The global warming "debate"

I'm sorry, I didn't realize global warming was still a debate. I thought it was a fact. The debate is who should do what to reduce the rate of warming.

I'm also sorry to inform the religious right that I am capable of worrying about more issues than abortion, gay rights, and sex ed. Poverty, global warming, AIDS.

Here's the background... Some folks, including Dr. James Dobson, wrote a letter to Dr. Roy Taylor, the chairman of the board at the National Association of Evangelicals. In this letter these folks express their concern about the vice president of government relations at NAE, Richard Cizik. Their main claim in this letter is that Cizik, as he expresses his views, is understood to be speaking for the NAE, which then represents the voices of Evangelicals in general. The problem with this, according to Dobson, et al is that the NAE "lacks the expertise to take a position on global warming." Although "it does appear that the earth is warming," Dobson et al suggest that the NEA should not be addressed theologically, since it is a "dividing and demoralizing" issue. Finally, the writers call for the resignation of Cizik if he cannot refrain from this demoralization and work to represent the NAE's commitmentment to defend "traditional values."

I have a couple of very basic arguments.
First, raising awareness of new issues does not have to be a distraction. Perhaps, and my rightest friends forgive me, but just perhaps, focusing only on what marriage is, not teaching young people how to use condoms, and arguing over why and when and who should have an abortion is actually the distraction. Is it possible that these micro-issues are narrowing the spectrum of relevancy of modern christianity. In no uncertain terms, these issues distract the secular (or, in church-speak, the 'unchurched') from the love of Christ. All they see is the hate, bigotry, self-rightousness, and uselessness of today's church. Don't insult me by assuming that I cannot occupy myself with more issues than you care to worry over yourself. Perhaps you, religious right, are worried that someone might think I care more.

Secondly, it is an insult to God to not be good and efficient stewards of the earth. Can we not honor what we are given? Fine, it is not a theological issue, but as Christians we should care for creation. The gluttonous rape of our lands is easy and easy to ignore. But being wise consumers and preservationists of our world is one of the many ways we as humans can share in the nature of God. God called the earth, the trees, flowers, animals, water, and air on it good. It is unGodly to waste them. If there are proven methods of less wasteful consumption of these goods, then we should be made more aware of them and encouraged to participate in them. The left encourages us to do this for the sake of the planet. The right should likewise encourage this participation, but for a greater reason, in order to honor God and his love of creation and all that is in it.

Thirdly, I'm so tired of this idea that to distract from mainstream Christianity is somehow unChristian. Puhlease. I can't form any better argument. PUHLEASE! Asking for Cizik's resignation because he is doing something "divisive" is like asking for Jesus' resignation because he was being divisive from then modern Judaism. It's like asking for Paul's resignation because he sought to accomodate the Jews and the "heathen." Forgive my extreme similes, but I hope you get my point. This extremism that Dobson & Co. are demonstrating is more like the farsical works of Michael Moore than the loving example of Jesus.

And that's all I've got to say.

However, if you're interested in paying attention to this debate, and what the big guys have to say, like Jim Wallis, one of the ring leaders of the "red letter" movement, check out this blog!