Evangelicals Whoring For Influence?

Stephen Dinan has a short piece in the Washington Times titled "McCain's common ground with evangelicals." He briefly outlines McCain's strategy of jumping on the global warming bandwagon as a way to rally support from liberals, moderates, and "evangelicals" that are interested in the subject. His main support from "evangelicals" is coming from the Evangelical Climate Initiative.

Here's an excerpt from Mr. Dinan's piece:

"Sen. McCain's support of strong policy on emissions is in line with the evangelical community. In a recent Ellison Research poll, 84 percent of evangelicals said they favored federal legislation to reduce the emissions that contribute to global warming," the ECI said in its statement, mailed by the McCain campaign to reporters this morning. Curiously, that statement is not yet posted on the "press" section of ECI's Web site.

In reflecting on his piece, one must ask who decides what the definition of "evangelical" is? Who speaks for "evangelicals?" We should keep in mind an enlightened sentence in the new "Evangelical Manifesto:"

"Evangelicals have no supreme leader or official spokesperson, so no one speaks for all Evangelicals, least of all those who claim to."

But who are these "evangelicals" and why are they jumping on the global warming bandwagon? Should we be listening to them? Are they credible? Is the science of manmade global warming credible?

To answer these questions, we need to consider the following:
1. Who are these evangelicals? They are a who's who of liberal christian politicians, emerging church pastors, academia-wonks, and other "evangelicals" including the Rev. Dr. Rick Warren, Rev. Jim Wallis, Rev. Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Rev. Dr. Leith Anderson (who, ironically, is a signatory on of the Evangelical Manifesto too), and others. The full list can be seen here.

2. Why are they jumping on the global warming bandwagon? Common sense would point to them being, at best, deceived and premature in their support of a hotly debated scientific issue. At worst, they are whoring themselves and their constituents for political power and cultural relevance. I envy not the position they have placed themselves in.

3. Should we be listening to them? Are they scientists? Are they educated in any field remotely relevant to global climate? Are most of them above reproach on other issues and in other areas of their ministries? Largely...no. So why give them credence on this issue?

4. Is the Science of global warming credible? There is a very well-written book aimed at helping the lay person understand the "other side" of the global warming debate. Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years is a wonderful, thorough, and exhaustively researched piece of literature that casts serious doubt on the global warming alarmist's conclusions. It's a must-read for every skeptic AND every global warming alarmist alike. Even environmentalists are giving it some kudos for being a book that needs an answer. An answer they have yet to craft. It is difficult to read this book and buy into the manmade global warming hysteria that is sweeping academia, political circles, and an increasingly fame-drunk "evangelical" leaders.

What it boils down to is this: why would ECI try to speak for all Evangelicals on a hotly debated academic subject like global warming? Have they not learned from the evolution vs. intelligent design debate that banking on conventional wisdom is often an investment in those who are subtly (or not so subtly) trying to undermine the Christian faith and/or our personal liberties?

I am embarrassed that church leaders would be so easily duped into a movement that seems much more about the erosion of liberty than the science of climate or the well-being of mankind.


On another note: An unrelated, but interesting tidbit in Mr. Dinan's article is that Concerned Women for America (CWA) is raising alarm that the Evangelical Climate Initive's largest donor(s) happen to be some of the largest bankrollers of the pro-abortion groups.