A month or so ago, there was a story about a British report that birth control could save us from global warming. At least that’s what some talk radio host’s labeled it. In reality, the report was a little more reasoned than those talk radio host’s want you to believe. The premise in the report is that, “the world’s population is projected to jump to 9 billion by 2050, with more than 90 percent of that growth coming from developing countries.” That may or may not be the case, but for the sake of argument I will grant that premise.

Then, “the Lancet editorial cited a British report which says family planning is five times cheaper than usual technologies used to fight climate change. According to the report, each $7 spent on basic family planning (condoms) would slash global carbon dioxide emissions by more than 1 ton.” This is because they are projecting that these potential humans would contribute emissions that would not exist unless that person is born. This sparked my interest because it relates to a tangential point in my thesis – evangelical responsibility and abortion (which I addressed in my conclusion).
I remembered an article I ran across last year, but it was too late to include in my thesis, so I dug it up. The article is called “Evangelicals, Population, and the Ecological Crisis” written by Jim Ball. I decided to explore the article and then make some conclusions about the news story from Britan.

The article lays out for options for Evangelicals and their view toward the environment. 1) 1) Wise Use – resources are a gift from God use ‘em however you want. 2) Anthropocentric Stewardship – humans have power over creation, but are responsible to God for actions. 3) Caring Management – God appointed humans as managers of creation. 4) Servanthood stewardship – servants of God’s creation. I take position #3, as I did in my thesis. Then the article surveys some work in the 1990’s on this topic.

He praises Susan Powers Bratton, who teaches at Baylor now. He says, “In her biblical presentation, Bratton’s main goal appears to be to make the case that not having children is an acceptable option for Christians” (239). And again that, “Bratton’s basic biblical conclusion is that children are a wonderful blessing from God, and it is perfectly fine if individual Christians do not have any biological children” (240). He then describes how she approaches combating overpopulation distributive justice. “For Bratton, such justice implies “distributive justice” (a key theme in the book), which means that Christians will have to concern themselves with the messy affairs of their society’s political economy” (242).

Some basic conclusions are drawn: “In summarizing her Christian ethic of population regulation, Bratton suggests that the Christian community needs to consider five basic questions, all of which her presentation addressed: (1)what is best for the children? (2) what roles are available to women? (3) what is our approach to family planning and contraception? (4) ‘are we caring for the Earth? and (5) are our family values harming or excluding anyone?” (245). Then Jim Ball concludes: “Evangelical Protestants in the More Developed Countries must be challenged to let combating overconsumption affect their lives personally. In other words, they should consume less and have fewer children. Therefore, I suggest one child per family as a general guideline” (253).

This article seems like a good jumping off point. I think that we should be more in favor of adopting children. Perhaps we Christians, and Evangelicals in particular, should be more intentional about the needs and responsibilities we have towards orphaned/abandoned children. Certainly, adopting children would be something that would mirror our ideal of being a father to the fatherless. Perhaps we can even work toward changing the ideas of middle aged adults. What if people in their 40-50s chose to adopt a child, even while being a grandparent? Surely, it wouldn’t be for everyone. But, they already have expertise in raising children.