COEUR d’ALENE — First, it was scientists who debated the possible consequences of climate change.

Then it was politicians who weighed in, pro and con.

And now...

Religious leaders?

Indeed, various faiths and the people who represent them are taking a stand on the issue of global warming, and what it means for the future of this planet.

On Thursday night, Kootenai Environmental Alliance hosted a panel of spokesmen for different religions at North Idaho College, hoping to find some type of consensus on climate change, and what sort of response is needed to combat it.

The four men present at the event and a fifth, more conservative spiritual leader managed to find agreement on just two notions: The world appears to be getting warmer, and common sense in everyday life suggests that recycling and other “green” habits are good for everyone.

But everything else, even the notion of cause and effect between caring for the environment and its impact on climate change, remains up for debate — even in matters of faith.

THE PLAYERS

The panel at the NIC event included: Ron Eberly, a Roman Catholic and longtime member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Dan Forsgren, a transplanted Minnesotan who is now pastor at Trinity Lutheran Church in Coeur d’Alene; Hugh Lefcort, biology professor at Gonzaga University and former vice president of Temple Beth Shalom in Spokane; and Rev. Patrick Bell, who grew up on a farm just south of Kootenai County and is now bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Eastern Oregon.

The KEA also asked Ya’qub Brutche, a convert to Sunni Islam, to join the panel, but he was a last-minute cancellation.

The fifth spiritual leader invited into the discussion by The Press was Paul Van Noy, founding pastor of Candlelight Christian Fellowship in Coeur d’Alene.

Format for the panel discussion allowed each participant to give a 10-minute explanation of his faith’s beliefs on climate change, and then the panel members answered questions from the audience.

THREAT TO MANKIND

Although the speaking order was randomly chosen, it was appropriate for Eberly to lead off, since the Roman Catholic Church, after centuries of silence on the matter, has become the loudest spiritual voice on climate change under the progressive leadership of Pope Francis.

Eberly referred to the Pope’s 2015 encyclical, “Laudato Si,” several times while urging the audience to understand that Earth’s very existence is being threatened.

“All humanity is responsible for the well-being of the planet,” Eberly said of his own volition before turning to the Pope’s pleas.

Francis has never hesitated in his non-stop campaign to convince world leaders that action to halt global warming and create more environmental practices is both a moral and practical necessity.

And the Pope has used language that ranges from spiritually inspiring to just plain speaking in his quest, as Eberly pointed out.

The retired Mountie quoted a passage from the encyclical — the church’s highest type of instruction — in which the Pope said, “This sister (Earth) cries out to us.”

But just ahead of that encyclical, Francis tweeted: “The Earth, our home, is beginning to look like an immense pile of filth.”

No one on the panel disagreed, either in their individual remarks or in answering questions from the audience.

PROTESTANT PERSPECTIVES

Forsgren and Bell, representing mainstream Protestant denominations, both echoed the message that climate change — which humans have caused through neglect that’s led to global warming — must be reversed, and that they saw relentless education of each generation as the key component.

“I grew up on a farm just south of here,” Bell said, “and truthfully, we never thought about things like that. I know now that we were privileged to be people of the land.

“It says in the Bible that the Earth is to be subdued to serve our needs, and we took that literally — just throwing away buckets full of toxic chemicals that later got into our water. We had no idea or awareness of the results.

“It was only when I got to Whitworth (University) that I was exposed to Franciscans and the teachings of St. Francis of Assisi that I began to understand: We are not to subdue the Earth, but become stewards of it.”

Bell admitted that most Protestant congregations are late-comers to the idea of climate change, and its potentially catastrophic results.

But he also offered some hope on behalf of his theological brethren.

“Religious communities historically have usually come to these things later than most,” he said, “but once on board, we can be very effective.

“Around the early 1990s, the church began taking significant stands on the environment. We must engage in changing minds, because we’ve not always approached care of the Earth properly — or the universe, for that matter.”

PAUL’S POINT OF VIEW

Pastor Van Noy espoused a different view from any of the panelists, while still maintaining both an overall care of the planet and the need to behave correctly on an everyday basis.

“The Bible says, ‘God will destroy those who destroy the Earth,’” Van Noy said in a Press interview Friday. “So, yes, I agree that we are meant to be stewards in this life.”

However, Van Noy stuck with a more evangelical approach to the reasons why man’s actions can impact the planet and its future.

“When nature rebels,” he said, “it is because of the sins of man. Nature is suffering, because our spiritual climate is our natural climate.”

Van Noy conceded he could not go all the way toward the connection between human activity and global climate change, but said he was “all in” with regard to day-to-day sensibility.

“Global warming could be just the trend of warming and cooling through the centuries,” he said, “although that doesn’t absolve us of doing the things — recycling and so forth — that affect ourselves and our neighborhoods.

“But if we hope to save the planet, we have to rebel against sin.”

All of the Thursday night panelists would have agreed with Van Noy’s war on sin, but they were more direct in describing the cause-and-effect nature of climate change.

RELIGIOUS WISDOM

Lefcort made the point that in Judaism, caring for the land was never so much a spiritual concept as a practical one.

“You can see it in teachings through different ages,” he said. “Judaism is very utilitarian. The idea was to protect nature because it was necessary for life.

“It doesn’t carry that spiritual component you see in Christian faiths, and yet it arrives at the same place. How will ecosystems look 10 years down the road?

“Judaism is not an environmental religion. It takes more of a ‘wise use’ view. Take good care of the things you’re going to need.”

Lefcort, however, touched on a subject that seemed to span all the represented beliefs: Caring for the Earth equates to caring for weak and suffering, and that is critical for all spirituality — and virtually all religions.

SO NOW WHAT?

No one on the panel could offer a magic solution to reverse climate change, other than education.

“We’re at the place now where we know the results, and we know the danger,” Bell said. “We have an obligation to share that, and to teach it as part of God’s plan.”

Despite the potentially dire consequences of ignoring climate change and thus seeing the Earth put into mortal danger, all five of these religious men seemed to share an optimism about the future.

Perhaps, as more than one suggested, that feeling is reflection of faith itself.

Forsgren possibly put it best: “Martin Luther once said that if he knew tomorrow would be the end of the world, he would plant an apple tree today.”