But politics in any American context refers to partisan politics and ideology, and America is not unique in this regard. The reason for this is that our participation in Democracy generally derives from our ability to influence election results, either directly or indirectly.

As to whether politics is defined by "wedge issues", I'd ask what you mean by wedge issues. McLaren, I think, uses the term to refer to abortion and gay marriage. But the article also highlights division over environmental policy.

Is the environment a "wedge issue"? It certainly produces sharp division in terms of how to contend with environmental problems. If a church movement commits to addressing a certain issue, to what are they committing.

Perhaps, then, the problem is not that the church is consumed with "wedge issues", but rather that the church assumes that issues related to gay rights and abortion ought NOT be the cause for division within the church, and that everyone should take a certain political position as a given.

The question we ought to be asking, then, is whether a churches commitment to this or that cause assumes the support of their membership. If not, then this would seem to argue against political advocacy at a church leadership level.

Alternately, it argues for vague advocacy with imprecise directives. Church movements and denominations may sign treaties calling for the environment to get better, for abortions to become more infrequent etc... But may not advocate any particular initiative to those ends, except perhaps a general commitment among members not to perform abortions or burn aerosol cans.

What the article is highlighting, I suspect, is not differing views on benign advocacy, but differing core assumptions about political directives. The SBC clearly advocates a ban on abortion, and this new movement of churches advocates the cap and trade bill that is before the Senate.

Maybe not, but that seems to be the direction it is going. The tendency among a collective is never toward moderation when it comes to advocacy. The SBC will probably issue a statement in opposition to governmentally imposed policy, and other more politcally leftist movements and denominations (Sojo included) will crow, issuing statements pledging precisely the opposite.

Such is the reality in a world in which people have differing opinions.

Posted by: kevin s. | June 5, 2008 11:23 AM

Brian McLaren's blind spot is evident right from the beginning here:

What's at issue in the SBC, and in the larger evangelical community (and, we could add, in the mainline and Roman Catholic communities as well), isn't whether faith is political. Nobody (or almost nobody) is arguing for dropping the second half of the great commandment -- so that "loving God" is about faith and is central, but "loving neighbor" is about politics and is therefore marginal.

What Brian completely misses is the distinction between the public and the political. Or, if I might rephrase things a bit, there's a whole range of things that are not strictly private, but are not really in the realm of public policy either, and McLaren simply does not account for these.

I'm talking about things like the provision of private charity, social and ethical mores, the upbringing of children (outside of cases of extreme abuse, anyway) even questions of etiquette. These are all areas that we might take public stances on, and even seek to influence, but where the role of the state is marginal.

There are also a range of institutions that individuals can attach themselves to (meaning they are not, strictly speaking, private) and cooperate with others, but are largely independent of the state. Among these are charities, families, churches, and business firms.

McLaren leaves himself with a false dichotomy when he assumes that there is the personal on one hand and the political on the other. There is actually a lot of ground between these two, and this has huge implications for the application of the Bible to the larger society. Among other things, that means that one can take a position that Christianity has little to do with government without marginalizing the second half of the great commandment (loving your neighbor) because there are a wide range of ways besides public policy in which that love of neighbor can be expressed.

To work through the example that McLaren uses of the environment, and what people mean when they say it is or is not political: whether or not the environment ought to be a political issue, it is one. It is a political issue not because the Bible says it ought to be (it doesn't) but because the government has become involved in it. (And to be fair, there are good reasons for the government to be involved in environmental regulations. The question is just what those regulations should be.)

There are ways to care for the environment that are not political, however. A church could simply take on the task of cleaning up trash, in a riverbed, or planting trees, or handing out flourescent bulbs.

Brian McLaren urges us to think of "political" as involving more than schemes and power plays. That's a good sentiment as far as it goes, but if I might make a suggestion, perhaps we also need to think of "apolitical" as more than merely "personal". Or to put it another way, I think we should acknowledge that it is possible for communities to act without invoking government.

It's possible that McLaren is trying to move in this direction, but I have yet to see Brian McLaren or anyone else at Sojourners refer to politics in a context where they called on the government to cede control to any other institution.

