How can journalists reach evangelicals who get triggered by the term “climate change”?
This is the question Rebecca Randall asks in a piece last week for BioLogos. Despite the fact that 97% of scientists accept climate science and 92% of Americans who identify as “highly religious” believe “God gave humans a duty to protect and care for the earth,” just 42% of the highly religious believe climate change is something to be concerned about.
One of Randall’s interests is how journalists should respond to this disconnect.
“Traditionally, journalists are taught a fact-finding sort of craft, where what matters is the truth. In general, journalists are still rewarded for this kind of storytelling,” she writes. “Yet, if communicators begin with a truth — climate science is accepted by 97% of scientists — rather than the psychology of the group they’re trying to reach, they risk losing part of their audience.”
Greg Boyd, a pastor and a professor of Anabaptist studies at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, recently tweeted: “I honestly don’t see how there could be a more important and challenging topic (theologically or otherwise) than this: Is Our Planet at the Point of No Return?”
“Given the politically charged climate we find ourselves in today, many pastors are either not interested in discussing climate science or are too afraid of their congregations to do so.”
But given the politically charged climate we find ourselves in today, many pastors are either not interested in discussing climate science or are too afraid of their congregations to do so. Peter Fargo, the founder of Climate Vigil, told Randall about one particular story: “While the church leadership was open to dialogue, they decided they couldn’t risk endorsing congregational conversations on climate change.”
Evolving how we talk about climate change
Fargo told Randall that starting with the truth about climate change consensus, his faith-based approach to the topic, or even sharing specific data typically leads to dismissal or unresolved arguments.
But a study at the University of Texas at Austin, led by Renita Coleman, found “removing any references to what causes climate change” and changing the term “climate change” to “weather change” helped readers be more receptive to the articles.
“For a scientist or even a science journalist, perhaps this is frustrating,” Randall admits. Then she quotes Axios climate and energy reporter Andrew Freedman responding with: “This is an, um, interesting set of suggestions for how journalists can ‘reach’ climate skeptics. Leave out ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ and sub in ‘weather?’ Don’t mention causation?”
Or as Randall herself asks, “How can a climate communicator even do their job if avoiding certain terms?”
Randall’s suggestion is that we move our conversations toward finding solutions for particular challenges people face who work the land, and by discussing “creation stewardship” rather than “climate stewardship.”
“I find reporting about solutions is harder than reporting a conflict,” Randall observes. “But thinking of communication this way provides another goal for the journalist or science communicator. It’s not a fact-sharing mission. It’s a dialogue that includes seeking to understand motivations, listening to the perspectives of others, weighing pros and cons, scalability and considering unintended consequences, etc. By the time that all is said and done, the so-called ‘trigger words’ may naturally appear less frequently, and maybe when they show up, people’s defenses will be lowered.”
Why is there so much defensiveness?
But if evangelicals are so committed to the truth, why are they so defensive in their denial of climate change? Much of it may be due to how many of them see reality through the Christian nationalist lens of Republican politics. Yet while politics may play a significant role, there are pastoral and theological factors as well.
“Evangelical pastors must ask themselves how they have discipled an entire movement of Christians who claim to desire the truth but who will listen to experts only if journalists change the language to pander to their insecurity and lack of awareness.”
If we want to move toward solutions, as Randall suggests we do, at some point evangelical pastors must ask themselves how they have discipled an entire movement of Christians who claim to desire the truth but who will listen to experts only if journalists change the language to pander to their insecurity and lack of awareness.
The difficult reality pastors must come to terms with is that such a reflection will bring into question some of conservative evangelicalism’s most foundational assumptions.
The primacy of a penal substitutionary gospel
Much of the confusion about climate change we face today stems from how we determine what we consider to be truth. For conservative evangelicals, ultimate truth is discovered in the redemption found in Jesus and the revelation found in Scripture. Thus, anything they consider threatening their understanding of the gospel of Jesus or the authority of the Bible is dismissed.
If all humans didn’t descend from one original couple named Adam and Eve, then the gospel is seen as threatened due to Romans 5 pairing the first Adam’s disobedience with Jesus’ obedience as the second Adam. Thus, scientific consensus about evolution is dismissed as untrue.
The primacy of redemption through the penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus alone they believe is revealed in the Bible means anything the Bible says about any topic must be completely free of error or contradiction or else their entire view of reality falls in on itself like a house of cards.
The inerrancy of the Bible
Article XII of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states: “We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud or deceit. We deny that biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science.”
Because of their commitment to inerrancy, any potential discovery of biology, geology, astrophysics, archaeology, linguistics, biblical scholarship and politics by a consensus of the world’s greatest minds and most advanced technology must submit to conservative evangelical interpretations of the Bible.
Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis once preached: “There’s been climate change ever since the Flood. And the Flood generated an ice age, and we’re still settling down from the effects of the ice age. And there have been massive changes in the past. The Sahara Desert was once very lush. I mean, things change all the time. But you know what? Here you have politicians like AOC saying things like, ‘If we keep going the way we are, we’re going to destroy the earth in 10 to 12 years.’ Wrong. You know how I know that’s wrong? Read Genesis 8:22. After the Flood, you know what God promised Noah? ‘While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, day and night, winter and summer shall not cease’ — because God’s going to destroy the earth, not man.”
“You want to waste your opportunity in this world, try to save the planet.”
