Posted: Monday, March 10, 2008 12:00 am
It was a decision of Biblical proportions - figuratively, not literally - when the Southern Baptist Convention decided its member congregations must take stronger action against global warming. It's also a welcome decision because it means the nation's second largest religious group (behind the Roman Catholic Church) concurs with the conclusions of most climate scientists.
Underneath the Baptist decision is a view, developed over the last decade or so, that the Earth is God's handiwork and that if humans don't take care of it they are breaking faith with the teachings of scripture. This isn't a new view for other, more liberal churches. For example, several Lutheran congregations in Racine several years ago began using an environmental awareness program developed at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago.
This year's decision by 44 Baptist leaders is also welcome because it is a crack in the wall of stereotypes which often keep people from meeting in common effort. Religious conservatives, after all, are narrow-minded, dictatorial, and intolerant while environmentalists are impractical, immoral, and opposed to progress. See how easily the pejoratives fly.
Such words close off real discussion because they don't require any thought or any examination of what other people are really saying. That makes the Baptist position doubly refreshing. Yes there is doubt about global warming, but how long should people wait before acting? When the weather forecast calls for heavy snow, people don't wait until after the storm before getting groceries. People know the forecast may be off, but they also know that it is wise to be prepared. The same is true in the case of global warming. By the time our children know beyond a doubt that something is wrong, it will be too late to act, and the consequences of not acting will be much worse than those of ignoring one winter storm.
The Baptist position shift also occurred as scientists are discussing whether the widely publicized targets for greenhouse gas emissions are enough. Earth's climate is already 1.4 degrees warmer on average than it was in the preindustrial age, and some scientists wonder if nations shouldn't aim for a complete elimination of fossil fuel use by the middle of the century in order to avert the most serious consequences of warming. It's technically feasible, but the question is whether it is politically feasible. That sort of achievement - running counter to such basic human characteristics as greed for profit, slothfulness about change, and pride in what people think they know - would be a truly religious transformation requiring the concerted action of the whole flock.