Which brings me back around to a point I raised in the earlier thread: what's really at dispute here is the role of the state. McLaren and Sojo inevitably rely on the state because they cannot imagine social collaboration except under the leadership of the government. Conservatives rely less on the state because we can imagine other institutions taking decisive action on their own.

In the end it doesn't matter whether you call it "political", "social", "communitarian", or something else entirely, the question is whether or not everything has to be directed by the state.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 5, 2008 11:36 AM

Wolverine: "There are ways to care for the environment that are not political, however. A church could simply take on the task of cleaning up trash, in a riverbed, or planting trees, or handing out flourescent bulbs."

Wolverine, would you agree that there are environmental problems of such large scope that only government, at whatever level, has the resources to "take on the task" of addressing them? Let's leave aside global warming for a moment, because i don't want the discussion to be derailed by a debate over its scientific validity. So that would leave us things like, for example, environmental degradation of a city's water supply or air pollution of a metropolitan region.

Posted by: carl copas | June 5, 2008 11:53 AM

Carl -

Sorry to "derail," but it needed to be said.

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 5, 2008 12:04 PM

I think everything is being shaken up in the christian world. McLaren is shaking up the politics of christians (his book Everything Must Change). Claiborne is shaking up the neglect of christians toward the poor (his book Irresistable Revolution). George Barna is shaking up the whole way christians have been taught about church (per his new controversial book, Pagan Christianity?) I think it's a neat time to live and I want to see major changes in all of these areas. The question is will the christians really accept the changes that are happening?

Posted by: Tom | June 5, 2008 12:27 PM

Another nonymous you said:

The fact is, given the state of the scientific consensus, you can't disagree about whether human activity is causing global warming. If you want to argue about what to do about it, then we can talk.

What is the perfect temperature for the earth?

Roger

Posted by: roger | June 5, 2008 1:01 PM

What is the perfect temperature for the earth?

Irrelevant question, because no such thing has ever been sought or discussed.

Posted by: Don | June 5, 2008 1:04 PM

Wrong, Kevin. The idea of a perfect temperature is a faulty premise, and I don't know where that comes from.

Nobody assumes a perfect temperature of any sort. It's not part of the question. No perfect temperature needs to be proposed in order to know that temperatures are rising and that this rise is being caused at least in part by human-generated carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse gases'.

Nobody is trying to preserve any perfect temperature, either. The discussion is about how to prevent temperatures from rising further by reducing or eliminating the causes (i.e., the carbon emissions).

So the question indeed is irrelevant.

Carl and Another nonymous: sorry, but it appears that the conversation did get derailed.

D

Posted by: Don | June 5, 2008 1:41 PM

forgive me for going way back to go all the way back to the earliest comments, but it may speak to how we got way over to climate change. it is poor form to assert that, because person has not said everything there is to say about a topic, somehow what he has said should not be considered on its own merits.

no, kevin, mclaren doesn't go into all that you so eloquently detail, but the truth is that most of what you detail is beside his point. it's a parallel presentation, as opposed to generative conversation. he could argue that "politics in any American context," by definition does not always refer "to partisan politics and ideology." There are plenty of us (myself included) who are not partisan or ideological in any exclusive sense, who still desire "to influence election results, either directly or indirectly," if for no other reason than to get some of the entrenched partisans/ideologues out. but mclaren isn't really talking about this. some of the same words, different topic. mclaren could, i'm sure, delve deep into the topic of "wedge issues" (a term i take some exception to), but that too isn't sufficiently related to his topic.

you do something very similar, wolverine. the all encompassing question isn't necessarily "whether or not everything has to be directed by the state." that's your question. mclaren was talking about something very different. and just because this particular post doesn't entertain that question doesn't make it irrelevant.

in all fairness, these could have just been tangential thoughts provoked by reading McLaren's post (but if this were the case i would imagine that you would have said it and positioned them as addendums, not contradictions). insisting that we get to dictate the terms of conversation is not the inevitable "reality in a world in which people have differing opinions." such is the reality of a way of being the world in which those who function out of values, presuppositions or beliefs different from our own are deemed illegitimate. the shame is that this way of being in the world can be so easily associated with christians.

wolverine, you also seem to suggest that, since "ONE CAN take a position that christianity has little to do with government without marginalizing the second half of the great commandment (loving your neighbor) because there are a wide range of ways besides public policy in which that love of neighbor can be expressed" (very well said, by the way), then SHE SHOULDN'T (as if it is somehow wholly inappropriate to) extend these others-interested intuitions to include public policy. if this is truly what you believe, then your engagement with this site becomes somewhat disingenuous, does it not—considering that sojo is precisely about embodying love in the public AND political arenas?

we know you guys are intelligent, and i personally find it refining to engage with those who see the world so very differently, but if you must always push back, critique, contradict or condemn, i beg you, do so about what has actually been said. otherwise, all you accomplish is to leave us at the same level of do-nothingness.

