some southern baptists change their minds on climate change

After another long hiatus, I'm back blogging, hopefully more regularly again. Since December, I've been too absorbed with being pregnant to think about any environmental issues bigger than cloth vs. disposable diapers. (I found a really good answer to that one, which I'll write about at some point.) But now that little Anastasia is a month old, I should be able to find a few moments to write, at least occasionally. 

Today I'm excited about the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Declaration that was released on March 10. Jonathan Merrit, a seminary student in Atlanta who spearheaded the document, insists that the document is not about global warming, that it doesn't endorse any particular scientific data, and that it isn't intended to be divisive. As far as climate change is concerned, the declaration is careful to not take sides on the issue of anthropogenic warming and abstains from any judgement calls on science. Instead, the declaration states cautiously that "we do not believe unanimity is necessary for prudent action. We can make wise decisions even in the absence of infallible evidence." Exactly what "prudent action," would entail, the declaration carefully leaves up to the reader. 

Overall, it's a carefully-worded document that ought to come across as innocuous even to most anti-environmental activists. But, of course, it doesn't. It's raised a furor of protest among Southern Baptists--which isn't really surprising, considering that the Southern Baptist Convention last year passed a resolution stating that scientists are divided on climate change and urging against any cap on CO2 emissions. The new statement, which was written by a few Southern Baptists and not passed by the Convention, nevertheless opened the door for headlines like "Southern Baptist Leaders Shift Position on Climate Change." Which naturally stirred up some controversy in the denomination. 

And a part of me can't help but wonder: will the environment be the next dividing point for denominations? Is there any chance that a denomination could split over disagreement on environmental issues? It's interesting to think about--is it really any more of a fringe issue, theologically speaking, than some of the other disagreements that have sparked splits in the past?--but I think it's extremely unlikely. If for no other reason, it's unlikely because the shift in thinking--and it is a shift, no matter how much Jonathan Merritt insists that he didn't want to be divisive--will happen naturally over time anyway. The divide is generational as much as it is theological. Yes, leaders of different generations have signed this document, but look who wrote it and spearheaded it: the main spokesman for it is a twentysomething still in seminary. And the truth of the matter is that most older Baptists, like older Americans of many other stripes, don't want to take too much action on environmental issues. Younger Americans do. But it's the choices of younger Americans that will win out in the end, if we wait long enough. 

And strangely enough, it's the generational difference that in many ways gets to the heart of the matter. For the past generation in America, the intersection between theology and politics happens primarily at the individual level. All the most important political issues had to do with sex: abortion, same-sex marriage, attacks on the family. But for the younger generation of theologians, theology impacts politics on more communal issues: the environment, poverty, social justice. Partly it's a reaction to the past, a correction for something that was out of balance; partly it's a characteristic of a generation that is deeply communal and relational in all of its thinking. Either way, I don't think it's entirely a misstatement to say that Southern Baptist leaders are shifting their thinking. They are, whether they want to admit it or not. And it's a good thing.