13

In my experience there seems to be a strong correlation between right wing evangelical Christians and climate change skepticism which intrigues me. I've never been able to see where this link comes from. Is it merely cultural? Is it based on some reading of scripture? It appears to extend outside the US.

I wondered, do evangelicals with these views:

  1. Not believe humans can affect the climate, because it's part of Creation and God wouldn't allow it
  2. Believe it's possible but not believe it's happening

Is there a historical evolution of such views from a specific source, perhaps?

(Note: This is NOT a discussion about climate change. Only on the origin of one group's views, irregardless if you agree or not. Let's not use charged language like 'deniers' or get into political arguments.)

7
  • 1
    I think this question needed to start with an axiom, like "what is the theological basis for ..." or "what is the theological basis against ... " this will make answers that refute the premise easier to cull. It's definitely OK to ask two questions. If there was a definitive teaching authority for Evangelicals, like there are for some other Christians, you might be OK with a question like this - but here you're gonna get a mishmash, which might be alright for you and fun for some other users, but very hard to moderate! – Peter Turner Jun 18 at 14:49
  • Pretty much gonna just have to use a tactic of every answer is legit as long as it has one source or one Bible quote. Otherwise, I'm in favor of the community closing the question. – Peter Turner Jun 18 at 14:50
  • @PeterTurner we do have a pretty wide slew of views, several seemingly with merit. That said, I think the question and its answers are useful - and clearly of interest to the community based on voting. Does this site allow for CW status on a question? – Mr. Boy Jun 18 at 15:56
  • 1
    @PeterTurner although this appears pretty close to a dupe, so some mod attention might be needed: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5419/… – Mr. Boy Jun 18 at 15:57
  • 2
    Edit is too small for me to make, but "irregardless" isn't a word. It's just "regardless." – reirab Jun 18 at 21:16
17

In this video I explored reasons that there is sometimes strain between faith and science.

If, because I am a man of faith and I love science, I am not the target audience you're looking for, I can move this to a comment.

My principle observation, as it relates to the OP, is that many people of faith (particularly in my country) are accustomed to being told that science disproves/destroys the things they believe in. Hearing that message too often leads to skepticism--not necessarily of science itself, but of the motives of some in the scientific community.

If some try to use science to "destroy" God or to advance a political agenda, is it any wonder that their altruism is suspect among those who believe in God or have separate political goals?

(Although I am aware of beliefs that include #1 and/or #2 in the OP, my working hypothesis is that the paragraphs above describe the far more potent cause of skepticism of climate change specifically and scientific consensus generally)


For my part, I love science and see it as one of the ways God reveals truth: He created a universe that follows laws, which laws we can test and discover.

I am of the view that perfect science and perfect theology agree perfectly; it is our imperfect understanding of both that creates the illusion of conflict.

12
  • 1
    Technically, science is merely a process, though colloquially the word's also used to mean our current consensus best-estimate of what's true (i.e. the current output of the scientific process). Which do you mean in this answer? – wizzwizz4 Jun 17 at 17:43
  • 3
    @wizzwizz4 I have in mind the method except where otherwise disambiguated. I agree that the colloquial usage of the term "science"--to describe the conclusions reached by scientists--is often unhelpful. – Hold To The Rod Jun 17 at 23:54
  • 1
    @Lio thanks for the feedback. I admit my read of the question is a touch different - it asks for the source of those views, which I have attempted to describe based on observation. In the link provided (disclaimer - my own work) I make a more explicitly scriptural argument – Hold To The Rod Jun 18 at 13:39
  • 2
    Hello! I'm just an atheist passing by, via HNQ. Thanks for your answer, your point of view is interesting and seems consistent with itself. – user54255 Jun 18 at 15:49
  • 2
    @HoldToTheRod, on the other hand, many of us hate having to go through many minutes of a YouTube video hoping to find a few basic facts. I'm not saying it applies in this case, but far too many times the result is a complete waste of time. And many of us (mostly the same ones) can process written words very quickly but have a much more difficult time listening to someone talking. If the YouTube included a transcript (not captions) of the video, I'd likely look at it. – Ray Butterworth Jun 18 at 15:55
12

A significant fraction of Evangelical Christians also believe in "Young Earth Creationism", which is to say they take Genesis 1-3 at face value and believe that the Earth is ~6,000-7,000 years old and that life was created by God.