Posted by: melvin bray | June 5, 2008 2:16 PM

" he could argue that "politics in any American context," by definition does not always refer "to partisan politics and ideology.""

He could argue it, but instead asserts. I think the fact that this argument immediately "derailed" into a discussion about global warming and what to do about it is telling.

Outside of that, I'm not sure how my post was beside the point. If the ideas and concepts he introduces are beside the point, he should get in the habit of not introducing them.

He seems to be looking for a definition of politics that will work within a Christian framework. I was explaining that what we have now is what it will probably look like.

"such is the reality of a way of being the world in which those who function out of values, presuppositions or beliefs different from our own are deemed illegitimate."

In my view, McLaren perpetuates the very attitude he claims to decry. Of course, this post was followed by Tony Campolo's in which he asserts (or, rather, "wonders") that those who support the way are driven by lust for oil and jingoism. It's tough not to take the posts in tandem, given that they come from a similar movement.

"the shame is that this way of being in the world can be so easily associated with christians."

Again with the passive voice. Who is doing the associating and what can we do to change it? McLaren strongly suggests that the SBC is one of those making the connection, but he also contributes to this appearance when he appears in print and on panel shows to throw them under the bus.

Posted by: kevin s. | June 5, 2008 3:41 PM

Your statement is a perfect example of something I was talking about last week: the growing disdain for expert opinion as "elitist." Posted by: Another nonymous | June 5, 2008 12:02 PM

You are right on the money Another! This has always been a strategic pillar of fundamentalism. Intellectual reasoning is always seen as the enemy and even Evil in its origin by those that want to claim possession of the only true and valid knowledge. The global warming issue is regularly discussed in the context of being mythical in nature - created by liberial minded, tree hugging, spineless matter led by the likes of Al Gore no less. I just happen to live in the middle of the Bible-Belt area of America and the outlandish comments coming from many of the conservative pulpits venting disdain toward those non-traditional pastors that preach of such notions as the Christianity in a "green" ecological mindset would be extremly funny, if it were not so sad.

At times I think true Christianity has taken a backseat to idle theological arguing and one-up-manship. IMO we have become distracted to say the very least.

Posted by: d.e.sharp | June 5, 2008 4:31 PM

Sheesh, I go away for a few hours, then come back and you guys have derailed everything!

kevin s: "Nice use of the passive voice. The discussion could be brought back in line were the initial post that was written by me somehow responded to."

kevin, I've read your initial post 3 times and am still not sure what you're driving at. What am I missing? Can you elaborate just a bit? Thanks in advance.

Wolverine: "This is a very tricky field though and there is a lot of room for folks to disagree in good faith, not least of all because I am not beyond the temptations of intellectual arrogance and the misuse of power."

Agreed, and your tone in this post shows us how we can disagree w/o getting nasty with one another. Satan must laugh everytime he sees Christians getting snarky on here; I shudder to think of how many times I've tickled his funny bone.

Posted by: carl copas | June 5, 2008 4:57 PM

"That means that you are not entitled to disagree [about the human causes of global warming] unless you are a climate scientist and have data that are unavailable to everybody else."

Wow, really. And Don, you amen that. Actually the debate has barely even begun. Your baloney meter should be going off as soon as someone shuts down debate or shuts out those who disagree.

Back to my point. Brian has graciously stated that we should start with faith in our Creator and "move to politics in a spirit of justice, kindness, and humility". This would be a major change for SOJO and I appreciate it.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | June 5, 2008 5:36 PM

Wolverine, I'm going to post my response from the other thread here. From your first comment above, it still seems very likely that, at least in the way you are conceptualizing the issue, you confuse politics with government. Here's my original response, pretty relevant here I think:

""it became a political issue the instant that government got involved in it."

