With the Copenhagen Summit just days away – I am hoping that Christians around the world will be praying for wisdom for our global leaders as they make decisions about the ecological future of our planet.
But I just got an email from the European Leadership Forum explaining that this year’s keynote speaker will be Professor Wayne Grudem.
I owe an enormous debt to Professor Grudem because his was the first systematic theology that i read cover to cover. It was a really engaging book because he didn’t duck out the juicy bits of theological discussion (at least the juicy bits when i was 19 years old – speaking in tongues, prophecy etc).
I enjoyed the book despite holding very different views on the end times and the roles of men and women. Grudem’s work was a standard part of my discipleship training for the young people I was working with.
But today as i scanned through Prof. Grudem’s previous talks at the ELF I heard him argue that global warming was wrong.
“There are those who say that the production of carbon dioxide is creating a greenhouse effect and is causing the earth to warm, in fact it does not appear to be born out by empirical evidence, all of the evidence for global warning is based on computer modelling and many of the assumptions of the computer models are highly suspect. Within the last month we had 30 000 scientists who signed a public declaration that they were high sceptical of the warnings of global warming. “
As i listened to Dr Grudem share his views on the subject and also provide an extensive list of websites where global warming is disputed – i was hoping that he would balance it out with alternative views to his own – but no this was an important part of his message to emerging and established leaders in Europe.
As i listened i thought about the significance that Grudem’s writing came from a North American context, which has the incredibly influential oil producers funding all sorts of research programmes to rubbish the claims of global warming. It reminded me of the need for a truly global conversation about global warming. If this had been a dialogue rather than a download there might have been an opportunity for Professor Grudem to learn as well as teach. But he seemed very unaware of the impact his cultural location had on his position. As a result a noted evangelical theologian is a global warming denier and is encouraging European leaders to follow him. This is an issue of huge apologetic significance – as the Christians are seen to be the equivalent of flat earthers which can’t be good for the public reputation of the gospel.
As I reflected more on this I noticed that Dr Grudem had a pivotal role as the General Editor for the ESV Study Bible. The ESV approach to translation includes the idea that:
“The ESV is an “essentially literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on “word-for-word” correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.”
I am no linguistic expert but even in the experience of becoming fluent in the Albanian language when we served as missionaries there in the 1990s this “word for word’ translation principle would seem naive as it seems to show a lack of understanding of how languages work. So once again a lack of awareness of the nature of culture has influenced a conservative evangelical US global export. (there’s some interesting articles I have found on the challenges of ESV’s approach to translation and culture here)
The other aspect of Professor Grudem’s work I am now re-examining is his approach to male and female roles in the home which often appear to me to seem to find ways of baptising the model of a 1950s home in the USA as a cultural model for the rest of the world.
How do we facilitate a genuine global conversation on these subjects so that we don’t remain locked in our cultural bunkers – recognising that both sides have things to learn? Only this way will we be able to commend the gospel effectively and credibly.
Leaving aside global warming, (i think you’re right) and the esv language issue (i disagree
) I’m not sure that suggesting Grudem’s work on male and female roles in the home was “baptising the model of a 1950s home” is useful to this post. Save it for another post where you can expand on it properly maybe?
Thanks for this – has got me thinking. When I saw controversial and global warming I thought you were going to posit what Grudem is saying! Definitely is disturbing, I’ve a lot of respect for some of his thinking.
There really does seem to be a link between the very literal reading of scripture and views on creation. Is there a contrast between european and north american evangeicals when it comes to climate?
Always good to question the thinkers and commentators. And their background and make up is essential to understanding their worldview. Is making me think.
I agree that scripture needs to be taken into context of how it was being said and who it was being said to. And on the Climate issue, If I’m no scientist and have to take the word of those who are supposed to be knowledgeable in these matters, however, how is a layman like me supposed to make any sort of judgement if there is so much arguing by people with their own agendas?
Not too harsh at all, Krish. We have to be honest as evangelicals that global warming is not an issue that is written about in the Bible. Neither is translation techniques, and in fact it draws not distinction between “working” and “staying at home” as family roles for husbands and wives. Whether or not CO2 production is causing climate change is a scientific debate that there is a little dissent over. Many have criticised the integrity of the skeptical scientists for appearing to ignore evidence, and others have criticised scientists who will not submit data for peer review for fear it will give weight to opposing theories.