This is of course in direct contradiction to the currently prevalent strict-Naturalist viewpoint (which necessitates Uniformitarianism and Evolutionism) that dogmatically rejects God and (via the Holmesian Fallacy) asserts that life came into existence through sheer accident and that the Earth is billions of years old.

In any case, it's impossible to answer the question without acknowledging this disagreement, and since YEC approaches science from a biblical basis, this ties into your question whether there is a theological basis for denying climate change.

YECs — and here we must note that there is significant overlap between "right wing Christians" and YECs, such that what you are seeing is likely a result of YECs — reject a Uniformitarian interpretation of available evidence. This in turn casts doubt on climate models that are predicated on Uniformitarian assumptions.

Additionally, however, YECs hypothesize that the Earth was much warmer prior to the Flood. Thus, besides some degree of questioning the validity of climate change models in the first place, the groups under discussion also question whether a warmer Earth is even a bad thing. (It's true some coastal areas may not fare well, but there are vast lands in Russia and Canada that are currently inhospitable which might become prime real estate. Note: I am not advocating for deliberate climate change, just noting that some people believe it might not be the dire catastrophe that is often portrayed.)

DJClayworth observes (source no longer available) that "in America particularly, Evangelical Christianity is also associated with the dominant capitalist culture, particularly the idea of progress based on industrial and technological progress." This bias is frequently associated with God's command in Genesis 1:28 to "subdue" the Earth (so, another potential theological basis). Climate change action is sometimes held as being in direct contradiction to that commandment. Some Christians feel, as suggested in the question, that it is hubris to believe that us humans are capable of irreparably damaging God's Creation, and that therefore we should prioritize human benefit over limiting ourselves in order to avoid damaging the Earth.

It needs to be noted too that at least some of the justification for climate change mitigation comes from the Naturalist and anti-Christian philosophy that humans are an accident, and are not special in any way, and that it is therefore unconscionable for us to behave in a way that is to our benefit but detrimental to other life. (These are the same people that would uphold the comfort of an adult cow over the life of an unborn infant.) Thus, Christians aren't completely without justification to oppose such measures.

On the other hand, I personally believe that we nevertheless have a responsibility to be good stewards, that we are capable of rendering Earth uninhabitable, and that, while the death of an endangered tiger may not outweigh the death of an "unimportant" person in an overpopulated third-world country, that doesn't mean there isn't a human cost to the loss of animal species or the destruction of our environment.

10
  • I should mention that DJ deleted his answer, so you might want to add "Noted Christian scholar and gentleman DJ Clayworth said in some work that is no longer extant: " so it makes more sense :) – Peter Turner Jun 18 at 15:00
  • 2
    @PeterTurner, so, this is wildly off-topic, but "the chat room is always open" is false. I have no clue how to create a chat room except via the "avoid extended discussions" mechanism, particularly if I want to chat about a particular thread and invite particular people to participate. But that's a technical issue with SE. – Matthew Jun 18 at 15:39
  • 1
    Every stack exchange site has a main chat room in addition to the ephemeral ones chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/1167/the-upper-room (you can get here from the icon in the top-right and clicking Chat) – Peter Turner Jun 18 at 15:48
  • 1
    @Esther It's not that the strategies are reliant on the idea that humans are an accident, it's that they're justified by that idea. If humans are merely a part of nature, any damage we do to the environment must be strictly less than our benefit; if humans are superior then we can weigh the benefits more strongly. – Spitemaster Jun 19 at 21:04
  • 1
    @Esther The idea does show up in other environmental issues (conservation, for example). The degree to which they are separable (in practice) is not very large. I'll concede only that climate change doesn't run into that particular issue with any Evangelical theological concepts. Consider also Alex Epstein's Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, where it does show up (roughly, that climate change may be worth risking if it improves our quality of life) but not Evangelical in any way. – Spitemaster Jun 20 at 19:16
7

Many Christians believe that God is in complete control of the weather, using it for blessings and curses.