It's tough to reconcile your reasoning now, Wolv, with what you actually said. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and simply take the time to further elaborate on my criticism.

Domestication of theology happens when a religion is able to get close to power structures--government or otherwise. Calvinism and Roman Catholicism in Europe, for instance. But also in the gender structures of society. Patriarchy (male-centered power) is just as guilty of domesticating theology to benefit itself. This is also politics. It's the game of playing with meaning for advantage, for position. It involves both official structures of power and unofficial, i.e.: those "invisible" structures which guide assumptions about the world and the way social structures work and their "inevitability". Theology is powerful in the construction of inevitability because it appeals to the ultimate ground: God. This is political at its nature--and my employment of the term is miles away from the NYT's usage. So I side with Brian.

Such theology keeps us from understanding Jesus' political maneuverings: against the power structures of the temple, against the power structures of ethnicity, privilege, gender and yes, empire. "Jesus never challenged Rome!" I have heard so often from those who innocently believe it but also from those who would prefer that Jesus stay sequestered from that sphere. And sometimes the innocence and the preference are bound together deeply (giving us ears which cannot hear, eyes which cannot see). Domesticated theology keeps us from not only understanding this side of Jesus--domesticated theology keeps us from even seeing it. Therefore I define politics with Brian: "the way people organize and govern themselves" but I emphasize that this includes "non-official" forms such as the social structures inherent in social relations.

I hope that clarifies what I mean."

Posted by: Matt W. | June 5, 2008 6:32 PM

Unfortunately, yes:

http://www.fixedearth.com/

Posted by: Matt W. | June 5, 2008 6:53 PM

Jeff:

My 'amen' may have come off as a bit undiplomatic. I'll try to explain more diplomatically this time. And I'll try to be as complete but as brief as I can, though that's hard to do with such a complex issue.

I suggest that you take the time and read some of our dialogue about experts in the "Seven Ways to Change the World" thread (it's in the archive--dated May 29).

Global warming is the kind of issue that we can call "low feedback"; that is, we must depend on experts to tell us what is true. We don't have the ability to verify what people are saying ourselves. (If I said it's sunny outside, that would be a "high-feedback" topic, because all you would have to do to verify whether what I said is true would be to go outside or look out a window.)

The problem with low-feedback issues and with depending on experts is knowing who the experts really are. In "Seven Ways to Change The World" I commented about the allegations that the 2004 presidential election was stolen by Bush supporters or by the Republican party. This is another low-feedback issue. And one can find many so-called "experts" to tell people what they want to hear. The problem, in the case of both these issues, is that many of the touted experts really aren't at all experts--dedicated to studying the topic that allows them to speak with authority on the topic. And elections experts--those who have dedicated their lives to studying elections, polling, and the elections processes--haven't found any evidence of a stolen 2004 election, even though they have found lots of problems with the election process.

Among climate experts, and I will similarly define them as those scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying the earth's climate systems--these are not the same as meteorologists, by the way, the debate is essentially over. The evidence is in that human beings are contributing to a dramatic warming of the earth's climate systems. Scientists are skeptical by nature, and when the first reports of the so-called "greenhouse effect" surfaced in scientific journals some thirty years ago, most climate scientists expressed skepticism. It has taken most of the last thirty years to convince these skeptics, but they are for the most part now quite convinced. This is what "Another nonymous" meant by consensus. They will continue debating over details, but the main assertion is no longer debated--humans are indeed causing or contributing to climate change, and they have loads of evidence that demonstrates the truth of that assertion.

Scientists, however, even when they are quite sure about something, always hold out the possibility (at least theoretically) that an alternative explanation might exist. (In fact, this is how scientific knowledge often advances--someone seeks and then finds evidence to support a new explanation for something.) The popular notion of something being an "exact science," in other words, is a bit of a fallacy because in science things are not very often found to be truly exact. Just think of quantum physics and the things physicists used to think were precisely true about the nature of matter and you will see what I mean. So even though we can truthfully say climate scientists have reached a consensus on climate change, that doesn't mean that what they know about earth's climate systems is set in stone. At least theoretically, new evidence could come to light that would cause them to alter their views. And it means that absolute certainty is not really possible.

