by John Shimkus, a member of Congress from Illinois, has received international attention recently for a statement that he made at a congressional hearing on climate change in March 2009. Shimkus said, “The earth will end only when God declares that it is time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth.” He cited Genesis 8:21-22 (God’s promise to Noah after the flood) and Matthew 24 (the report of the angels gathering the elect). The statement did not receive any further attention at the hearing, even from Calvin Beisner, who has made a similar point in his many writings about cimate change.
The renewed interest in what Shimkus said apparently came as he sought a committee leadership position related to climate change in the aftermath of the Republican takeover of the House in this month’s election. The response, shall we say, has not been favorable. It also features predictable contrasts between religion and science. Here in London, for example, the Daily Mail featured photographs of a Bible turned to Genesis 1 (not Genesis 8) with the caption that Shimkus “believes the Bible is the actual word of God,” and immediately below it is a NASA thermal satelite image of the earth “showing the world’s arctic surface termperature trends.”
I have conflicting thoughts about how Shimkus used the teachings of scripture at the congressional hearing. He is right that God is sovereign over all things, including the time and circumstances of this earth’s demise. That message is an important counterpoint to much environmental writings that worry that ciimate change (and before that, an assortment of other environmental ills) will destroy the earth. The wages of crying wolf have been high, as illustrated by the public’s broad skepticism about the seriousness or even existence of climate change.
But Shimkus can also be read as suggesting that we need not care about the natural environment because God will take care of it. There are innumerable historical examples of human actions causing serious harm to the environment, and to the people who live in that environment. I realized that first-hand a couple of summers ago when I visited Donora, the small western Pennsylvania industrial town where more than 20 people died from trapped air pollution during a weekend in the early 1950s. I see it too in China, where the World Bank estimates that 750,000 people die each year from the effects of pollution. We may not be able to destroy the earth, but we sure have proved capable of causing harm thorugh our use of it. So while Shimkus is right to remind us that the fate of the earth is in God’s hands, we would all do well to also remember that human sinfulness can cause serious harm even if it falls short of actually destroying the earth.
Thank you for your thought provoking post. The instance that you give regarding John Shimkus’ statement brings up how a Christian’s view of God, the Bible, and a Christian’s role in the world can have a tremendous impact on the way that he or she acts as an “ordinary” citizen or as an influential politician.
Before I go further, I will disclose that I count myself among those who are rather skeptical about the doomsday predictions regarding global warming. With that said, I also believe that God called us to be good stewards of His creation. See Genesis 1:28 (God gave humans dominion over the earth); Matthew 25:21 (one thing we can learn from the parable of the talents is that we should be faithful with what God entrusts to us). My focus in this comment, however, is not about the environment. I should also note that I do not intend to make any judgment about Shimkus’ statement, as I have not researched it enough to know what he truly meant and it is largely irrelevant to my comment.
One thing that came to mind in reading your post is the difference between those who believe that everything is strictly predetermined and those that believe in an element of free will. I believe that God is all-powerful, and I believe that what He ordains will come to pass. However, I also believe that Christians have free will, and that they are responsible for how they use that freedom. For example, many Christians marvel at the faith that Mary (the mother of Jesus) exhibited when she said to the angel Gabriel, “Let it be to me according to your word.” Luke 1:38. The respect for Mary comes from the belief that she could have said “Although I am honored by the request, being unmarried and claiming to be pregnant with the Son of God may not bode well for me, so I must respectfully decline.” If she had to respond as she actually did, there is no reason for us to be inspired by her response. If she responded as I proposed she could have, I have no doubt that Jesus still would have been born of a virgin. In that case, the prophesies could still be fulfilled, just not through Mary (due to the exercise of her will).
Thus, I believe it is entirely consistent to believe that, as Shimkus did, that “The earth will end only when God declares that it is time to be over,” while still believing that Christians should endeavor to act in accordance with the precepts stated in the Bible. Just because something is going to happen does not mean that Christians should play a part in it or believe that their actions are inconsequential. For example, humans can play a role in the fulfillment of prophesies while at the same time acting in a way that is sinful. For example, it was part of God’s plan that Jesus would die for us, and the terrible actions of some of the religious leaders of Jesus’ time (on earth) facilitated His death. However, those religious leaders were sinning even as they participated in the inevitable. If they were not, why did Jesus cry out for their forgiveness as He hung on the cross? Romans 23:34. Therefore, while some things, such as the end of the world, will occur, Christians should seek to act in a way that is pleasing to God, not approach life with the view that because some things are inevitable, we can do whatever we want.
Hence, where one falls on the spectrum between strict predetermination and free will is likely to affect their approach to real-life issues (such as the environment). On a somewhat unrelated note, this is just one reason of many that a candidate’s religious views are legitimately a subject of interest to voters. While Article VI of the Constitution states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,” it does not say that voters may never consider the religious views of a candidate.
In sum, while I agree that humans should realize that there are limitations to their abilities—like preserving earth as we know it for eternity—we are still responsible for our actions and should be good stewards of the talents, abilities, and resources that God has given us. And when voting, we should not hesitate to inquire into what drives a candidate’s decision-making process, even if that be his or her religious beliefs.
The climate debate is an interesting one. The question of whether humanity could destroy the earth is, in my opinion, even more interesting. I tend to agree with the late author Michael Chrichton: “You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity.” This may have been what the Congressman was getting at. Regardless of your faith background, it does take a special kind of arrogance to believe that man has the capacity to destroy earth.
The public is skeptical, and for good reason. Global warming has itself become a religion to many, and those who express doubts are labelled “deniers” — as if they were contending the Holocaust did not actually happen. As Charles Krauthammer has noted, the parallels between the global warming movement and the eugenics movement of the early 20th century are striking.
The real problem, however, is this: Environmentalists have failed to make a moral argument for their cause, relying instead on fantastical warnings of an impending doomsday and improbable pseudo-science. As a result, the public is skeptical. Few politicians, and perhaps fewer scientists are willing/able to make a coherent moral argument in favor of environmental stewardship.
Many people die each year from pollution. Many more die from AIDS, malaria, and malnutrition. We choose to address those problems not out of fear of an impending doom, but out of deep, moral concern. People respond to honest, thoughtful arguments predicated on a shared morality. They (apparently) do not respond so well to hype. There is a moral argument to be made here — environmentalists aren’t making it.