Global Warming and American Christianity -- Sightings

Elections do have consequences, and even though the Republicans only took over one house of Congress, the Tea Party element in this new Congress will make itself felt.  One of the issues that will undoubtedly be affected is Climate Change.  You remember all the talk about Cap and Trade.  Cap and Trade is a carbon tax initiative that would help bring down the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere that causes the build up of green house gases, which in turn raises global temperatures.  Although, with few exceptions, the entire scientific community has been warning us about the consequences of global warming, as Martin Marty notes, Tea Party activists have bought into the conspiracy theories of folks like Rush Limbaugh, and financial backers of utilities, and want us to believe that there's nothing happening out there.  Well, Marty has some helpful insights and resources that may bring this issue more clearly into focus.

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

Sightings 11/15/2010

Global Warming and American Christianity

- Martin E. Marty

Those who long recognized that the public has to take a long view, should it wish to address global warming, learned in the recent election that they have to take a longer view. The Tea Party, which makes its first appearance in Sightings today, massively opposes small measures and even serious attempts to bring up the topic. Not a few Tea Partiers undergird their opposition with theology of the biblical sort. Last October 20 in The New York Times, John M. Broder did a close-up of typical action in campaigns at Jasper, Indiana. Global warming? “It’s a flat-out lie!” shouted the founder of the local T.P., basing his view on theologian Rush Limbaugh and “the teaching of Scripture. ‘I read my Bible. . . [God] made this earth for us to utilize.’” Lisa Deaton, a founder of Tea Partyish “We the People Indiana,” added gloss: “Being a strong Christian, I cannot help believe the Lord placed a lot of minerals in our country, and it’s not there to destroy us.”

It would be easy to refute and dismiss such proclamations, but they are generously backed. Broden: “Those views in general align with those of the fossil fuel industries,” which subsidize—at the rate of [by now well over] $500 million in the last two years—lobbying against legislation that would help postpone The End. Such industries can always find some dissenter against the overwhelming scientific consensus which warns against the destruction of the planet. Ron Johnson, the new senator from Wisconsin, settles it all scientifically. Climate change? “It’s far more likely that it’s just sunspot activity.” Or part of an every ten-thousand year cycle. Wait and see.

Bill McKibben, whom the utilities lobbyists and the Tea Partiers most hate, is an advocate of measures to confront climate change. In The New Republic, he writes: “On what is quite possibly the single biggest issue the planet has faced, American conservatism has reached a near-unanimous position, and that position is: pay no attention to all those scientists.” He skewers the “tiny bunch of skeptics being quoted by right-wing blogs.” McKibben, who includes churches as he rides the speaking circuit to awaken publics, is not a total pessimist. He thinks true conservatives, who would like to conserve the earth, will come to see through the conspiracy theorists, utilities lobbyists, and beyond the crack-pots—and help make sacrifices to bring about change.

McKibben, long a favorite of readers of The Christian Century, has begun to get support from editors who know what real conservatism means. So it was cheering to see LaVonne Neff commenting in Christianity Today on McKibben’s Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet. She quoted stories identifying the author as “probably the nation’s leading environmentalist” and “the world’s best green journalist.” He is also, she notes, “a churchgoing, Sunday-school teaching Methodist, who wants to see Christians leading the environmental movement,” and makes a theological case for their doing so. McKibben argues for “small and local” ways to help confront the issue. Ms. Neff, contra Mr. Limbaugh and other theologians on the far right, argues that McKibben’s recommendations “fit well with Scripture’s respect for creation” and “its requirement to love our neighbors as ourselves.”

Many Catholics, Jews, and Mainline Protestants, who have worked this theme in their “social justice” preaching, rejoice to hear such evangelical voices. Neff writes, “McKibben is not a doomsday prophet,” but he is a prophet crying in our heating-up wilderness.

References

“Local is beautiful: Bill McKibben believes we can thrive on a planet that will never be the same,” Christianity Today, November, 2010.

John M. Broder, “Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith,” New York Times, October 20.

Bill McKibben, Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet by (New York: Times Books, 2010).

---, “Hot Mess: Why Are Conservatives So Radical about the Climate?” The New Republic, October 6, 2010.

Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, publications, and contact information can be found at www.illuminos.com.