They don't deny that the climate is changing, but they do doubt that it is caused by humans, and more importantly they deny that people have any ability to prevent these changes from happening.

There are many biblical passages about how God will bless the people with good weather, or curse them with bad.

For instance, the following is taken from a 2003 article, Who Controls the Weather?:

In Revelation 11:6, God states how He will use two men described as the "two witnesses" to control the weather: "These have power to shut heaven, so that no rain falls in the days of their prophecy; and they have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to strike the earth with all plagues, as often as they desire." Almighty God has always used His control over the weather as a means of chastening rebellious peoples and of guiding the outcome of battles and even the fate of nations.

In the New Testament book of James, we are reminded of how the ancient prophet, Elijah, asked God to intervene in the weather: "Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain; and it did not rain on the land for three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth produced its fruit" (James 5:17–18).

We should all come to realize that the true God has absolute control of the weather! In a "dual" prophecy — a prophecy that applied to ancient Israel and also applies today to our peoples — God states: "If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments, and perform them, then I will give you rain in its season, the land shall yield its produce, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. Your threshing shall last till the time of vintage, and the vintage shall last till the time of sowing; you shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely" (Leviticus 26:3–5). Later in this prophecy God warns: "But if you do not obey Me, and do not observe all these commandments, and if you despise My statutes, or if your soul abhors My judgments, so that you do not perform all My commandments, but break My covenant. … And after all this, if you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins. I will break the pride of your power; I will make your heavens like iron and your earth like bronze. And your strength shall be spent in vain; for your land shall not yield its produce, nor shall the trees of the land yield their fruit" (vv. 14–15, 18–20).

Unless we truly repent and turn to the true God and begin to keep His commandments (Matthew 19:17), our days of national greatness are numbered! For we will experience massive earthquakes and volcanic eruptions such as have never before been seen by our peoples. We will go through continuing drought, famine and horrifying disease epidemics on a scale never before experienced by our peoples.

Joel says: "O Lord, to You I cry out; for fire has devoured the open pastures, and a flame has burned all the trees of the field. The beasts of the field also cry out to You, for the water brooks are dried up, and fire has devoured the open pastures" (vv. 19–20). Then God commands: "'Now, therefore,' says the Lord, 'Turn to Me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning.' So rend your heart, and not your garments; return to the Lord your God, for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness; and He relents from doing harm" (Joel 2:12–13).

That article was written nearly 20 years ago, and events since then only confirm the belief that we are rapidly approaching the Day of the Lord, and we are now being punished for our sins.

Similarly, God provides help using the weather, such as protecting Britain from the Spanish Armada, and helping with the Dunkirk evacuation and the D-Day invasion. These miracles of weather occurred following supplications to God, as reported in Time Magazine:

GREAT BRITAIN: Days of Prayer
Monday, Apr. 07, 1941

British clergymen and newspapers commented last week on certain possibly metaphysical aspects of World War II:

Since the beginning of the war, Great Britain has observed two national Days of Prayer.

The first was the dark Sunday, May 26, 1940, when the fagged-out British Expeditionary Force was fleeing under torrential Nazi fire toward Dunkirk beach. Five days later most of that Army got safely home through the fogs off Dunkirk.