In the same approach, John MacArthur adds: “I’m absolutely shocked at how many Christians are caught up in the environmental effort to protect the planet and preserve the planet and save the planet. That would be evidence that they don’t believe God’s prewritten history.” Then he continues, “You want to waste your opportunity in this world, try to save the planet.”
For MacArthur, the earth holds the value of trash. “The earth is a disposable planet. If you want an illustration, you wouldn’t really try to save, permanently, a Styrofoam cup, would you? Relative to God’s plan and to eternity, this planet is a Styrofoam cup that has a very brief usage,” he says.
What is truth?
Perhaps the reason conservative evangelicals are so resistant to accepting scientific consensus about climate change is that — to them — all truth exists within the event horizon of the black hole that is their theology of Scripture and the gospel.
There’s simply no way for journalists to pull out the scientific claims or theological assumptions of Ham or MacArthur and examine whether or not any particular point is true without the entire conservative evangelical reality imploding.
As we examine the landscape of Christianity in the United States today, there are a variety of approaches to determining what we believe to be true.
For many fundamentalists as well as conservative evangelical Calvinists, the truth is the revelation of God handed down through a hierarchy of the Bible as interpreted by male pastors and husbands who adhere to what their church considers to be the fundamentals of the faith. Within that hierarchy, climate change tends to be dismissed due to the implications that trusting scientific consensus has on their sacralized hierarchies.
“Progressive Calvinists are freer to accept the consensus of climate change than conservative evangelicals.”
For progressive Calvinists today, the truth is discovered through God saving Christians who serve God’s purposes in separate spheres of lordship. Some examples of these spheres include family, business, art, education, church or politics. In this framework, scientists would operate within a separate sphere from pastors. So progressive Calvinists are freer to accept the consensus of climate change than conservative evangelicals.
Wesleyans determine truth through the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which is a four-sided military fortification metaphor for discovering and protecting Christian belief and practice. It emphasizes the authority of the Bible as primary, but as interpreted through tradition, reason and experience. Consequently, Wesleyans also are more open to accepting the consensus of climate change than conservative evangelicals because they can accompany their interpretation of the Bible with the reason and experience modern science gives us without feeling theologically threatened.
Opportunities to love our neighbors as ourselves
Of course, the early church didn’t have complementarian hierarchies, spheres of sovereignty or military themed quadrilaterals. Instead, they had an intuitive sense of the Spirit that helped them process what it meant to love one another by relieving each other’s burdens.
The author of Acts 15:28 said, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden.”
Their use of the word “seemed” sure seems to lack the certainty that marks much of our conversations today. It seems to imply an openness to exploring the possibilities of goodness in community that relieves burdens, which would signal a willingness to be wrong as well.
If the early church, while the original apostles were still alive, relied on a sense of the Spirit in community to determine truth rather than on dogmatic top-down recitations of certainties, how much more should we be OK with intuitively and communally processing what it means to relieve our neighbors’ burdens as well?
The reality is that climate change poses great threats to the world, and especially to poor communities. If followers of Jesus are called to bring good news to the poor and to set free those who are oppressed, then treating the earth as a disposable Styrofoam cup while denying the effects our actions have on the poor is incompatible with that calling.
In contrast, for pastors who are willing to disciple their congregations through the insecurities of accepting the truth about climate change, Randall believes there are opportunities for congregations to walk with those who are affected by climate change in their grief. And perhaps by meeting them in their grief, there could be opportunities to learn what loving the oppressed looks like on their terms.
Religious journalism: Bringing awareness for possibilities and questions
Even though I do not resonate with progressive Calvinism’s spheres of sovereignty, I appreciate how their theology allows scientists to do their work without interference.
While I do not process reality as a quadrilateral, I love how Wesleyan theology gives sacred space for reason and experience.
“Once you can see past the brick wall in your face, you’ll begin to feel the forest, see the stars.”
In spite of my struggle with the idea of changing the language of scientists from “climate change” to “weather change” in order to meet evangelicals in their insecurities, I can appreciate other writers who are willing to walk with them through that journey.
The universe is an inextricably intertwined expansion of wholeness. There are no boxes, chains of being, stacks of gender role umbrellas, or whatever other metaphor we may want to use. So the hierarchies of fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism that exile us from the expanding dance of wholeness need to be deconstructed so those within their walls can be freed from the insecurities and lack of awareness in which they’re trapped.
Once you can see past the brick wall in your face, you’ll begin to feel the forest, see the stars and realize that wherever you stand in the universe, you’re interpreting reality through a perspective. You may even become curious about the many liberating theological perspectives regarding our relationship with the truth of the cosmos beyond what has been mentioned here.
That’s where I see my part in religious journalism playing a role. Even though I’m not an expert in these disciplines, I can bring awareness to the many ways this topic has been thought about from scientists and theologians alike. And because I’m not beholden to anyone’s theological creed and am secure in the unknowing, I’m willing to ask the theological questions at the root of evangelical triggers toward climate science.
Rick Pidcock
Rick Pidcock is a 2004 graduate of Bob Jones University, with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Bible. He’s a freelance writer based in South Carolina and a former Clemons Fellow with BNG. He recently completed a Master of Arts degree in worship from Northern Seminary. He is a stay-at-home father of five children and produces music under the artist name Provoke Wonder. Follow his blog at www.rickpidcock.com.