A. Competing Moral Values

B. Jesus' Teachings as Supreme Moral Values

C. Ethic of Reciprocity as Embodied in the Golden Rule and Second Great Commandment

D. Jesus' Other Teachings

E. Jesus' View of Rigidly Obeying Moral Codes

8. Other Generally Accepted Moral Values

9. Exposing Unconsidered Facts

10. Exploring Unappreciated Consequences

11. Probing Unrealized Inconsistencies

12. Dealing with Primal Concerns

13. Illuminating a Moral Dilemma: Weighing and Balancing

14. Shift to Agreement on Sub-Issue

15. Funneling the Dialogue

16. Pro-Choice: An Example Dialogue

17. Same-Sex Marriage: An Example Dialogue

18. Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Example Dialogue

19. Global Warming: An Example Dialogue

20. Concluding Remarks

[1] Copyright 2007 by Peter Wong. Permission is granted to MicahsCall^TM--www.micahscall.org-- permitting free downloads of this article. MicahsCall seeks to build a community of people-locally, nationally, and internationally-who believe in peace, social justice, caring for the environment, tolerance, and compassion, and inclusively welcomes all people of faith and goodwill. Peter Wong is a concerned Christian and an attorney who holds a Ph.D. in engineering. Appreciation is expressed to Carolyn Nicholson who made substantial contributions to its contents and thanks to Sarah Johnson for editorial assistance.

Click here for a printer-friendly PDF version of this article.