The environment is again an important election issue. Some candidates have claimed religious support for their views, but there is no single “Christian” perspective on the environment. It is a question of fact and prudence, not theology.

We all have a stake in a healthy environment. God gave humanity dominion over the earth and called us to be good stewards of his creation. But he gave us no particular policy agenda. Rather, we must work together to balance environmental protection, economic growth, and individual liberty.

The most controversial issue today may be global warming. Some activists have sought to turn it into a political football within the evangelical community, contending that, for instance, enforcing the Kyoto Treaty is essentially a matter of faith. To be Christian is to be “green.”

But most evangelicals reject this narrow view. Environmental policy is important, since we are to care for what is, after all, God’s creation. Nevertheless, public policy must be based on both good theology and good science. Not everyone will agree on specific policies

Two years ago the National Association of Evangelicals emphasized that it took no position on global warming. While applauding the efforts of believers working for a better environment, the NAE remained carefully neutral on the causes of and solutions to global warming, and backed no particular legislation or regulation on the issue.

Last fall the Barna Group polled Americans on global warming. Christians, especially evangelicals, remain more skeptical than other Americans about the seriousness of the problem and the most appropriate policies.

This wariness of those who are attempting to politicize the issue is also reflected in a resolution approved by my own denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, which represents some 16 million believers. Last year’s resolution made two important points.

First, it opposed “solutions based on questionable science.” Although the globe is warming, many scientists remain uncertain as to what degree the cause is human or natural, whether future warming is likely to be moderate or extreme, and whether the best approach is mitigation or adaptation.

Although a passionate commitment to environmental protection is laudable, wisdom is required to develop cost-effective policy solutions. That requires assessing the risks and benefits of warming as well as the costs and benefits of different policy approaches. On none of these matters is there a consensus among scientists or economists, so evangelicals should be cautious.

Second, the SBC indicated its concern over the impact of draconian regulatory mandates on economic development, “resulting in less economic opportunity for our poorest citizens,” as well as residents of developing nations.

This is not a license for conspicuous consumption, of course. But it does mean that economic growth and prosperity are particularly important for the poor. Put simply, increased wealth means better health care, safer housing, improved food, enhanced education, and a cleaner environment.

Image courtesy of Photokanok / FreeDigitalPhotos.net