And this is where the "debate" that you are so sure is just beginning comes in. It is a documented fact that an organized effort exists--funded largely by business and industry interests who have a vested interest in preventing the world from acknowledging and acting on the information that the climate scientists are presenting--to plant doubts about the evidence for climate change. These interests are taking advantage of science's innate skepticism, scientists' willingness always to seek alternative explanations, and the inherent lack of complete scientific certainty, essentially to manufacture doubt. Since they are supported by deep pockets, they can continue raising issues. And in the supposed interest in "presenting all sides," media are only too happy sometimes to grant them an audience. The purpose for this manufactured doubt campaign, of course, is to eliminate, delay, or minimize public and government action on this issue.

However, the evidence that is available does give us more than enough data to support the need for public action. We don't have to wait until lingering doubts are removed before we can act. However, that is what the doubt manufacturers want us to believe.

So the debate among the general public--those of us who have to depend on experts in order to understand the issue, in other words--goes on. But once again, the debate among the true experts--again, those whose lives are dedicated to studying earth's climate systems--is essentially over.

I hope this explains why I gave my "amen" to Another nonymous.

peace,

Posted by: Don | June 5, 2008 7:19 PM

You honestly expect me to engage with a bunch of sentence fragments? In a sick twist of irony and on a small scale you have duplicated the typological conservative error: failure to understand the context of a passage. And then you duplicated it again by asking me to "cite verses" as though that were an appropriate way to understand what Jesus meant rather than what Jesus said!

I copied a quote from another thread. It was in response to something Wolverine said. I was inviting him to continue the conversation. If you want to engage you have to do the difficult work of comprehension by flipping to the previous page of the story [our ongoing discussion], posted in the comments Brian's first installment. And then try posting using more words so it doesn't feel like I am watching a ping-pong match, or, if you had read Brian's most recent book (I doubt you have) football offense and defense at the line of scrimmage before the snap.

Not trying to be snarky, but to save you some time (and me), I should probably offer that I am a PhD student studying Sociology and Religion so I might not be willing to let you get by with hand-waving dismissals. I'm perfectly willing to engage but you'll need to show more effort than that.

Posted by: Matt W. | June 5, 2008 8:16 PM

If the whole point of McLaren's articles was about needing to agree on how we define 'politics' then the comments which follow suggest that he was spot on. Ignoring for now the side issues he raises, like environment, homosexuality and the SBC, there is a marked difference in how the comments above use the terms 'politics' and 'political.'

On the one hand, politics is a word which can describe social organisation, social engagement, social relationships. From this point of view every social movemnt, or relationship could be seen as an exercise in politics. I believe (for I'm not a mind-reader) that Brian falls into this camp with his description of 'loving neighbour' being political.

On the other hand, politics refers specifically to government, to institutions, to democrats and republicans, to policy, to the responsibilities of the state. Most responses above would fall into this narrow view of politics. So from here there are three domains, personal, social and political, whereas the broader view of politics only allows for the personal and political.

From the broad viewpoint environment is political (as is homosexuality, public policy, missionary activity, service to others, racism, - everything that is not purely personal). From the narrow viewpoint, only those issues which relate to governance, policy, law etc, would be political.

It is right that we, and that Sojo, should clarify which version of politics we're playing at.

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | June 5, 2008 11:58 PM

"You honestly expect me to engage with a bunch of sentence fragments? "

Why not? Sorry, I'll rephrase... Why would you opt not to engage my inquiries in spite of my lax (and I recognize the lax is an abbreviation... please forgive me) attitude with regard to sentence structure. That said, I will endeavor to adhere to grammattical norms henceforth.

"In a sick twist of irony and on a small scale you have duplicated the typological conservative error: failure to understand the context of a passage."

To which passage to you refer? You are very used to people agreeing with you, I suspect. May I ask why you find this exchange ironic?

"And then you duplicated it again by asking me to "cite verses" as though that were an appropriate way to understand what Jesus meant rather than what Jesus said! "

How do we know what Jesus said apart from verses from scripture? You are free to answer this question as you wish.

"I copied a quote from another thread. It was in response to something Wolverine said."

Was this an attempt to understand what Wolverine meant, as opposed to what he said?