When we handle these issues that scripture does not speak directly into, we have to draw general principles from an overview of scripture. This is bound to be coloured by culture – it’s naive to believe we can come to an opinion separate from our backgrounds and influences. To preach in a subtly different culture saying that both science and scripture agree definitively encourages clones, not thinking, investigating learning Christians. Rather, I would prefer honest teaching that acknowledges confusion, grey areas, discussion and encourages thinking, exploration and conversation.
Thanks for this Krish, I don’t think you’ve been too harsh.
The ‘evidence’ for global warming is less than overwhelming and so you are right to call for a genuine conversation which cross national and cultural boundaries.
I like the ESV but do agree that word-for-word translation is not the best, if it is at all possible. A word has meaning within a sentence, a sentence within a paragraph and a paragraph within an over acrching narrative. If we fail to understand the base narrative of the text we will fail in our translation, however accurate the word-for-word might be.
I haven’t read Grudem and so can’t comment on his male-female thinking, but I suspect, sharing your views I think we need to do some more work on this.
BTW – is this snow is see before my eyes across your blog, or do I need another new monitor??
Gordon Kennedy
“As a result a noted evangelical theologian is a global warming denier and is encouraging European leaders to follow him. This is an issue of huge apologetic significance – as the Christians are seen to be the equivalent of flat earthers which can’t be good for the public reputation of the gospel.”
I agree that a dialogue with different opinions might have been a good idea. However, shouldn’t this go both ways – both “sceptics” and “alarmists” should recognise that no one position is the undeniable Christian position, and allow discussion. But what about organisations like Tearfund and the Evangelical Alliance, which have taken a very definite stance not only on global warming, but on what the solution to it is (i.e. government to set targets).
http://www.eauk.org/articles/climate-change.cfm
Global warming “alarmists” have taken over the policy of some Christian organisations, with little noticeable opportunity for debate of the issues.
From the EA website:
“Churches must lobby Gordon Brown to prioritise tackling climate change, regardless of the credit crunch. This is the view of the former chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, Sir John Houghton.
Addressing an Alliance and Tearfund-sponsored event in Cardiff on Tuesday, he said, ‘Climate change is a very big problem and anything we can do about it by lobbying on this issue is vital. The moral imperative is enormous,’ he added.” — http://www.eauk.org/articles/climate-change.cfm
There are several things in this that would not be agreed upon by all evangelical Christians.
Also, I think it is unfair to group global warming “deniers” with flat earthers. The UK public is sceptical about global warming, as recently noted by the Financial Times:
“But while political urgency over climate change is growing – and few world leaders are outright “deniers” – there is little sign that broader public opinion is following in the wake of the mounting scientific concerns….
…Another study, by the Institute for Public Policy Research in London, found people were “tired and bored of hearing about climate change”, cynical about government motives in pushing for action on climate, and dismissive of “self-righteous” environmentalists….” — http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/95ca3398-a710-11de-bd14-00144feabdc0.html
And that was written before the recent stories about climate change scientists not being quite objective in their studies.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece
The Evangelical Alliance and Tearfund’s public campaigning is out of step with UK public opinion. If Wayne Grudem’s view is bad for the public reputation of the gospel, could not the same be said of the EA and Tearfund?
For what its worth, my view is that trying to prevent global warming is futile, whether it is happening or not. There simply is not public will across the world to do it. Therefore, our focus should be on adaptation, e.g. helping poor countries develop infrastructure such as flood defences or irrigation, which will both help them now, and help them be more resilient to cope with any climate change that does occur.
Clearly there’s a lot of merit in hearing perspectives other than those our “itching ears want to hear” – all the more so when they come from people we have previously come to respect.
It’s paradoxical, I suppose, that the very people whose voices help to challenge us are often themselves the ones who have been less aware of the limits of their own perspective.
Is it possible to avoid being those people ourselves from time time to time?
I have some major sympathy for the need for a global perspective, same reason we must have the breeze of the centuries blowing through too – we’re too easily blinkered. For that reason this is a really helpful post – and the question is, where am I blinkered, and where have you been Krish? Be really helpful if you can share where your travelling and global interaction has changed your views on various things.