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

The Day After

"The Day After" is the title of a 1980s TV movie about the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust.  I don't think we went through a nuclear holocaust last night, but the election results weren't pretty.  The Democrats will keep the Senate, probably because of a couple of Tea Party candidates that went too far out of the mainstream.  We will have to wait to see what happens next.  Health Care Reform isn't going anywhere, but there won't be any more stimulus.  Tea Party folks will be calling for deep spending cuts, believing that there are billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and fat to cut.  We've heard this before.  There are those who call for the end of earmarks, but conservative Republicans are just as apt, if not more apt, to bring home the pork as liberal Democrats.  So, who wants to give up the benefits they bring home -- benefits that lead to re-election.  I remember when Arnold Schwarzenegger came into office, he was sure there was lots of fat to cut and quickly found out that there wasn't much he could do -- largely because the voters, through the initiative process, had tied up most of the budget. 

One of the things to notice is that while there are younger Tea Partiers, the vast majority are older.  Thus, my sense is that this "revolution" we're seeing will be short lived, maybe no more than a year.  It will be interesting to see  how "mainstream" Republicans try to coexist with their fractious newcomers, many of whom have no experience in government.   Will their constituents support them in the long run?   Remember that two years ago, the Democrats rode a crest of enthusiasm to historic gains.  This time, with a much older electorate than two years ago, Republicans rode a wave of voter discontent to victory. 

I think we also need to ask the question of how much influence the recent Supreme Court decision freeing Corporations to spend as much as they want on elections, with no transparency.  Money can't be given to candidates, but can be given to parties, so the vast majority of ads were either 3rd party or Political party ads -- and much of this was full of deception or misinformation.  My sense is that many voters were so turned off by everything that they just decided not to vote, and that's likely true of younger voters.

Finally, I want to make a comment about what happened yesterday in my new hometown of Troy, Michigan.  There was a ballot measure that would fund the library for ten years, restoring its funding in full.  The opponents of this measure, which was placed on the ballot with the support of the Friends of the Library, fought it through what I believe was extremely deceptive means.  They placed three other ballot measures that looked almost exactly like the first one, forcing voters to figure out which one to support.  Then, they began a separate campaign of disinformation calling for the defeat of all four tax increases, suggesting that if all four passed, then there would be four tax increases, which wasn't true.  They also suggested that the library would have to go out and buy a new building and new resources, which is also untrue.  If the separate board had been established, the city could easily transfer ownership to the new board, as has been done in other communities.  The difference between yes and no votes is a mere 600 or so votes.  If the other three had not been on the ballot, would it have been defeated?  I don't think so.  I've learned something very quickly about Troy -- there is a small group of people who have figured out how to control the structures of power, and they will do everything they can to achieve their purpose.  They lost out in the last city council election cycle, but I fear that they will regain power and that doesn't bode well for what is supposedly one of the most affluent cities in the state.

But, at the end of the day, we will survive.  We will live on to fight another day.  My hope is not in any one party or program, but in God.  I will continue my calling to push for the common good of all, and not just the few.  That is, I believe, the desire of God. 

On Not Polarizing Too Much: The Challenges of Prophetic Hospitality (Bruce Epperly)

As we near the Fourth of July holiday, a weekend in which citizens and residents of the United States of America will celebrate 234 years of independence, we also live at a time of increasing political and cultural polarization.  The political bases of the two parties have moved further and further from the center, so that less that civil statements and actions have come to the fore.  Bruce Epperly writes as a theological progressive and political liberal -- I note that both these terms are considered "unAmerican" in some circles."  Just today, I heard Jeff Sessions ask, with derision in his voice, whether Elena Kagan is a "progressive."  So, where are we as a nation when "birthers" and Tea Partiers seem to have taken hold of the imagination?  Bruce addresses some of these questions in what should prove to be one of his most provocative contributions to this blog.

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

On Not Polarizing Too Much:

The Challenges of Prophetic Hospitality

Bruce G. Epperly

This week’s contribution includes affirmations, concerns, and confessions in responding to the growing polarization of our political and religious worlds. I begin with a concern: I believe that there are growing movements of political and religious polarization in our national life today. I believe these movements threaten the gains we have made as a nation in terms of health care, diversity, environmental protection, and human rights. These movements are motivated by a vision of reality that clearly and dramatically separates persons and policies in terms of good and evil, black and white, in and out, and us and them. When these movements draw on religious resources, they articulate a vision of God which is defined primarily in terms of judgment, power, exclusion, and destruction, rather than love, healing, and acceptance. In a world of diverse visions of reality and lifestyles, these groups believe that God is the ultimate divider, and calls us to do likewise. I will also make a confession: Many of the members of these movements of the religious and political “right” assume that people like me are the enemy, representing something that is destructive of true Christianity and the USA’s best interests.