The second Day of Prayer was Sunday, March 23, 1941, when Adolf Hitler's Balkan advance seemed to have the implacable flow of volcanic lava. Four days later came the upset in Yugoslavia. The same week came the British capture of Cheren and Harar, the Italian naval defeat in the Mediterranean. Twice Britain's prayers had been answered.
GREAT BRITAIN: Days of Prayer - TIME

5
  • Two very interesting articles - thank you. – Lesley Jun 18 at 11:47
  • @CJDennis, by what definition do you hold COVID to be "the best time in history?" Or the rampant droughts in the American west? Or the US[S]A being almost on the brink of civil war? I'll grant that this isn't the worst time in history, but this year (and especially 2020), as compared to, say 2015, is hardly an improvement. – Matthew Jun 18 at 12:23
  • Changed "that was written nearly 20 years ago" to "about 2800 years ago". Change it back if I misunderstood. +1 by the way. – Andrew Shanks Jun 18 at 14:33
  • @AndrewShanks, I've changed it back, but I see why you thought it needed it. I've now clarified what "That" refers to. Thanks. – Ray Butterworth Jun 18 at 15:45
  • @Matthew My original comment got deleted, but being able to produce multiple vaccines in about a year to combat a new deadly disease sounds pretty good to me! The Black Death killed about 50% of the populations it entered. I'm glad I'm living in the 21st century and not the 14th century! There's always a drought somewhere. There's always a war somewhere. But we have fewer people dying now of these things than at any other point in history. Things are on a continuous upwards slope, with occasional slips and recoveries. In the future we will have even fewer people dying in wars and famines. – CJ Dennis Jun 19 at 5:01
3

Life. The first point of disagreement is support for Life. The ideas of Malthus, Paul Ehrlich ("The Population Bomb", 1968) and others that humanity was about to exhaust all its resources were used to justify the denial of food aid to India in the 1960s and 70s, push for abortion and one-child policies. In this case, scientific advances led to massive increases to the food supply and the general increase in wealth caused the growth in population to slow in developed countries. Two paths to a better future were pushed: humane (the Christian response) and brutal (the alternative pushed by intellectuals of the left).

What were some of the solutions to the problem of the food supply? GMOs, new fertilizers, mechanization and cheaper energy. The answer was science put in the service of humanity via a capitalist system.

If Marxists and other anti-capitalist ideologies are to succeed, they must restrain the forces that perpetuate the system. Thus we have opposition to GMOs and cheap energy, an attempt to turn the system against itself.

The issue of sanctity of life comes into play because international economic policies (like those of the World Bank) are making a choice between African children alive today and those in the future they claim they want to protect. Many international lenders will not any longer fund natural gas or coal fired plants in Africa and other developing countries. These countries lack electricity, dooming their people to poverty & unemployment, because industry needs electricity.

Humility. The next point of disagreement is not whether humanity can alter the climate, but whether we can understand the science behind the climate well enough to both predict it and explain the causes of the change, human or natural.

As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things. Ecclesiastes 11:5

The above passage from Ecclesiastes is a prophetic denunciation of human pride. I believe it is a message for today. It deals both with the sanctity of life and how small we are before the forces of nature. Destroying our energy production system because we think we can understand the long term climate will destroy life. It will impoverish and kill hundreds of millions of people.

Ironically, the same United Nations panel that advocates for massive changes to society admits that humanity cannot predict the climate:

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." - United Nations International Panel On Climate Change (IPCC)

Freedom. The third theological point of conflict is freedom.

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 2 Corinthians 3:17

The proposals being forwarded by those purporting to fight climate change involve handing more power over to Leviathan. The progress of the faith over the millennia has been to advance human liberty (based on righteousness).

Kindness. The last theological point is kindness versus cruelty.

The righteous care for the needs of their animals, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel. (Proverbs 12:10)

Wind turbines kill bats and birds. Solar farms of the size we need will cause massive deforestation. The two of them require metals that are produced by child labor in Africa or slave labor in China. When some American leaders were alerted to this fact, they claim that more people will die in the future if we don't build solar now, so they are prepared to overlook China's cruelty. These same minerals could be mined in America, but the current administration (and the Obama administration previously) refuses to permit such mining.

If CO2 really will cause the problems they predict, there is a power source that is not intermittent like wind and solar, does not produce CO2, and can meet our energy needs WITHOUT requiring more government intrusion into our lives or destroying our prosperity. That power source is Nuclear. They refuse to support building more nuclear plants. They want the power and the negative results.

