Presbyterians have been seeking faithful responses to environmental concerns for more than 40 years. In 1990, PC(USA) produced an eco-justice policy paper “Restoring Creation for Ecology and Justice” (“RCEJ”).¹ The study paper holds together two fundamental commitments: (1) to care for creation as a good in itself, and (2) to use creation responsibly as an act of economic justice for the community. These themes were reinforced in the 2008 report “The Power to Change: U.S. Energy Policy and Global Warming.”²

This emphasis on both ecology and justice is implicit in the story of creation itself: “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it” (Gen. 2:15, emphasis added). As the 1990 study observes, “tilling” requires a community effort that establishes an economy; “keeping” is an act of environmental stewardship that regards the creation as a gift to be cared for. RCEJ identifies four norms that characterize “a new faithfulness” reflecting God’s love for the world: sustainability, participation, sufficiency, and solidarity.³ These highlight the inherent tensions. We cannot address only the good of the creation without also considering the good of the community. We cannot address only the good of the community without considering the good of creation. Global climate change, regardless of its cause, threatens both the community and the earth over which we are stewards. Our call is to address these threats responsibly, with meaningful effect, while promoting economic justice.

A. Global economic justice

Elimination of fossil fuels poses problems for international economic justice. It is essential that greenhouse gas emissions be limited to a rate and an overall amount below what the environment can naturally remove. And the gross inequality in global economic development can only be addressed if developing economies have access to cost-effective energy. Given current technologies and market structures, there is no energy source more cost-effective than fossil fuels. Radical restrictions on their production will perpetuate global economic disparities. While access to affordable energy is certainly not the entire solution, the pervasiveness of global poverty demands an equality of opportunity that, given current technology and markets, artificial restriction of fossil fuels would deny.⁴

RCEJ sees the global inequality between rich and poor as a sign of our failure “to till and to keep.” This prompts the question of how to achieve a more equitable global economy while responsibly using the gifts of creation. It is not reasonable to suppose that the developed world will surrender its standard of living and the benefits it has accrued. Neither is it reasonable to expect the developing world, which has witnessed the disparity in economic power (and its attendant benefits), simply to forgo efforts to attain economic parity, and accept a permanent underclass status in the global community. The RCEJ paper notes the connection between fossil fuel use and economic development, at least until cost-effective renewable energy resources can be developed on a global scale. This disparity has been taken into account in subsequent international accords such as the 1997 Kyoto Protocols. The twin goals of economic justice and global stewardship require reduction in greenhouse emissions within a framework that minimizes negative economic impact, especially on the global poor.

B. The Ethics of divestment

Jesus taught that great possessions convey great responsibility. In the Gospel of Luke, the examples of the Rich Ruler and Zacchaeus (18:18-30; 19:1-10) show different responses to the obligations of wealth. In managing its corporate assets, the Presbyterian Church has recognized a dual obligation to invest in a morally responsible manner and to use its influence for the transformation of society (including its economic institutions) to become more just, humane, and environmentally responsible.

The criteria for the just investment of resources were addressed by the General Assembly in the 1984 policy, “The Divestment Strategy: Principles and Criteria” (Minutes, 1984, 193-207. See Appendix A). The policy is clear that we Reformed Christians ordinarily follow an ethic of responsibility as opposed to an ethic of purity (which would be more characteristic of the Holiness and Anabaptist traditions), and that divestment, where necessary, is the final step in a process that has emphasized engagement and consultation as preceding steps.
Perfection and separation are not ultimate. They must be held in tension with faithfulness and effectiveness, which may involve compromise to gain some important proximate goal. Thus, Reformed churches have sought to be in the world, not withdrawn from it; to serve the perfect· purpose of God in less than perfect structures in order to change them, not to live apart in communities of holiness. The church as a community seeks engagement, not isolation.5

Only when the church has made every effort to fulfill its call to holiness through responsible efforts at transformation, when it is prepared to respond pastorally to those economically affected by divestment, and when it is acting in concert with other Christian bodies should withdrawal from engagement be considered as an ethical option.

C. The Consistency of our witness

The social witness of the church demands that our actions be consistent with our values. We are charged to consider not only the ideological purity of our response, but also its practical effect. If we decry the production and use of fossil fuels, then our actions must be consistent. If we decry the production, should we not also decry the consumption – including our own? If we choose divestment, should we not also abstain from fossil fuel products? But fossil fuels are employed in every field of human endeavor. The enormous range of hydrocarbon-based products staggers the mind. Computers, medical prostheses, even mass alternative energy technology would not be possible without hydrocarbon-based plastics and resins. The expansion of agricultural production is in part attributable to hydrocarbon-dependent processes for the production of fertilizers and pesticides. The economic development of emerging economies is tied closely to efficient, cost-effective, and readily available personal and commercial transportation. Every member of the PC(USA) uses fossil fuels every day in hundreds of applications that significantly improve quality of life. If we commit to divestment, then we should assure that those less fortunate, who do not have ready access to replacements for fossil fuels in all their applications, continue to have reliable and affordable access, even while we act consistently with that commitment by moving toward abstention from fossil fuels.

D. Faithful alternatives

If divestment is not a faithful, effective, and just response to climate change, what is? How can we assess the faithfulness of alternatives? The balance of this paper addresses these questions. In considering what constitutes a faithful response, the church should keep in mind:

• Does it address the problem (rather than simply make a judgment)?
• Does it advance economic justice (both globally and domestically)?
• Will it have a practical effect?
• Does it propose behavior we are willing to adopt ourselves?

Summary

We Presbyterians approach creation with the twin perspectives of responsible use (“tilling”) and sustainable care (“keeping”). An ethic of stewardship therefore must consider creation both as a good in itself and as a resource for economic justice. The responsibility of holding wealth is directed toward an ethic of engagement that seeks to use the wealth to transform injustice and immorality, rather than an ethic of purity that shuns such engagement. By General Assembly action, divestment should only be considered after long-term efforts at transformation have failed. Faithful witness requires our behaviors to be consistent with our values and statements; thus a statement of divestment from fossil fuel should be accompanied by behaviors of moving toward abstention from fossil fuels.

¹ https://www.presbyterianmission.org/site_media/media/uploads/environment/pdf/restoring-creation-for-ecology&justice.pdf
² http://www.pcusa.org/site_media/media/uploads/acswp/pdf/energyreport.pdf
³ Sustainability means “the ongoing capacity of natural and social systems to thrive together—which requires human beings to practice wise, humble, responsible stewardship, after the model of servanthood that we have in Jesus. Participation refers to the inclusion of all members of the human family in obtaining and enjoying the Creator’s gifts for sustenance. Sufficiency provides for all to have enough through equitable sharing and organized efforts to achieve that end. Solidarity means “steadfastness in standing with companions, victims, and allies… to the realization of the church’s potential as a community of support for adventurous faithfulness.”
⁴ Rational pricing of carbon emissions, as discussed below in section III.B, would accelerate the transition to a world in which fossil fuels are no longer the most cost effective, reliably available energy source. In that day, this conflict between the two goals will no longer exist. But that day is not yet.
⁵ Minutes, 1984, p. 201.