While we progressives and liberals can be polarizing as well, seldom do progressive and liberal Christians or political activists threaten violence, insurrection, or question the patriotism of those with whom we disagree. I cannot recall among the many progressive and liberal diatribes against President Bush (which involved more than a little impolite conversation and words of demonization) calls for his assassination, the de-legitimization of his second election to the presidency, or the overthrow of the government. I suspect this was because in spite of their occasional vitriol, progressives and liberals are inherently big picture, inclusive, and global thinkers. I have concerns in terms of the growing influence of political and religious polarizing groups, especially in the context of their attempts to become the dominant voice of the Republican Party.

The question these groups raise for me as a progressive Christian is: “Can I be both prophetic and hospitable in relationship to the groups that judge my path as demonic, wrong, and hell-bent? Can I find ways to forcefully but lovingly respond to such groups and their belief systems?” I must confess these are challenges to me personally and spiritually, especially when I hear the comments of “birthers,” Tea Party members, libertarians, and Christian militia leaders. I am often angry, and am tempted to polarize in my own thoughts. I wrestle with how can I passionately advocate for what I believe is right for our nation and the future of our world, and what is congruent with my faith as a Christian – concern for global climate change, a greater sense of community and inclusion, welcome to strangers, health care for all persons, and affirmation of the interdependence of nations – and not demonize with whom I disagree, even when such persons see my views as demonic and dangerous to Christianity and the nation. How can I balance prophetic passion and justice-seeking with healing hospitality?

In her book Plan B, Anne Lamott admits that finding a way to envisage President Bush in a new light was her primary spiritual challenge. She passionately opposed everything about his leadership and policies, domestic and foreign. But, she came to realize that her hatred and demonizing of the President was hurting her spiritual growth and was standing in the way of following Jesus. She still continued to oppose President Bush’s policies, but began to visualize him as a child of God. This began a process of spiritual transformation that changed her life.

In many ways I feel like Anne Lamott when it comes to the rising polarizing political and religious right wing. As I seek to provide prophetic hospitality, my response is both theological and spiritual. First, as a process theologian, I believe that God influences every person to greater or lesser degree. The most vitriolic “birthers” are still touched by God; that is the meaning of omnipresence. While I suspect that they are turning their back on God’s call to a wider more creative and global vision of Shalom, God is still working within their lives, seeking wholeness and community. Second, all persons, even the most radical Tea Party persons, are God’s beloved children, deserving my basic human respect, despite the political gulf between us. Third, all persons, including myself, can experience transformation and conversion. From this perspective, my own political disagreements need to be framed as provocative alternatives, rather than attacks, grounded in the hope that “opponents” may awaken to the value of contrasting positions. Fourth, in order to avoid polarization, in the spirit of Reinhold Niebuhr, I am called to see the falsehood in my own truth, and the potential truth in the “opponent’s” falsehood. Sometimes, this is simply the recognition that your “opponent” is motivated by fear – fear of change, fear of economic insecurity, fear of otherness, fear of the inevitable decline in the American empire, and fear of losing one’s ethnic, social, or political place in society. To me, fear is the common denominator of all these groups in their quest to deport the alien, hold onto tax money, and delegitimize an African American president. Perhaps, they shout louder because they know that their cause is ultimately lost and that they are going against the grain of history and the nature of reality in its interdependence and diversity.

Theology inspires spiritual practices. I am working at “breathing deeply,” trying preserve my spiritual center when my own anger takes center stage. Gentle breath prayers break down the walls of division and open us to new possibilities for personal and communal transformation. Second, with Mother Teresa, I seek to see Christ “in all his distressing disguises,” including shouting Tea Party members, recalcitrant lawmakers, and violent militia persons.

Finally, as I seek to be hospitable to my “opponents,” I look for the truth in their falsehood even as I passionately affirm my vision of interdependence, community support, healthy diversity, equality for all persons, and ongoing evolution. I seek to experience God moving through all our lives, gently and persistently, even my political and religious “opponents.” Whether or not, we can find common cause in this time of knee-jerk divisiveness, I hope to bring forth the best in myself and my community by living by love rather than fear, imagination rather than stagnation, and hospitality rather than isolation.

Bruce Epperly is Professor of Practical Theology and Director of Continuing Education at Lancaster Theological Seminary and co-pastor of Disciples Community Church in Lancaster, PA. He is the author of seventeen books, including Holy Adventure: 41 Days of Audacious Living and Tending to the Holy: The Practice of the Presence of God in Ministry.