"And then try posting using more words so it doesn't feel like I am watching a ping-pong match, "

Ironically (though not sickly so) I have been chastised for my prolixness by posters here. To paraphrase my grandmother, I don't know whether to crap (hence the paraphrasing) or go blind. I am either a pretentious snob or a laconic oaf, depending on one's point of view.

"if you had read Brian's most recent book (I doubt you have) football offense and defense at the line of scrimmage before the snap."

Your assumption is correct, but incomplete. I have read five of Brian McLaren's books. I greatly enjoyed "A New Kind of Christian", and "Finding Faith" having used the latter as a tool for introducing my skeptical friends to Christianity.

I have, in the past, taken guff for defending the guy, which (IMO) is neither here nor there.

"Not trying to be snarky, but to save you some time (and me), I should probably offer that I am a PhD student studying Sociology and Religion so I might not be willing to let you get by with hand-waving dismissals."

In this instance, your use of the phrase "hand-waiving dismissals" would seem to consitute a hand-waiving dismissal. That said, what does your pursuit of an advanced degree have to do with anything?

Also, I propose a moratorium on the use of the word "snark" and its derivative forms. It either represents a dodge ("I don't mean to be snarky, but snark-snark-snark") or a tsk-tsking ("don't snark because that's not Godly, not that you care about Godliness") and so forth.

"I'm perfectly willing to engage but you'll need to show more effort than that."

Now that we have gotten loquacious together, would you be so kind as to answer my questions?

Posted by: kevin s. | June 6, 2008 2:24 AM

Matt,

Your discourse on the Enlightenment was interesting, but you fail to connect Liebniz, Newton, and Descartes with modern conservatism. To the extent that modern conservatism has roots in the 18th century, the names to remember are Adam Smith, Alexis DeTocqueville, and Edmund Burke.

You repeat a meme frequently found on Sojo, that conservatives oppose programs to alleviate poverty because "the poor will always be with us". I think we would all benefit if this were to stop. I have been in the conservative movement for many years and have yet to hear a conservative base much of anything on this passage.

The fact that certain phrases were used by both Roman authorities and early Christians proves little except that certain themes are inspiring and tend to pop up in a lot of different contexts. The National Socialists liked to chant "Hail Victory!" University of Michigan alumni like to sing "Hail to the Victors!". Make of that what you will.

As far as the division between politics and religion, I never said that the two have nothing to do with one another, but it is important to remember that they are not the same thing and that some distinctions still need to be made between the two. Beer and pizza go very well together, but we still serve beer in glasses and pizza on plates. If you put beer and pizza together in a blender and mash "puree" what you get would not be so appetizing.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 6, 2008 10:06 AM

Wolverine: "Your discourse on the Enlightenment was interesting, but you fail to connect Liebniz, Newton, and Descartes with modern conservatism."

Unless I read Matt's post incorrectly, his aim was not to connect the Enlightenment with modern conservatism but rather to explain the early history of how "religion" got walled off from "politics." That's a paradigm that everyone labored under, until quite recently. The Religious Right tried to reconnect religion and politics--most of us on her, though not all of course, think they made a hash of things.

Now the Sojo crowd is trying to reconnect politics and religion in a different way. And we see folks in the "Emergent" movement and the new monastic movement (think Shane Claiborne) trying to do the same thing in somewhat different ways.

Matt, if I've mischaracterized your post, I apologize.

Posted by: carl copas | June 6, 2008 11:13 AM

"most of us on her" should read "most of us on here" of course. Freudian slip on my 21st wedding anniversary.

Posted by: carl copas | June 6, 2008 11:28 AM

Carl,

You raise a fair point about the origins of the distinction between faith and politics, but the point is I'm not defending an airtight seperation in which the two have nothing to do with one another. What I am saying is that while the two interact, they are still distinct subjects.

If Matt W wants to understand the conservative approach to this whole thing, he would do better to look at the writers who conservatives, such as myself, tend to look at: such as Smith, DeTocqueville, and Burke.