Responding to objections about bird kills:

It is true that building collisions and cats kill lots of birds. The problem with wind turbines is that they disproportionately affect raptors and other top-of-pyramid birds. The mechanismn is simple:

  • Pressure waves near the spinning blades kill large numbers of insects
  • insect chaff attracts small birds to the area. Those birds are killed or injured more often from the pressure waves rupturing their blood vessels than actual collisions.
  • Larger birds of prey are attracted to the injured or dead birds and suffer the same fate
  • The injured raptors fly or glide out of the "collection area" around the wind turbine where the carcasses are counted by those trying to estimate the effect, thus undercounting.

Responding to objections about Freedom

Israel and the Church collectively are responsible for many innovations in law and custom that promoted liberty:

  • Principle of subsidiarity and the idea of the corporation comes from the Catholic Church
  • Archbishop Langton negotiated the Magna Carta and wrote about how from the Bible he believed that God's intention was for nations to not be ruled by kings
  • Christians lead the fight against slavery
  • The Mosaic law had the same laws for foreigners as citizens
  • Mosaic law had evidentiary requirements and the principle of mens rea (criminal intent)
  • The series of Popes that condemned the slave trade goes back farther than most people know

It is a mistake to look only at the flaws and failings of Christendom and not see the progress and its causes.

15
  • 6
    This answer is disappointing because it conflates belief with politics. I unfortunately am too new on this SE to vote it down. – Ross Presser Jun 17 at 19:43
  • 5
    "The progress of the faith over the millennia has been to advance human liberty" This is simply historically incorrect. Faith-based systems (not just Christianity) have been the direct cause of many wars and genocides. Even at the time of Christ, there was a long-running religious conflict between Samaritans and Jews (that's why Jesus used a Samaritan in the parable), so it's not new. But since the Enlightenment, conscious rejection of religious doctrine in Western Europe finally started advances in liberty which had been suppressed by the church for over a millennium. – Graham Jun 17 at 20:18
  • 3
    You have no idea what the difference is between the political left, socialism, communism, and Marxism. Calling the left "brutal" is like calling Christians murderers. Thanks to science, we do now know "the path of the wind, [and] how the body is formed in a mother's womb". Wind turbines kill fewer bats and birds than skyscrapers do. They're called "bird strikes". If you don't like bird strikes, tear down all the skyscrapers. I suspect your other claims are false too, but I don't have the time to debunk them. You can make false claims faster than I can disprove them. – CJ Dennis Jun 18 at 0:32
  • 1
    "[Wind turbines and Solar farms] require metals that are produced by child labor in Africa or slave labor in China." - they will work equally well with metals sourced by other means - it isn't black magic. Also you seem very for capitalism but very against the cheap labour methods that it encourages. – Lio Elbammalf Jun 18 at 12:51
  • 1
    The question asked was about evangelical Christian beliefs and attitudes concerning the existence or severity of climate change. Most of this answer relates evangelical attitudes towards methods proposed to deal with climate change, which is a related but technically separate topic. And the "Life" section is another step away from that, as it focuses on the concept of "overpopulation" without any direct reference to climate change at all. – MJ713 Jun 18 at 13:57
0

The dramatic earth altering events in the Bible are all due to God, especially in Revelation, and eventually the world (universe?) is completely destroyed, down to the elements themselves.

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.

2 Peter 3:10 (NIV)

So, reading these accounts literally, a couple things are implied:

  1. Major global catastrophes (i.e. at or beyond the scale predicted by global warming) are entirely attributed to God, not humans. The Bible is pretty good at mentioning all the ways humans are horrible, so one would expect it to mention if humans destroyed the world, which would be direct disobedience against God's command to cultivate creation.
  2. Everything physical is going to be wiped in the near term anyways, whereas spiritual realities last forever, so the health of the world seems of lesser concern than the state of human souls. This would put policies that harm humans for theoretical benefits to the environment at the bottom of the list of concerns.
1
  • Most of “the ways humans are horrible” in the Bible are descriptions of historical events. We've never burnt so much that it affects the climate before (except by ash, which is a relatively short-term effect), so it'd make sense that the Bible didn't mention it. – wizzwizz4 Jun 20 at 8:58
0