That said – whilst it seems very reasonable that we’re wrecking the planet, I’m not quite prepared to buy the apocalyptic prophecies of politics and science yet, or Gordon’s flat-earth accusations (sort of bypasses real conversation to throw round such comments surely..) I just don’t feel like I’ve been properly persuaded… It is curious that Grudem chimes in with an American culture and most British Christians would probably resonate with British cultural views… we might be wrong, he might be wrong…
As for the ESV and Grudem’s other views, seems a bit harsh to make such brief comments on the issues! Not least when the counter argument on the male/female stuff is that those who take an egalatarian perspective are just baptising 21st Century western-attitudes… it goes both ways surely…
What a disappointing post.
Had you commented on anyone else’s views on a social or theological issue, and put their ‘naivete’ down to their culture and nationality, you would have been blasted as a racist. It seems this is allowed against North Americans, though.
You failed to interact in any way whatsoever with the quotation you reproduced. While you’ve assumed without question that anthropogenic global warming is correct (perhaps due to your own cultural location, dare I say it!), we have not heard what you think about the opinion of the 30,000 professional scientists skeptical of the reports of global warming.
Is it actually wrong that a high-profile evangelical denies global warming? Is this seriously a problem for us? We might well be mocked for being as bad as flat-earthers if we deny global warming. We may just as likely be mocked for believing that Jesus could be raised from the dead. What I’m saying is that Wayne Grudem toeing the party line on global warming isn’t going to make Christianity look any wiser to the world. I think you’ve made a very big deal out of a very small issue: one person airing his opinion on an issue, which is actually not all that uncommon, nor without support in the media or the scientific community.
The fact that you’ve dragged the issue of Bible translation and gender roles into the discussion- with so little engagement with the issues- has done little more than give the impression you’re simply having a jab. I was sad to read this.
I have to say that I agree with jimmyl on this one. People who question the “consensus” on the issue of manmade climate change are labeled ignorant, when the opposite is true: questioning is a vital part of the scientific method.
Thanks for commenting Phil.
It is not wrong to ask questions or to challenge the emperor’s new clothes.
Its when we Christians start to see conspiracies everywhere that we lose credibility.
Interesting post Krish. I agree with you on Climate change. I think the evidence that we have a problem and that it is man made is compelling. Precise predictions about what we humans would have to do by when to avoid catastrophe are much less compelling.
I also agree entirely about your cultural point. We carry the baggage of our own history and culture with us & this gives us a blind spot in terms of the impact of our statements on people with in cultures.
Thanks for the responses on the article.
1. I apologise if the blog post came over racist, or anti-american. That was not my intention – rather to recognise that we all do our theology out of a cultural location – and global dialogue will lead to learning all round. I did not mean to imply that all americans are culturally naive – I have too much respect for too many americans to claim that.
2. I think there is a link between views on climate change, bible translation and roles of women – the link being approach to culture. Again not saying that these views aren’t valid – but rather that an explicit awareness of cultural location will make a difference.
3. I was discouraged to hear about one of my old theological heroes having these views on climate change – it was not supposed to be a jab – but i must admit I was upset when i wrote it.
davebishlogin asks what our cultural bilnkers might be. I wonder whether it is the inability to look our ‘apocalyptic prophecies’ in the face. We’ve had it so good for so long that we can’t believe that anything truly catastrophic could happen to us, despite the reality that hundreds of millions of people in the world live extreme lives of suffering every single day.
benstevenson, you may be interested to know that Tearfund, as experts on disaster risk reduction, have led the way on campaigning for adaptation, pushing for a commitment of $150bn per year in additional climate finance to be made at Copenhagen.
Krish – I’m really glad you posted this. Provocative but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Manofvaller – you may well be right that our complacency is the big lie, I guess its only really in the west that we’d think the world was ok and safe in the first place. What I’m then dubious of is whether we’ve made as much of an impact as we’d like to think on that changing of things, it seems to this non-expert that the world runs in cycles and so things go this way and that.. and maybe we’ve not contributed to that change as much as we’d like to think… maybe we can’t do as much about it either… The whole thing seems a bit convenient for our sense of self-importance.
