Barack Obama’s campaign letter, The New York Times, today released an editorial that calls on US politicians to heed warnings from the new reports from the United Nation’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

The IPCC was instituted as a way to demonstrate that humans are causing climate change, that the climate change has disasterous consequences and that governments must do all they can to stop climate change before hurricanes destroy us all, before coastal cities are covered in water and before Siberia becomes livable and prosperous. Maybe not that last part, but it should be considered among the terrible consequences of global warming.

To everyone’s suprise, the IPCC sent out reports, one yesterday, that concluded that humans are causing climate change, that the climate change has disasterous consequences, and that governments must do all they can to stop climate change (and Siberia’s prosperity).

Okay, that’s enough ranting about global warming. I will provide some links to arguments both for and against global warming in a later post.

The situation regarding yesterday’s climate change report may at least may have the benefit of causing one to ask, how should conservative Christians respond toward environmental issues?

As background to Christian responses, here are a couple of noteworthy essays from First Things: here and here. Also, I recommend this web site belonging to the Acton Institue for the Study of Religion and Liberty for the purpose of investigating more specific issues.

Many of the arguments, especially from the two essays, reiterated common sense advice. Christians are responsible to God and their neighbor for the environment. They are not responsible solely to humanity for the environment (as are those in an anthropocentric, materialist worldview), and they are certainly not responsible to nature for nature (as are those with a pantheistic worldview).

Christians should not change the environment in such a way that it harms and inhibits our neighbors, i.e. humanity. Such concern regarding the dangers of global warming makes it legitimate for everyone to consider, unless that concern is merely alarmism, which, as you might have guessed, is where I stand on that issue at the moment.

Professor Derr dismisses the idea that, having “trashed Eden … we are obligated to find a way to restore it” as being a part of “sentimental foolishness.” I somewhat disagree. There is an attitude of gratefulness, worship and praise to God that, upon finding something beautiful in nature, whether a beautiful forest, coral reefs and so forth, the Christian wants to preserve it for everyone to enjoy and find the same inspiration. Such yearning for Eden – whether literal or figurative – is part of a spiritual hunger that should not be dismissed.

The short, better-known description of a Christian worldview regarding the environment is that we are stewards of creation with delegated, and thus limited, dominion over it, and we are kin to creation since nature, along with humanity, finds its fruition and redemption in Christ. At the risk of sounding too mystical, I say as others have said, that nature is not our mother, but our sister. Common sense dicates that we respect and care for her.

That is a glimpse of the Christian response. So what about conservative Christians?

Liberally minded people preach about the environment much more that conservatives, true enough, but that’s because it is a higher priority.

Abortion is not an issue for many on the far left because they believe that the fetus is part of a woman’s body, so for them, making a huge issue out of abortion would be like making a huge issue out of tatoos. Others on the far left also see no issue in anything pertaining to sexuality (I acknowledge that this regards a completely secular liberalism, one that is not religious). There is nothing sacred about it; it is like shaking someone’s hand, as Dustin Hoffman’s character says in The Graduate.

So anything related to homosexuality, politician’s affairs and so forth are not much of an issue. The aforementioned on the far left are merely happy to point out the hypocrisy among conservative politicians who do not live up to the moral standards they set for themselves. But this is merely like seeing a vegetarian eatting meat; it is not about the sacredness of sexuality, but about hypocrisy.

The war in Iraq and economic issues both have the same level of importance for liberals and Christians, from what I’ve observed.

But as for sexuality and abortion, conservatives are pro-active because it means fighting against the slaughter of millions of innocent children and affirming the sacredness of something that is as important as the sacredness of life itself (nevermind something that, if restored to its purpose and bounds, can lead to genuinely fulfilling relationships, emotional and spiritual clarity and stability, the halt of terrible diseases that are killing tens of millions, and so forth).

To dwell on environmental problems in the face of such ponderous issues would be like trying to fix a leak in the basement while the house is on fire, or starting a recycling program during the Holocaust (and thus I fall prey to the tried-and-true rhetorical tactic that says: if you disagree with something, compare it to Hitler and the Nazis) or going to the Darfur region to pressure the Sudanese government into lowering its emissions levels. (The comparisons and metaphors are endless and entertaining; try out your own in the comments section!).

To sum up, yes, Christians are responsible to God and their neighbor for the environment, but in the face of other issues, it is not as high of a priority as it is for those who are more liberal. That’s this conservative Christian’s response toward the environment.