As an evangelical and a "humans-burning-fossil fuels-is-causing-global-warming" skeptic my own doubts include:

  1. Genesis 1:28 says:

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them: Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, ..." (KJV)

But Genesis 1:28 in the MMCAV says:

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them: Be fruitful, but not too fruitful, and multiply, but don't multiply too much, fill the earth, but within reason, 'cos if you multiply overmuch, forsooth, you'll mess up the climate... To be perfectly honest, I overlooked a few problems in the design, and didn't do a really good job." (Genesis 1:28, the Mostly Modern Culturally Acceptable Version).

Personally, I think the KJV is closer to the original Hebrew (but its just personal preference).

  1. The originators of the theory are "the usual suspects", i.e. unbelievers/left wing busybodies who want to tell everyone how they must live their lives/population controllers. They don't trust God... they think the world has no benevolent controller.

  2. There might be global warming, but the evidence that it is man-made is almost impossible to prove, or even support... you would need two identical planets with identical solar activity, identical volcanic activity, identical everything and then burn fossil fuels, as we are, on one planet and go green on the other.

  3. As others have said God is in control of the universe, or as Hebrews 1:3 says the Lord Jesus is "upholding all things by the word of his power": which obviously includes the climate. If our planet can be so easily damaged by man's activities God would have told us in the Bible.

And my repost to the OP's question would be "If there is so little real evidence that human activity/burning of fossil fuels is the true cause of global warming then why do so many non-evangelicals believe it?"

6
  • To "play devil's advocate", what constitutes "full"? Taking that too literally won't end well, and (reductio ad absurdum), if God intended infinite humans, Earth would necessarily be infinite. Ergo, there must exist some limit. I could certainly argue (and indeed, this is exactly what climate-change alarmists do; not necessarily from a Biblical perspective) that if trying to sustain the current population of humans is wrecking the Earth's ecosystem, we have reached, and indeed passed, "full". – Matthew Jun 18 at 18:27
  • Unbelievers say there are too many people in the world, and have been saying it for a long time: Confucius believed it about 500 bc when the world population was about 200 to 300 million, As far as we know, the first one to believe it was Cain, though you might think Adam was the first when he blamed Eve for his sin. The number of children we choose to have is partly decided by our economic situation, and is limited by how many we can afford. As the world's resources deplete because of increasing population then that will limit how many children we decide to have. Not left-wing busybodies – Andrew Shanks Jun 18 at 20:37
  • @Matthew Not left-wing power-hungry murderous busybodies but economic realities will slow population growth should the world population start to reach its natural limits. – Andrew Shanks Jun 18 at 20:38
  • Are you sure? If, hypothetically, we figure out how a humans can survive with an average of 2 m³ per human with effectively no upper bound, does that mean Genesis 1:28 implies that we should do so? What if we learn how to live in space in effectively unlimited numbers; would you argue that deciding we'd rather have Earth minimally inhabited is against God's command? – Matthew Jun 18 at 21:08
  • @Matthew - I don't know. But I do believe this: It would be better for us to obey God (and his command to fill the earth) than to allow ourselves to be swayed by the likes of Al Gore and company who have created their own lucrative bandwagon and are in an unholy alliance with big business and are actually trashing the world environment at a frightening speed. I'd rather obey this command and if bad consequences happen in the future, then the consequences can hardly be as bad as those of following the "environmentalists". – Andrew Shanks Jun 18 at 21:41
0

Most Evangelical Christians are suspicious of what could be the means of centralizing world governments, and that being a contributing factor to the biblical apocalypse.

Biblical history lists many empires that rose, and then became so corrupt that they needed to be destroyed. The underlying hope was that there were other nations that were untouched by the corruption of said empire, and would thus survive.