That said – I totally and unreservedly think we should start taking better care of the planet, wrecking it the way we are can’t be what God had in mind in Genesis 1-2.
I have great sympathy with climate change sceptics; the scientific modelling required for establishing credible theories of global warming and it’s possible causes and effects has needed extensive research and collaboration – research that quite conceivably could have been funded by people who have an interest in the political change that would result from a less oil-dependent global economy.
However, the reverse is equally true for those who would deny anthropogenic global warming; the financial investment in scientific research from oil-producing regions of the world is surely a matter for concern.
There is no such thing as apolitical science. Almost all scientific research is funded, with the political dynamic that brings. And the scientific method begins with a hypothesis and tests it; inherent in the process is the attempt to find what you’re looking for. None of which is to decry the value of science – it is only to say that ‘Global (Warming) Theology’ is an excellent title, because it is our deepest beliefs that ultimately decide these issues.
I have committed myself to the cause of reducing our human impact on climate change as a theological response to the global political context as I read it. A very small minority of the global population consume almost three times more oil- and wood-based products than the world can sustain, while the vast majority live in poverty. That same minority control the world’s oil production. And that majority are right now being driven deeper into poverty as a result of extreme changes in weather patterns. (Ask any major relief and development agency and they will tell you that across the board, regardless of continent, poor people are reporting local climate changes unknown within their communities for generations.) My belief in a God of justice and transformation leads me to question the oppressive status quo, which for me means asking far more forcible questions of climate change-denying science than it does of those who tell us we need an almost total cut in carbon emissions.
Science, like theology, requires a faith commitment – a leap into the unknown. A future in which we reduce our oil and (therefore) carbon dependency – and perhaps shake off the shackles of our consumer culture – looks to me far more like the kingdom of God than a great deal more of the same.
Pingback: Challenging Times » Blog Archive » Climate change?
Is it true that anyone putting forward a view must also always present the opposite view at the same time? (which is what you are expecting WG to do with regards to global warming).
I would say a resounding NO! This blog post has not done that – it has presented one view on WG and his cultural influences. There is not a second half that articulates the alternative view – and that is fine. But how then can WG be criticised for only articulating one view on global warming?
I also think it is very revealing that someone’s view on a science issue is lumped with his theological views. That in itself demonstrates that global warming has become something that you “believe” rather than something that is clear cut science. You wouldn’t get upset if your child didn’t believe in gravity – you would demonstrate it to them. The fact with global warming, is that in Europe in particular, in the absence of clear science it has become a new “morality” that we believe in. It is not supported by open discussion of the data (e.g. current “Climategate” scandal), but rather by the propagation of myth-like bogie man stories which we are patronisingly told by the BBC.
The mark of the best kind of science is that there is no need for discussion of bias and influence because the testable evidence speaks for itself. That is not the case with AGW, so we believe instead.
By the way, is it not possible that European governments have an equally powerful motive for endorsing global warming simply because they are NOT oil producing nations? Is it not the one way that EU can exert influence on the rich oil producing states? Lack of oil is the EU’s one big economic weakness.
Thanks for posting David –
I am interested by your comment: “the best kind of science is no need for discussion of bias and influence.”
Philosophers of science would on one hand argue that there is always a bias – as opposed to the naive empiricists – in other words “evidence” never speaks for itself… this is the problem of induction – some refer to the idea of the “theory laden nature of observations.”
However there is a difference between recognizing how cultural location, worldview and theoretical models shape the science you do and the idea that there is a global conspiracy on a subject. So my problem with a lot of the conversations around young earth creationism is along these lines.
How do we move forward?
Hi Krish. I think what we need to recognise is that there are outcomes from science which do not remain forever conjectual. This is particularly true where a scientific understanding of things is exploited in engineering – in these cases, the science is beyond a discussion, it produces outcomes in the real world. For e.g., GPS, nuclear physics, semiconductors. It would be pointless to discuss on this page whether or not semiconductors exist, when this page can only be viewed because they exist and have been exploited. In that sense science has gone beyond bias and cultural influence. They have been cut out. The rubber has hit the road of reality. That is what I was talking about.
