Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post had a worthy entry in the category of wishful-thinking opinion-newswriting on page A1 of the Washington Post Wednesday, with her story "Warming Draws Evangelicals Into Environmentalist Fold."
Based on the content of the piece, it might better have been titled, "Assiduous Environmentalist Lobbying Draws a Mere Handful of Evangelicals into Environmentalist Fold," but that doesn't have the pro-environmentalist cheerleading quality the Post goes for in these pieces.
Presumably lacking statistical evidence of mass conversions, Eilperin uses argument-by-anecdote to imply that a significant number of Christian evangelicals are converting into anti-global warming activists:
At 8 on a Saturday morning, just as the heat was permeating this sprawling Orlando suburb, Denise Kirsop donned a white plastic moon suit and began sorting through the trash produced by Northland Church. She and several fellow parishioners picked apart the garbage to analyze exactly how much and what kind of waste their megachurch produces, looking for ways to reduce the congregation's contribution to global warming.
"I prayed about it, and God really revealed to me that I had a passion about creation," said Kirsop, who has since traded in her family's sport-utility vehicle for a hybrid Toyota Prius to help cut her greenhouse gas emissions.
"Anything that draws me closer to God -- and this does -- increases my faith and helps my work for God."
Her conversion to environmentalism is the result of a years-long international campaign by British bishops and leaders of major U.S. environmental groups to bridge a long-standing divide between global-warming activists and American evangelicals.
Eilperin goes on to call Denise Kirsop's pastor, Joel C. Hunter, a "pivotal advocate for cutting greenhouse gas emissions that scientists say are warming Earth's climate," leading readers to believe Hunter has been a lynchpin of mass conversions of evangelicals on the topic. The article's evidence of Hunter's influence is slim, however: He has preached on climate change to five congregations in Florida and his global warming sermons are on the Internet, where they have been seen by 3,000 people. Beyond that, he's signed a statement or two on his personal opinion on climate change, appeared on a commercial (Eilperin doesn't reveal who funded it), and drafted, in concert with a paid employee of an environmentalist organization, some materials for other evangelicals to read on climate change. Nothing about this appears particularly "pivotal."
If Hunter is going to change the way a significant number of the approximately 78 million evangelicals in the United States think about climate change, he hasn't done it yet. Eilperin discusses the great lengths to which environmentalists have gone to convert evangelical leaders into anti-global warming activists -- even, in Hunter's case, arranging a "Windsor Castle retreat" and a royal audience:
There was a private session with Prince Charles and a tour of the organic garden at the prince's Highgrove estate, as well as intense conversations among the participants about how Genesis 2:15 calls upon Adam to "serve" and "keep" the Garden of Eden.
One wonders just how "intense" conversations about the Garden of Eden can be, particularly among like-minded individuals. (It appears to not have occurred to Eilperin that God tossed Adam out of the Garden of Eden for interacting with nature a little too much, but if there is a Biblical call to care for Eden, it supposedly was located somewhere near Baghdad.)
Given that the environmentalists have been working hard for some years now specifically to recruit high-name-I.D. evangelicals to their global warming cause, the real story -- which we are unlikely to see in the Post -- is why they haven't been more successful.
Eilperin does mention that evangelical leaders James Dobson and Chuck Colson disapprove of "green" evangelism, and she notes at one point that Hunter isn't in the majority. But even this is spun in a manner that implies that Hunter's point of view will become increasingly dominant; that its just a matter of time:
While he remains in a distinct minority, and a number of others on the Christian right disparage his efforts, Hunter and others like him have begun to reshape the politics around climate change.
Despite finding great significance in the conversion of Hunter, along with Ted Haggard, late of the National Association of Evangelicals, to the anti-global warming cause, Eilperin skips entirely the work of the Interfaith Council For Environmental Stewardship, and the many prominent signers in the religious community to its Cornwall Declaration, which takes an entirely different, but still faith-based, position. It's hard to imagine the group would have been left out, had its position been closer to that of Rev. Hunter.
Finally, though it does little good to say so (Eilperin apparently isn't swayed by criticism on this particular point), Eilperin really shouldn't continue to imply ("greenhouse gas emissions that scientists say are warming Earth's climate") that all scientists believe in the human-caused global warming theory. The Washington Post may not acknowledge much diversity when it comes to global warming, but the wider world is more open-minded.
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What I would ask these people.
August 8, 2007 - 21:18 ET by pbthinkerI would ask these "evangelical Christians" if they really believe that God, in His infinite wisdom, would allow CO2, which we all exhale every day, to be the pollutant that kills us?