Even Brian McLaren acknowledges that "[n]obody is trying to say that faith has nothing to say about how people organize and govern themselves..." so what Liebniz, Descartes, and Newton -- the supposed architects of a "wall" between religion and politics -- have to do with the debate we're actually having is beyond me.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 6, 2008 11:48 AM

Who is paying these experts? What solid facts do they have to show us? I thought we were past the days when we believed everything someone in a white coat told us. If their case was so strong the Global Warming folks would welcome open debate and discussion on the topic. Instead we have attempts to shut down the conversation, that should be a red flag.

1. Most of the experts are on major university payrolls. They are paid to teach students and to do research. We have a couple right here at Ohio State who have spent their entire professional careers studying the melting of alpine glaciers around the world. Sometimes they have risked their lives to gather evidence that helps them determine what is happening to the glaciers.

2. The facts are out there for anyone to read. Just leaf through some scientific publications. You might try Nature for starters, since it's written largely for a less technical audience. But in my experience, global warming deniers don't want to look at the evidence. (This is called selective exposure.)

3. Nobody is saying we should automatically believe everything "people in white coats" say. But when an issue is so complex, the data is so confusing, that we have need of explanation just to understand it, we have little choice but to rely on those who have the expertise. This is precisely what I meant when I talked about "low feedback" issues.

4. Why should they debate with folks who distort the facts and try to twist them to favor an industry or interest group? An honest debate is welcome; in fact they do it all the time among themselves. You haven't seen a debate if you've never seen scientists disagreeing about something. But they're not going to debate with doubt manufacturers whose purpose is to magnify uncertainty, who don't want to face the evidence or discuss the issue honestly and who, quite frankly, don't even understand the facts well enough to ask the right questions. See Another nonymous' flat earth analogy. Why should they debate such individuals?

My red flag pops up and my baloney meter goes off when I see or read about people with a vested financial interest in denying the whole thing getting undeserved media attention for spouting nonsense that they don't really understand, not to mention getting others to believe it and politicians to base policy on it. As Another nonymous said, unless one is a climate scientist who has discovered evidence that counters the consensus, one doesn't really have sufficient standing to argue intelligently against that consensus.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | June 6, 2008 12:05 PM

Don,
"global warming deniers"
"folks who distort the facts and try to twist them to favor an industry or interest group"
"doubt manufacturers"

Yep, more of the same.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | June 6, 2008 12:40 PM

Yep, more of the same.

Yep, selective exposure. Any desire to look at the actual evidence? Or have you decided that since you don't "buy into" global warming, you don't need to educate yourself on what the climatologists are saying?

D

Posted by: Don | June 6, 2008 1:25 PM

kevin s.: no.

Posted by: Matt W. | June 6, 2008 2:11 PM

"By the way, AA what are you doing to care for God's creation?"

Since you ask, I have been involved in environmental activism since the first Earth Day in 1970, when I was still in junior high school. For years, I have driven high-efficiency cars, taken mass transit whenever possible (I didn't even own a car until I was 27), and have bought "green" products. I recycle extensively. I get my power from a company that uses only renewable energy sources. I stopped buying aerosol products long before they were banned. I lobby for pro-environment legislation. I look constantly for ways to be environmentally pro-active, to the point that my wife sometimes thinks I'm nuts. And, of course, I pray about it. I do all this because, as I mentioned earlier, I want my kids and grandkids (yet to be born) to have a chance to live in a safe and healthy world.

I also work extensively with the poor in my community and contribute to aid organizations that help poor children in the third world: particularly Compassion International, through which I sponsor a child and am also a member of their program that rescues newborn babies from starvation. I regard this as creation care work in the very same sense as what I describe in the previous paragraph. I pray about this a great deal also.

In short, I'm "walking the walk," and am always looking for new ways to do so. I believe, however, that global warming can only be solved by massive, intentional action beginning immediately, and that is why I am dismayed by the credibility that is still being granted to the global warming deniers - and yes, I use that term because that's exactly what they are. If they weren't threatening my children's future, I might not take this so seriously. Your position, though, is roughly that of a man standing directly in the path of an oncoming train who refuses to get out of the way because he read somewhere that trains often spontaneously reverse direction. Unfortunately, you're also trying to force me to stand on the track with you, so I'm sorry if I seem to have little patience.

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 6, 2008 2:16 PM

I'll look at it. Any chance you could not be insulting.

