Is dangerous manmade global warming as certain as that Jesus of Nazareth existed?
If you’re a well-informed person with a tolerable knowledge of the overwhelming historical evidence for Jesus’ existence and the enormous and complex controversies over global warming, your answer, after brief reflection, should be easy: No.
And if you’re a thinking Christian who recognizes the Bible as the Word of God, your answer should be instant and without hesitation: Definitely no.
Shockingly enough, however, two evangelical Bible professors, whose work in the New Testament I have admired for many years, implied at last week’s annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is just as certain as Jesus’ existence.
Dr. Douglas Moo—Chairman of the Department of Biblical Studies at Wheaton College—might not have thought through the logical implication when, after comparing people who question CAGW with an uneducated country pastor who couldn’t read transliterated Greek, he said, “to invite different perspectives on [CAGW] would be sort of like, ‘Let’s have a conference on Jesus in which we have equal representation by those who think Jesus existed and those who don’t think he did.’”
And Dr. Richard Bauckham—Emeritus Professor of New Testament at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland—might not have realized what he implied, either, when he said, “… we all know that the ‘Jesus didn’t exist position’ is way off in the margins. Climate change denial is, I think, the … equivalent of ‘Jesus didn’t exist’ in the scientific world.”
Neither might have thought through the logical implication—indeed, I hope and pray that neither did, and that when they realize it, they’ll back off the claim—but it is clear anyway: Jesus’ existence is no more sure than “climate change”—by which neither Dr. Moo nor Dr. Bauckham meant simply that climate changes naturally over time (which no one denies) but, as their plenary lectures and comments in panel discussion made clear, recent and foreseeable climate change is primarily manmade and will be catastrophic, which, as I pointed out, tens of thousands of scientists deny.
But both said these things in the course of criticizing—even ridiculing—the Cornwall Alliance and me for our views on climate. Dr. Bauckham even went so far as to directly insult me, saying, “Stop playing silly games with pseudo-science, and wake up to what’s really going on in the world!”
What these two New Testament scholars hadn’t anticipated were the persuasive scientific facts I was able to cite, and the clear explanations I was able to give of how the world of climate science has been corrupted, when I responded. And they surely didn’t anticipate what happened when I finished: Spontaneous applause broke out across the large audience of scholars—an unusual thing at this academic society meeting. One well-known theologian in attendance texted me afterward, “You know 100 times more than the other panelists about this area,” while another scholar wrote, “I was very proud of your powerful closing statement and gratified at the sustained applause you received.”
Captive to Biased Media, Politicians, and Green Activists
I can’t blame Drs. Moo and Bauckham or many like them who think the case for CAGW is open and shut but who have never dug far beneath the headlines. That’s the incessant message from the mainstream news media, government leaders, even entertainers—not to mention the world’s environmental advocacy organizations, just the top ten of which have combined annual budgets over $26 billion dollars and focus a large portion of their spending trumpeting the message. As I pointed out to illustrate the media bias, news had broken just three days before that the BBC had lied when it said its decision to stop giving global warming skeptics equal time with alarmists followed a meeting with 28 top climate scientists.
But when the ETS invited them to present lectures on creation care, and they decided to criticize the Cornwall Alliance for its opposition to CAGW alarmism, due diligence, even if it hadn’t persuaded them that our position is true, should at least have led them to realize that the controversy is enormous, with top-notch climate (and other) scientists on both sides, and not remotely like the nearly non-existent “controversy” over Jesus’ existence.
It saddens me to report that Dr. Moo also said, “… we have to trust the scientists in the field on this … to tell us what’s going on in that field, and not try to meddle in stuff we don’t know anything about.” But what if, apparently unlike Dr. Moo and Dr. Bauckham (whose false description of our position as “climate change denial” reveals how completely he misunderstands the controversy), we actually do know something about the field—as do I and the scientists among our scholars who advise me and contribute to our major papers?
Dr. Bauckham insisted that our interpretation of Scripture must be guided by science. On that ground he rejected appeals to Bible verses (like Genesis 9:11–15; Psalm 104:6–9; Isaiah 54:9; Jeremiah 5:22) that assert that God has set a boundary for the sea that it should never again destroy the world as evidence against fears of catastrophic sea-level rise because of CAGW. (Dr. Wayne Grudem, a world-renowned theologian, former ETS president, and member of Cornwall Alliance’s advisory board had made such an appeal in his paper the day before. The point is not that these verses make sea level change impossible but that they must be included in the array of evidence on the question.)
Dr. Moo’s and Dr. Bauckham’s arguments that science must determine our interpretation of Scripture run contrary to the historic Protestant principle that Scripture is the supreme authority for interpreting Scripture. For example, as the Westminster Confession of Faith (1648) Article I, Paragraphs 9 and 10 put it, “[9] The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. [10] The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”
Saying scientists—whose views even on major issues go through frequent revolutions—must determine our interpretation of Scripture doesn’t only mean exchanging the Word of God that abides for ever for the fluctuating fads of science (e.g., space is filled with “ether,” continents don’t move, and ulcers are caused by excess stomach acid brought on by stress—all once overwhelming consensus in science, and all since overturned) as our supreme authority. It also means not taking “every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5) but instead allowing our thoughts to be taken captive by the unbelieving world.
What happened at the ETS meeting was one more illustration of how important is the spiritual—and scientific, economic, and political—conflict in which the Cornwall Alliance is engaged. Will you help us with a generous donation today through our secure online service?
Moore Warns of Environmentalism’s Threat to Pro-Life Movement
Dr. Russell Moore, Professor of Christian Theology and Ethics at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, endorsed the Cornwall Alliance’s warnings against environmentalism’s threat to the pro-life movement.
“I agree with Dr. Beisner on … not collapsing the pro-life concern into something that is amorphous,” Moore said during the ETS panel discussion. “I think that’s a very real concern as somebody who works with various people in environmentalist issues, creation care issues, … there is a danger of simply broadening out the definition of pro-life, when it comes to the specific issue of maintaining personhood for unborn persons who are denied personhood, into a sense of ‘Anybody who’s working together for the common good.’ I do think that’s a danger that we ought to avoid, in the same way that in the civil rights era to say ‘This person is pro-civil rights’ means something very specific, rather than simply saying, ‘Well, William Fulbright is a segregationist, but he’s opposed to the Vietnam War, therefore he’s a pro-civil rights Senator.’ … So I would agree that we need to maintain a distinction between direct threat and a broader sense of care for the common good.”
At some time, the website that hosted the video of the lectures took them down, so the links below no longer work. We’ve been unable to find them elsewhere online.—June 17, 2019
View Plenary Lectures and Panel Discussion
You can view the four plenary lectures and panel discussion online at
- E. Calvin Beisner, “Creation Care and Godly Dominion: Reclaiming the Blessings of Genesis 1:28 in the Search for a Genuinely Biblical Earth Stewardship” (The lecture begins at about 53 minutes and 20 seconds into the video.)
- Russell Moore, “Heaven and Nature Sing: How Evangelical Theology Can Inform the Task of Environmental Protection, and Vice-Versa” (The lecture begins at about 1:05.)
- Richard Bauckham, “Reading the Bible in the Context of the Ecological Threats of Our Time”(The lecture begins at about 1:06.)
- Douglas Moo, “Biblical Theology and Creation Care”(The lecture begins at about 1:02.)
- Panel Discussion (The panel discussion begins at about 1:58.) (Note that Moo’s lecture and the panel discussion are in the same video at this link.)
Image Courtesy of 9comeback/freedigitalphotos
Leave a Reply