In that sense it is more scientific that other conjectual type science BECAUSE it is tested in the real world and can be applied for all to see. In that sense it is “better” (maybe “stronger”) science.
That is not to say that there is no value in “science” of difference sorts, or even earlier stages in the discussions. But we do need to recognise that where science cannot be tested in the same way, scientists do not rightly speak with the same level of authority.
Would you agree that this distinction is valid?
I agree with that distinction davidhs73. And I also think that justifies a position of scepticism towards the idea of anthropogenic global warming. As does the perfectly valid argument that the EU stands to win by a reduction in world dependency on oil.
However, it equally justifies a position of scepticism towards the idea that global warming is not anthropogenic. As does the argument that the nations (e.g. US, Saudi Arabia) dragging their feet on climate policy stand to win by continued dependency on oil.
So however frustrated we might be with a lack of total certainty and people on either side taking a moral high ground we have to make a choice: Krish’s ‘how do we move forward?’
The Economist made a great argument this week that we should see investing in the reduction of carbon emissions as a prudent insurance policy. You hope that the money you spend out on buildings insurance each year is actually money down the drain, but you pay it anyway to stave off possible disaster; you don’t have to wait to be totally convinced a hurricane is coming to destroy your house before insuring it.
In the same way, though the scientific evidence may not be conclusive, there is sufficient credible evidence for us to be seriously concerned about the possible outcomes for the most vulnerable (if not the whole) of the human population. In this eventuality the only responsible action is to insure ourselves against the effects of a >2degrees temp rise by investing in a reduction of carbon emissions and in adaptation finance for poor communities. In doing so we hope and pray we are seriously mistaken and that it will be wasted time and money and political energy, and that the hundreds of millions of Internally Displaced People forecast for the coming decades never materialise.
I never responded to this, which was impolite, so here’s a reply to the main question – how do we move forward? I think the way forward on “global warming” needs to recognise that the issue is simply not settled in the way that many believe it is. To say that there is “sufficient credible evidence” is exactly the point not held by “the other side”, and simply to state that does not solve the difference. There is a lot of stuff out there (if you dig) giving the other side to this whole issue – and anyone serious about forming an opinion should investigate it.
On the broader issue of lumping someone’s view together and then (almost) dismissing them on the basis of where you believe they are coming from, I think that that is to take cultural influences too far. Yes they are a factor, but of all people, Wayne Grudem is one of those who gives you reasons for what he believes. I don’t always agree with him, but at least he shows you his working. In which case, take issue with his arguments, not his upbringing.
To focus on his cultural influence is to reinforce the very cultural bunkers we want to remove ourselves from.
Thanks davidhs73, but I think you’ve misunderstood what I mean by ‘sufficient credible evidence’ (or perhaps I didn’t communicate it very well). I’m not stating that there is sufficient credible evidence for anthropogenic climate change, because as a non-scientist I have no idea, and even if I did see the data I would not understand it. I also understand there are other opinions on other, and the same, date, which I would not understand either.
So as a lay-person, in scientific terms – like most of the population – I have concluded that there is ‘sufficient credible evidence’ that there is sufficient-credible-evidence-for-anthropogenic-climate-change. That doesn’t involve not listening to those who claim climate change is either not happening to the extent some claim, or that it is not caused by human activity, or even to those more radical who claim that Peak Oil has already happened and the ramifications will hit us way before those of a >2degree rise. But I think at the end of the day, when _potentially_ so much could be at stake, you have to throw your cards down on the table and say ‘this is what, in the light of the information I have available, I think we should do’.
I’m concerned that most of this thread has been people saying ‘we need to hear the other side’, which is great but what does that mean in practice? Because in my opinion, unless the scientific community can agree that, beyond reasonable doubt, the actions of industrialised nations have not had, and will not have, a detrimental effect on the climate of the poorest people in the world, then our starting point should be that we have a responsibility to act.
Are you saying we should do nothing?
There is no doubt that Grudem is better on theology than he is on science (he demonstrated this again at New Word Alive 2010). The difficulty comes where the science has theological implications (or vice versa)
Good call Krish: thank you. Much more politely expressed than I’d've said it — but I’m not renowned for excessive politeness :-/