I assume that last sentence is a question. I'm really not trying to be insulting. But to be honest, you are being exasperating. You wrote:

"Don,
'global warming deniers'
'folks who distort the facts and try to twist them to favor an industry or interest group'
'doubt manufacturers'

Yep, more of the same."

This reads to me like a request to cut off discussion as well as a written form of holding your hands to your ears so you can't hear me anymore.

Frankly, Jeff, you want your cake and eat it too. You want to have a discussion "in a spirit of justice, kindness, and humility" but when I try, kindly and diplomatically at first, to point out the flaws in the global warming deniers' arguments--and yes, I'll continue using that term for the same reason as Another nonymous continues using it--you come back with a conversation-ending "more of the same." This tells me that you really don't want to listen any more.

I would like to be able to discuss things with you in grace. We have done so before, if I recall, on other topics. But the fact is that we cannot have an honest or humble discussion if you want to continue denying scientific facts. If you want to continue insisting that the world is flat, then I am going to continue insisting that your sources for those beliefs are crackpots. There's simply no way around it. I can't have a meaningful discussion under those conditions.

If you take a look at some of the climatologists' reports, however, maybe we can have a discussion. If you give me a week or so, I might be able to find you some specific articles to read, but I don't have time for that kind of research right now--it's finals week.

And like another nonymous, I have been doing as much as I can to be "green" and have been doing it for years. In addition to riding the bus downtown, driving small vehicles and driving as little as possible, recycling, replacing worn out appliances and light bulbs with energy-efficient ones, etc., I am also the treasurer of our local chapter of the Wild Ones (www.for-wild.org). They are a national organization dedicated to educating people about alternative landscaping for their property--instead of water- and chemical-dependent lawns, we advocate landscaping with natural materials native to the region. For us in Ohio, that means prairies in open places and natural woodlands on wooded properties.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | June 6, 2008 2:55 PM

"And to be fair, there are good reasons for the government to be involved in environmental regulations. The question is just what those regulations should be.)" That answer your question?
Posted by: Wolverine | June 6, 2008 12:03 PM

Yes sir! Yet, I was trying to sort through the difference between the "government involvement" you mentioned versus the "government exclusiveness" that I thought Carl was referring to...I'm NOT a PhD student, so at times I tend to be confused by the nuances of the conversations. LOL - just kidding!!!

Have a great weekend all**

Posted by: d.e.sharp | June 6, 2008 3:14 PM

While I respect Jeff's opinions regarding the validity of global warming, I feel there are a number of valid questions that are worth discussing outside of the "is global warming real?" debate.

For example, the Senate blocked a vote on the Cap and Trade bill today. My suspicion is that this is simply the first salvo in a battle over what such a bill will actually look like (I can't imagine anyone in the Senate wanting the bill as is). Where will this go? Where should it go?

Posted by: kevin s. | June 6, 2008 3:39 PM

I did a great deal of praying about this discussion last night, and I have come to some conclusions.

* I think Jeff was honestly trying to make a gesture of good will with his initial post.

* He had the misfortune of citing an issue in the process about which I and other regular posters care passionately, and about which we have already had to argue repeatedly over a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific truth.

* As a result, Jeff's comments were seen, by me and others, as a challenge rather than as the gesture of good will that was no doubt intended.

I am going to pay Jeff the compliment of assuming that this challenge was unintentional. While I feel no need to apologize for the arguments I made – quite the opposite, in fact – I therefore want to repeat my apology for what Jeff apparently saw as the tone of those arguments in view of his conciliatory overture. If Jeff had chosen virtually any other example of an issue to discuss, I would have jumped in just as eagerly with loud agreement.

Thanks, Jeff, for trying. I hope this comes across as sincere and not as another dodge from a self-confessed ivory tower arugula eater.

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 7, 2008 12:22 PM

"An interesting side note: "meme" was a word coined by Richard Dawkins. But that is neither here nor there."

Nor is it particularly true, though the term has secular roots, as do many words in our language.

"I'll admit I'm not the expert that you are on function system sphere thingies,"

Neither is Matt, from the looks of things. An expert would be able to illustrate how you are arguing from a certain sphere. Matt is merely asserting that this is so.

He also doesn't like short sentences, apparently, so make sure you have a functioning 'comma' key.

Posted by: kevin s. | June 7, 2008 5:30 PM