If a modern ‘empire’ emerges, that seizes power from smaller cultures in the name of preserving the planet, (a cause that would be hard to argue against, and could have excusable brutality in it’s enforcement) then theoretically there would be no ‘surviving culture’, should the empire become corrupt and be destroyed.

1
  • Welcome to Christianity SE and thank you for your contribution. When you get a chance, please take the tour to understand how the site works and how it is different than others. – agarza Jun 18 at 23:40
-1

The Christian right as I see it believes America (USA) is God's nation^ - them and their close allies are God's people. They have the birthright from Abraham/Israelite tribes and they can do no wrong. Indeed they have been blessed exceedingly compared to other nations in this age of entitlement and heritage.

The concept of climate change, while allegedly a forgone conclusion based on the 'science that is in', threatens to level the playing field with harsh restrictions and a burden on the prosperity of God's people. There is a degree of pushing 'good stewardship' within the ranks and this generates internal conflict.

The wealth and political lobbying of political power has confused the whole purpose of 'religion', rendering Christianity another just 'party'. The pandering to the affairs of a corrupt world has left the church weakened and compromised - taking sides to whoever assures them of continued 'religious' freedom and immunity from causes that would seriously affect or harm them.

They are therefore reticent, to say the least, to embrace any so-called good cause that doesn't fit their agenda. Holding back evil is an ever-present battle - whether it be same sex whatever, big-pharma vaccines etc, are the current fights along with climate change. All of these weaken the church and make it less relevant, hypocritical and redundant.

Once the church/Christianity led the charge with the important matters of hygiene, welfare, care for the unfortunate and ill, science and engineering - but they have lost credibility and fight to show that they still have something worth fighting for and with - climate change is one that a thinking person would regard with suspicion and look for evidence accordingly. The church is happy to help and make some new friends!

^ a few links to the origin of USA. (no for or against inferred) https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/is-america-a-chosen-nation/

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/may/americas-explicit-covenant-with-god-how-a-nation-pledged-to-god-can-save-a-world-hellip-or-lose-it

https://kingdomhereamerica.blogspot.com/p/america-new-jerusalem.html

11
  • 1
    Have you got anything to back up the "America is God's nation" claim? Is it the whole of Americas, just the south or just north? I know Christianity is popular in Mexico, Brazil and Argentinia but also in the central united states. Which part of the continents do "they" believe is God's nation? – Lio Elbammalf Jun 18 at 12:45
  • 1
    This answer is very US-centric. There are more Christians outside the US than inside, so there are probably more right-wing and climate change skeptic Christians outside than in too! – curiousdannii Jun 18 at 23:54
  • 1
    @LioElbammalf, yes, many believe (including from a non-religious perspective). Here's an example of a book on the topic: The United States and Great Britain in Prophecy | Living Church of God. Other organizations publish books with similar titles, such as: The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy | United COG, or America and Britain in Prophecy | Restored COG. – Ray Butterworth Jun 19 at 0:38
  • 1
    @LioElbammalf, "Britain as an example it's such a mixing pot of different peoples". If you mean modern Britain, yes. But historically it was settled by similar groups of peoples (e.g. Saxons = Isaac's sons; Druidic priests were similar to Israelite priests; or Scottish pork taboo - Wikipedia.). Similarly with Danes: "A 15th-century Latin chronicle, "Chronicon Holsatiae vetus", …, states the Danes were of the Tribe of Dan, while the Jutes the Jews." — Nordic Israelism - Wikipedia. – Ray Butterworth Jun 19 at 0:52
  • 1
    @LioElbammalf, "very far flung fringes". Such as: "*Queen Victoria, convinced that the British royal family was descended from King David, had all her male offspring circumcised. … The rabbi was the official mohel — a man qualified to carry out circumcisions [of Charles, Andrew, and Edward] — of the London Jewish community and he was chosen rather than the royal physician to perform the ritual." — Will William and Kate call for the rabbi? | London Evening Standard – Ray Butterworth Jun 19 at 1:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.