The Lord, that I believe in, wants us all to live a good life and helps our scientists find new technology that improves our lives. If this technology is a problem, our Lord will allow scientists to come up with logical solutions that will allow us all to prosper. I don't believe the Lord, I believe in, wants to let the government tax CO2 and destroy the economies of the earth.
Just a thought.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Careful, pbthinker, you may
August 8, 2007 - 22:11 ET by Amy RidenourCareful, pbthinker, you may be disqualifying yourself from being the focus of laudatory articles in the mainstream press. The environmentalists essentially offer preachers & others in the religious community fame and fortune in exchange for their endorsement of the green agenda -- it is a miracle more of them haven't succumbed.
I understand
August 9, 2007 - 09:42 ET by cvgbuckeyepbthinker: I do not believe that any current climate changes are of men's origin but are of a natural causation. Having said that, I understand what you are saying and I will not say you are wrong but I would propose a little bit different scenario.
Man was created with a free will. God could have chosen otherwise but he didn't, nor would we, I think. Otherwise people would just buy robots that would sit around repeating "I love you Mommy & Daddy" rather than having children. Does that make sense as an effort to explain God's plan of man created with a free will?
Now, since the original sin, in the Garden of Eden, we live in a fallen world. It is very possible that man might, at some time in the future, effect the decline of civilization and the world. God might intercede and he might not.
We have examples of man's free will throughout history; as recent as the atrocities of The Third Reich, the cruelties and murders in the Soviet Union, China, Viet Nam (after we ran) Iraq (the next time we run), 9/11, etc.
We also witness the wonderful intercession of God working through man to make great medical and technological advances as well as the renewal of Evangalism throughout the world today.
Frankly, according to His Word, the next time he intercedes in a global way will be the last.
"I prayed about it, and
August 8, 2007 - 22:37 ET by MidAmericawhat about those
August 8, 2007 - 23:16 ET by botgpeople who feel closer to God flying an airplane?
Okay, now I'm going to catch it from everybody at NB.
August 8, 2007 - 23:02 ET by Dave RI'm sorry, but just because someone identifies themselves as "Christian" does not mean they are, in fact, Christian, nor does it mean some of them all that intelligent, for that matter.
Far too many "Christians" allow themselves to be manipulated by the liberal MSM every day. The Foley (non)scandal was a perfect example of this. The liberal MSM played them for idiots, and they were apparently very eager to oblige, as many of them stayed home this last mid-term election.
Hello Speaker Nancy Pelussolini.
I can't wait to see what sort of manipulation the liberal MSM comes up with in '08.
Then we will be seeing El Presidente' Hitlary Rodham Clintax being sworn in.
Read your Bibles, people! And this time, try to go all the way to the end.
Help Fred defeat everybody.
AGW is the new religion...
August 9, 2007 - 01:25 ET by Army BratWhat's so amazing about a bunch of people that have faith in an unseen deity, having faith in an unproven theory? (Don't get me wrong...I believe in a supreme being...) It's all a leap of faith after all. Believe in the Goracle and all will be well. Happy Trails...
}}---> Gorallah be braised
August 9, 2007 - 01:36 ET by Cool ArrowMay the almighty Gorallah be braised. As the sun god scorches from East to West, so shall the lord Gore almighty rule.
Army Brat
August 9, 2007 - 21:01 ET by Dave RBecause a lot of people who claim to be Christian don't seem to spend much time reading the New Testament, the area of the Bible that is directly related to Christianity. If they did, they wouldn't fall for the AGW idiocy.
Even after the Battle of Armageddon, this planet goes on, as does history, for a thousand years.
Then there will be one final rebellion that will be put down and things get really interesting after that, but history will still continue, just not on this particular rock.
It's all there in black and white.
Well, it appears that Ms.
August 9, 2007 - 08:37 ET by dscottWell, it appears that Ms. Eilperin is a shill for SEJ or she plagiarized by not giving attribution to her one and only source of information for her article. Ms. Eilipern, the public is entitled to know the source of your story when you are not the originator of it, journalism ethics 101. The public is also entitled to know what SEJ's mission is and who funds it. SEJ is the AGW propaganda arm funded by donations from the MSM and others.
Christopher Alleva http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/a_productive_global_warming_pr.html
Last week I wrote an article exposing the way the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ) pre-packages templates for stories on the environment. At time I wrote it, I vowed to revisit the issue from time to time to see if the templates are being used.
Well, I didn't have wait very long. Wednesday's Washington Post had a front page story on how global warming is drawing the faithful in into the fold. And by faithful, they don't mean global warming believers, they're talking about that oldtime religion, Christianity.
The story template, action line and some sources appear to be lifted right from the SEJ website. In fact, their climate change propaganda handbook has a chapter devoted to this very topic.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius