“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon. … The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” The story is from Newsweek. The year was 1975 and the threat was global cooling. A year later the magazine reported that “this trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.” But then global cooling went out of style and Newsweek and other media outlets went on to discuss other topics. Three decades later the same overstatements and hysteria are being broadcast about global warming. I have read a good deal about this topic and even took the time to read Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. As a fairly rational fellow, I thought it would be wise to look for dissenting views, for books that might strike a balance. To my surprise I found that very little had been written to refute the notion of global warming, and this despite knowing that many scientists are far from convinced. Eventually I stumbled across The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism). This is the latest entry in the Politically Incorrect Guide series, a series that has already covered Islam, Intelligent Design, Feminism and other issues our society faces.
This guide is written by Christopher C. Horner. He is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an acknowledged expert on global warming legislation and regulation, and has spoken before Senate committees and the European Parliament. He seems fairly well qualified to write on the topic (especially when we consider that the main proponent of global warming is a politician whose college level science grades continue to be a source of embarrassment to him). Horner’s thesis is evident from the book’s opening lines. “Al Gore and his friends—social, corporate, and media elites, Europeans, and UN aficionados—declare ‘global warming’ an unprecedented global crisis. Hyped as an environmental nightmare, global warming hysteria is truly the environmentalist’s dream come true. It is the perfect storm of demons and perils, and the ideal scare campaign for those who would establish ‘global governance’ (Jacques Chirac’s words in praise of the Kyoto Protocol) with strict control over corporate actions and individual behavior.”
In the author’s opinion, global warming provides the perfect means of establishing global controls and global governance. It is inherently anti-capitalist and its pedigree is more red than green. “Environmental causes always include—and often are primarily—campaigns to gain more government control over the economy and individual activity. They are never fights for less control or greater liberty.” He goes on to attempt to prove this thesis through the first three chapters. From there he dedicates four chapters to refuting what he terms “the convenient lies”—the pillars of those who believe in global warming. He shows that climate is always changing so that the earth is always either getting warmer or colder, disputes the belief that humans are responsible for anything more than a fraction of the world’s carbon dioxide production, proves that there is anything but consensus among scientists about whether or not global warming is an imminent threat, shows that global warming is not an earth-wide phenomenon and how men like Al Gore have deliberately tampered with evidence showing this, and proves that humans have not caused the natural disasters that have recently stunned the world (with Hurricane Katrina being the one most fresh in people’s minds). From here he dedicates three chapters to “The False Prophets (and Real Profits) of Global Warming” and includes a full chapter to discussing Al Gore’s book and film. The final two chapters show the cost America would face if it bought into the alarmist agenda, and especially if it ratified the Kyoto Protocol. In short, he provides evidence that global warming is not the terrifying spectacle many people would have us believe and that we should be awfully careful before we buy into the hype.
Despite the complexity of the topic, I found that the author did quite a good job of making it understandable. There were a few spots where my eyes began to glaze over, but on the whole I enjoyed reading the book. The series’ trademark humor and “For Dummies” style helped get me through the tedious parts. Still, I had two complaints about the book. First, while it is obvious that the author is not “against” environmentalism as something less than a wide-ranging political ideology, it would have been nice to see him expend greater effort in affirming the necessity of caring for this world even if we do not buy into the hype. And second, the book could have used a bit more effort from the editorial crew. At times I almost felt that the book had bee rushed out the door in order to put it on store shelves while there is still a market for it. After all, if global warming follows the pattern of previous environmental hype, it will not be long before this book is relegated to the bargain bins. In fact, I hope this proves to be the case!
One thing this book helped me realize is just how complex a subject global warming is and how few people are truly qualified, trained and equipped to make the long-term predictions that are the source of so much hysteria. The book also reaffirmed what I already knew—that this issue simply cannot be separated from politics. There is clearly a great deal of ideology and politics underlying the hysteria. If we seek to know who is behind the hysteria, it seems to me that we need only follow the money trail. If the hysteria continues and nations like Canada and the United States buy into it, countless billions of dollars will leave North America and make their way to Europe, China and other countries that, despite being dependent on America, despise her. Someone is set to benefit from all of this hype. While I do not necessarily know who this person will be, I do know that it is not going to be the average North American consumer. You and I have a lot to lose and we ought to be sure we at least investigate the claims of those who are currently marketing the hype. The proposed “cures” for global warming are unbelievably expensive and will yield results that are absolutely pathetic (to the tune of trillions of dollars being spent to potentially reduce the earth’s temperature by an almost imperceptible .08 degrees over fifty years). The message of this book is simply that there is more to this issue that simply protecting the environment,
I love this world God has given to us and entrusted to us. I know that we have not always been faithful stewards of it and have done a great deal of damage to it. And yet I also know that there is a whole lot at stake in the discussion about human-caused global warming. This discussion goes far deeper than its proponents would have us believe. Books like this one, while far from perfect, can at least begin to equip us to see that there is another side to the argument and to provide some balance to the hysteria we hear all around us. I am grateful that this book is available and am grateful also to see others like it slowly beginning to hit store shelves. I hope they can stem the tide.
I believe that human-caused global warming is largely nonsense and is largely driven by unbiblical, anti-God ideology. With this book review I am going on record with that belief. If I am proved wrong, feel free to laugh at me in ten or twenty years when the earth’s water levels have risen, when the air is unbreathable, when energy costs have increased exponentially and when the earth is reduced to utter ruin. Just laugh at me. I can take it. But I’ve got a feeling that twenty years from now we will have moved on to the next big problem and will have forgotten all about global warming, just like we’ve forgotten all about global cooling. And we will just keep repeating history.
Comments (63) »
1. Jeremy
February 26, 2007
11:18 AM
My history teacher in college described environmentalists as watermelons—green on the outside, red on the inside.
2. Robbo
February 26, 2007
11:20 AM
I believe that human-caused global warming is largely nonsense and is largely driven by unbiblical, anti-God ideology.
There is a very slim chance that you could be wrong. What about giving us the biblical reasons why the other side of the argument that you support is more likely to be the right one. Is your belief simply instinct? I asked this question recently to a friend- is it simply because Al Gore has attached his name to “global warming” or “climate change” that some Christians have dismissed it outright?
I think the best thing we can do as Christians is not to come across as just being against the “global warming agenda” but to state clearly and practically how we can and are using Biblical principles to “subdue and replenish” God’s creation.
3. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
February 26, 2007
11:29 AM
Fear of, or belief in, something like global warming - according to A.W. Pink - is a belief that the world has been left to its own fortune and the out-working of the “laws of nature”, without God as the controlling factor of everything.
Pink says, “In such a case, we should have a world over which there was no intelligent, presiding Governor, a world controlled by nothing more than impersonal laws - a concept worthy of gross Materialism and blank Atheism.”
Amen to that. Either God is in control or He is not. Dare I say that fear of global warming is really just a lack of faith?
4. David Pearson
February 26, 2007
11:34 AM
The wine grape issue in England is very interesting. 2000 years ago England could grow wine grapes. Then it got too cold. Hundreds of years later they could grow them again. Then it got too cold. It is just now beginning to get warm enough again for England to grow wine grapes. These cyclical patterns of “global warming” and “global cooling” were happening long before man began to drive.
Don’t expect the religion of global warming to ever address these issues or the issues of the “global cooling” scare of the 70’s.
Check it out…
5. Frank Emrich
February 26, 2007
11:36 AM
While I am sure that global warming is a concern to many, our primary concern must be in preaching the gospel to the ends of the earth before the ultimate “global warming” that will one day take place. “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.” (2 Peter 3:10 NASU)
6. Tim Challies
February 26, 2007
11:55 AM
“Amen to that. Either God is in control or He is not. Dare I say that fear of global warming is really just a lack of faith?”
I would agree…to a point. I don’t think we can blatantly ignore these kinds of issues on that basis. We still do need to tend and care for the earth. But we have the advantage of knowing of God’s sovereignty and even knowing how this particular story ends!
7. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
February 26, 2007
12:04 PM
I don’t think we can blatantly ignore these kinds of issues on that basis. We still do need to tend and care for the earth. But we have the advantage of knowing of God’s sovereignty and even knowing how this particular story ends!
I agree completely.
8. candyinsierras
February 26, 2007
12:35 PM
Yay. Great post. I am SO with you on this.
9. donsands
February 26, 2007
12:42 PM
I really appreciate this post. I need all the info I can get on this sort of thing.
It’s similar to Evolution. All these great brainy scientist come and tell us, with calm certainty, that there is evidence that man evolved from apes.
And we are to simply receive this is fact.
Al Gore, who invebted the internet, is much less a scientist then these evolutionist, and yet he is the expert.
BTW, at the Oscars, when his movie won an Oscar for best song, I think, did this women say, I want to thank my wife”?
Shouldn’t it have been I want to thank my husband?
What’s up with that!
10. Jim Swindle
February 26, 2007
1:07 PM
Thanks for your very helpful essay.
I’d think a Christian perspective on the environment would include the following (not an exhaustive list):
1. Respect for the environment, but not worship of it.
2. Laws to prevent practices that are almost certain to produce widespread, irreversible damage (such as laws against spraying DDT in swamps).
3. Laws that value people above animals (such as laws to permit spraying of DDT on walls and ceilings in malaria-prone areas).
4. Laws to deal with public hazards (such as clean-air laws).
5. Considerable caution before completely agreeing or disagreeing with the latest fads of science.
In keeping with #5 on my list, I’m not yet fully decided on global warming. I don’t want to be deceived by those who have a political agenda either affirming or denying it.
Thank you for your courage in taking a stand.
11. Jeri
February 26, 2007
1:20 PM
Tim, great review and article! I’m sure that many of you, like me, think of God’s assuring Noah after the flood that “as long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.”
Where legitimate abuses of Earth’s resources have occured, there is a hopeful track record of fixes being implemented. I remember that years ago the downtown Birmingham skyline was often invisible from smog and pollution, now, after lots of changes in emissions regulations, those days are just a memory. Thank the Lord for His grace in giving many reasonable people the intelligence and desire to be good stewards of this planet.
This seems like a good book to have on hand!
12. Dave T.
February 26, 2007
1:47 PM
to Donsands,
You were right in hearing the Oscar winner for the best original song thank her “wife”. She (Melissa Ethridge) is one of the more outspoken lesbians in the artistic community, and I do believe one of the ‘duped’ masses that readily believe in a man made global warming, either due to their ignorance, their political agenda, or their desire to submit to a god other than the one true God in Christ Jesus.
As for the larger topic, I enjoyed the fairness of the article and I will be looking for this book at my local retailer or Amazon.
Thanks for the info.
13. Sam Roeland
February 26, 2007
1:53 PM
Rush Limbaugh used the phrase referring to enviro-terrorists and the commies as watermelons… back in the fall of 1995 is when I first heard Rush use that phrase…
His,
Sam
14. Mike Wittmann
February 26, 2007
2:18 PM
I can’t resist… the irony is too great. See below:
the book could have used a bit more effort from the editorial crew. At times I almost felt that the book had bee rushed out the door in order to put it on store shelves while there is still a market for it.
Perhaps you were rushed in order to get this post published?
Onto bigger and better things, I enjoyed your take here. I wish more Christians were able to see through the supposed “scientific consensus” that exists on this issue. I think sometimes we are so scared that someone will call us “flat earthers” that we rush to believe the latest scientific gobbledygook. I would also point out that there is a consensus that the universe was created by the big bang, and that a person isn’t a *person* until they exit the womb. Don’t believe everything you hear just because science supposedly supports it.
15. Tim Challies
February 26, 2007
2:25 PM
“Perhaps you were rushed in order to get this post published?”
D’oh!
16. donsands
February 26, 2007
2:34 PM
Dave T.
So she’s the husband, I guess. Or are they both wifes? How does that work? Absolutely nuts. But then again …
“For this cause God them up unto vile passions: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature”. Romans 1:26
I pray that God’s mercy would open the eyes of her heart, as He has done for so mnay others. Amen.
17. SolaG
February 26, 2007
3:26 PM
Sorry but I’ve drunk the Kool Aid. I’m convinced that not all scientists who think the evidence for global warming is compelling have lost their integrity. I also believe, (apparently unreasonably) that it is possible to believe that global warming is real and that people have a large role to play in that process and still be a follower of Jesus Christ.
I realize that in doing this I am being hysterical (the folks at CEI say so and Tim seems to believe it too). I’ve also bought into the scientific “nonsense,” and I am probably driven by unbiblical and anti-God theology. But what can I do? I’m just using my God-given reason to make judgments about things. Who knew that there are only two sides to the issue: pagan and Christian.
For my sake, I hope Tim will take the time to explain why my conclusion that global warming is real, arrived at after reading a lot of stuff on the topic, is unbiblical and antiChristian and his conclusion that it’s largely nonsense is presumably bibical and Christian. I really don’t get it, and I don’t think it’s very helpful to cast it in those terms.
18. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
February 26, 2007
3:44 PM
I don’t know that Tim is trying to refute global warming per se, but HUMAN-caused global warming.
I believe that human-caused global warming is largely nonsense and is largely driven by unbiblical, anti-God ideology.
The earth has always gone in cycles, as commented on above by David Pearson (#4).
19. John Lee
February 26, 2007
4:15 PM
The decision to debunk or affirm global warming should be based on scientific findings, not theology.
I’m in agreement with Solag (#17) - I do not see how being environmentally concerned is a spiritual hazard that somehow diminishes the sovereignty of God. I do not see how the veracity of the scientific findings should be adjudged through a theological lens. This assessment, after all, is a purely scientific one, not a theological one.
The readers of this post have quickly dismissed the scientific findings as “nonsense.” Very well. Perhaps the findings are nonsense. But that they have done so without an iota of contrary scientific findings to justify such an outright dismissal is worrisome. Indeed, their knee-jerk hysterical response is not becoming of the rational, thoughtful Christian we are called to be.
Centuries ago, a famous astronomer scientifically proved that the earth was not the center of the universe. He was forced - on pain of death - to recant his findings since it was thought that his conclusion somehow diminished God’s sovereignty. Hysteria, blind commitment to an ideology of God, and a lack of discernment ruled the day back then.
Have we not learned anything since?
20. donsands
February 26, 2007
4:54 PM
We’ve learned that there’s no global coolin’ going on, John.
I like what Tim said, in 20 years we’ll see. Amen to that. In the mean time, a lot people like to lie about things. They really don’t mind making things up.
We definitely need to know that is the truth. And we need to apply this truth to our reasoning as well. People make things up.
Look at Evolution. Lot’s of made up stuff, and yet everyone believed it.
I agree Christians shouldn’t say, “Well the Bible says, so that’s it!”.
However I believe we need to look at God’s Word for what it does say, and not modernize it.
Those are some thoughts for what there worth. Probably not much.
21. SolaG
February 26, 2007
4:55 PM
Brian: You may be right but Tim doesn’t attempt to make that distinction elsewhere in his article, nor, apparently, does the book he reviewed. And, really, whether GW is man-made or part of a natural cycle, the question is “can we do anything about it” given the potential consequences? Tim apparently is indifferent to that question.
I don’t consider myself an hysteric or an alarmist for being concerned, and I don’t see how that concern is either unbiblical or anti-God either. Again, I hope Tim will connect the dots for me.
22. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
February 26, 2007
5:20 PM
If global warming (assuming it even really exists for any length of time) is real, but NOT man-made…what is there to worry about? If it IS real - and caused by man - there may be things for humans to consider doing to be better stewards of what God has given us…but again, what is there to worry about?
I really believe this all comes down to one’s view of God. Who is in control of the affairs of this earth?
And John Lee, everything for a Christian should be viewed through his theology.
23. Chris Hillcoat
February 26, 2007
5:34 PM
I’m a believer as well - in AGW, that is. I’ve studied a very elemental level of palaeo-ecology and past climate change at university, so I’m hardly an expert; but a flat denial of the effects that it seems humankind is having on the planet is no longer feasible - whether dressed up as theology or not.
If you never have, take a look at www.realclimate.org which is a very accessible website written by climatologists.
24. B. Minich
February 26, 2007
5:45 PM
I usually end up asking this question about global warming …
If it is real, what should we do about it? Is there something that I can pratically do to help, or is this all high talk about what big entities that I have no control over should do? When I bought my last car, I bought a fuel effecient car, because I drive a long way to work, and I didn’t want to pay a fortune in gas. If the local transit connects near to where I work in a way that is affordable to me, I’ll gladly take that.
The things I don’t like about the global warming crowd are that they are very arrogant (which is offputting, even if they are right), and they brand anyone who disagrees with them as a pariah. I’d rather they call them “wrong” and explain why, not label those who disagree with them as dangerous.
Finally, I’ve always wondered just how well we understand our planet. Someone I read recently brought up the point: who is to say that the weather we experience in 2007 is “normal”? There is evidence of a warmer Europe in the past - what makes that bad, and this climate good? Much about the global warming debate assumes that humans have control over these things, which isn’t always true - it seems to dismiss out of hand any possibility that something other than humankind is responsible for the warming - partially because, I think, the global warming advocates don’t want to face a world where there is something outside of their control.
25. Tim Challies
February 26, 2007
6:55 PM
This just made my day. Al Gore, who spends his life telling Americans to conserve electricity, owns a house that uses 20x the national average of electricity. He consumes over $30,000 worth of electricity and gas in a year. If he was really that concerned about all of this, something tells me he’d be trying to cut back too rather than just telling all of us to do so.
Responding to comments:
Those who think we should forsake theology and answer this question ONLY on the basis of science need to get ahold of a copy of Nancy Pearcey’s Total Truth. Pronto.
As for SolaG, read this statement again: “I believe that human-caused global warming is largely nonsense and is largely driven by unbiblical, anti-God ideology.” Not the caveats. Human-caused global warming is largely nonsense (which is to say we may well be contributing to global warming but only at a fraction of what people like Gore would have us believe) and it is largely driven by people who are anti-God. There may be some people who affirm the Scriptures and still believe in global warming. But I’d suggest that these are the exception rather than the rule.
26. SolaG
February 26, 2007
8:20 PM
Tim: You again promote a false dichotomy. Who is suggesting we “forsake theology”? Science doesn’t answer theological questions and theology does not attempt to measure the earth’s temperature or develop climactic theories based on current atmospheric data.
The theological questions have to do with our relationship to God’s creation and what we do with the scientific data we have. That we disagree about the science says nothing about whether one view is biblical or not. If you disagree, please explain why.
As for your assertion that man-made GW is “largely nonsense”: Given your acknowledgment that the science is complex, how you arrive at that conclusion is especially baffling. 600 folks who contributed unpaid time to developing a report that provides the current scientific consensus on GW, and it’s largely nonsense? Hmm.
The anti-God and unbiblical stuff is just plain silly. You know little, if anything, about the religious views of any of the members of the IPCC panel. How do you conclude that they are driven by an anti-God, unbiblical ideology? Really.
If by anti-God you mean that the scientists involved in the report are atheists, perhaps you’re right. But atheists and ideologues are two different things and to accuse a scientist of twisting the data to fit his “ideology” (assuming he has one) is a very serious charge. As a Christian, you should be prepared to back up the accusation with some proof. If you go read the scientific blogs that focus on GW, it’s almost all highly technical stuff that’s discussed and argued and reevaluated in an effort to understand what’s going on. There’s nothing like “ideology” to be found.
Finally, I don’t know what to say about Al Gore. He is obviously despised by large chunks of the evangelical blogosphere; however, I’m glad he’s in the game, doing something about an issue he cares about. You seem to derive comfort from believing he’s a hypocrite. That would be a mistake. Whle Al Gore isn’t the issue, that hasn’t stopped believers like yourself from attacking his motives, his lifestyle, his politics, the whole shebang. If I were a sociologist, I’d want to study that phenomenon because it is largely irrational. (Note the caveat.)
Blessings
SolaG
27. ron
February 26, 2007
9:47 PM
Solag,
I too think Christians should do what we can to promote wise use of energy and the environment. There are too many Christians who seem to react to concern for GW as the mark of Satan.
But, regarding GW I too have read a fair amount of both sides of the argument. It is pretty clear that there is an agenda far deeper than just protecting the earth for the general movement. There is honestly not enough information to accurately assess what contribution humans are making to GW. How else can we explain known temperature changes over periods of time (not that long ago) that have we know have nothing to do with human activity.
We have to measure the merits and consequences of the arguments and follow our conscience based on Scripture. My conscience says to treat the environment well and not abuse the resources God has given us, but it also tells me that something else is driving these GW folk that is anything but honoring to God. I can tell you for sure that I personally live in a much more environmentally friendly manner than many of the so-called GW advocates (see Gore, Al).
We should be working together in a reasonable way to not make a mess of the planet, but not under the authority of suspect science.
28. DH
February 27, 2007
1:17 AM
Frankly, if Western Christians would live lives of moderation (or less? Our Savior sure lived on less, materially-speaking), rather than excess, there wouldn’t be this discussion.
First, a life of moderation means a life of less waste. Practically speaking, the world would not be able to find church parking lots full of SUVs to criticize.
Second, and more importantly, a life of moderation (or less) would allow us to give more and hoard (and waste) less.
Third, and most important of all of these points, a life of moderation allows one to focus more energy and attention on and for our Savior’s cause, rather than our own excessive comfort.
And, finally, Christians have much better things to worry about than the latest political fad, whether it be green, red, blue, or any other color in the spectrum. We SHOULD have more important things to concern ourselves with. If we did concern ourselves with winning souls, we would not have time to accumulate stuff to ultimately waste… taking us back to point one.
29. sushil_yadav
February 27, 2007
8:10 AM
The link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues.
The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.
To read the complete article please follow either of these links :
PlanetSave
EarthNewsWire
sushil_yadav
30. sushil_yadav
February 27, 2007
8:17 AM
The links in my previous comment did not appear properly. I am posting them again.
http://www.planetsave.com/ps_mambo/index.php?option=com_simpleboard&Itemid=75&func=view&id=68&catid=6
http://www.earthnewswire.com/index.php?option=com_forum&Itemid=89&page=viewtopic&t=11
sushil_yadav
31. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
February 27, 2007
8:20 AM
First, a life of moderation means a life of less waste. Practically speaking, the world would not be able to find church parking lots full of SUVs to criticize.
What in the world is this supposed to mean?
Are you suggesting that Christians who own an SUV and drive it to church are somehow not living a life of moderation, and at the same time are providing good grounds for criticism from the world?
Practically speaking…your point is ridiculous.
32. chris
February 27, 2007
9:20 AM
This comment is for Robbo,
Out of brotherly love I rebuke your suggestion that we shouldn’t dismiss this “global warming” agenda that is being driven by Al Gore, Hollywood, and the Devil.
May I suggest you read Kim R. study on the book of Revelations. This whole movement is denying God’s Sovereignty, period. Either man is Soveriegn or God is Sovereign. If you don’t dismiss it than you are in the camp that man is Sovereign.
Whether we are in the very last days or not ( I hope we are) Satin needs something that will not only unite the world but also deceive the church as did the Roman Government during the first century which John wrote about. The fact is the Book of Revelation says that all nations (including the United States) and even churches will side with the devil and take the mark. Could this movement be the final thing that brings the world against the “true Israel”. It certainly may?
The question is are we going to side with the world on this issue or demand that it is false and demand God is Soverieign. Because when you demand this is false and side with God only then will you see how man hates God’s Sovereignty. God Bless His people.
33. Wonkyhead
February 27, 2007
10:34 AM
I haven’t made up my mind about whether human beings are driving the latest climate trend, but I have come to the conclusion that Christians, far from taking the lead, have failed absymally in their mandate to steward the earth with wisdom, compassion and mercy. I cannot abide the “it’s all gonna burn” mentality that many Christians hold to, and which, in their minds, justifies the mindless pillaging of the planet’s resources. I find this kind of ignorance appalling.
While I am on my soapbox, let me also say that I am also really tired of hearing from Christians that concern for the earth and the lower orders (i.e. animals) somehow makes one guilty of, and I quote, “exalting” them above human beings. What, Christians can’t do both? They can’t express practical concern for BOTH human beings and animals? They can’t learn how to think CREATIVELY instead of merely EXPEDIENTLY? Since when is the bottom line, the almighty dollar, the great green god George, the determining factor in deciding between right and wrong? And yet there are many Christians who see it this way!
I cringe when I hear that yet another species is on the verge of disappearing from this earth FOREVER - I consider it a tragic misuse of God’s creation as well as a blatant disregard for God’s glory, who made these creatures and is, by the way, well pleased with them. He cared for them enough to provided them a way of escape by sheltering them during the Flood in the Ark with Noah and his family, but we consider their loss to be of no real significance. And you’d be surprised by the number of Christians who would choose the erection of yet another strip mall (we simply must create “opportunities” for people to work for $5 an hour!) over the preservation of a rapidly diminishing natural habitat, because of course, to do otherwise is to “choose” for animals and against human beings. Limited thinking at its best!
“The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.”
We, on the other hand, are just passing through.
34. David Pearson
February 27, 2007
11:31 AM
Wonkyhead,
Could you please give a specific example of how Christians “have failed absymally in their mandate to steward the earth with wisdom, compassion and mercy.”
These kinds of generic accusations are tiresome.
David
35. ron
February 27, 2007
11:50 AM
What about the dinosaurs? I’m sure someone can find a reason to blame humans for their extinction.
Humans are called to subdue the earth and have dominion over it. We kill animals for food. We till the soil. We burn things for fuel. The fact is some people have a problem with that. They would rather we do nothing and alter nothing. Although they themselves cannot fathom how their lives would be affected if we didn’t do those things.
It’s so incredibly tiring to hear that we have to do something. Do what? And don’t give me the “Oil companies and automakers are conspiring and they’re the problem”.
I think we can do better, we can always do better, but I will not submit the rantings of people who seem to have a much higher view of the earth than God.
36. candyinsierras
February 27, 2007
11:53 AM
Here is a good site to peruse. http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/
37. Robbo
February 27, 2007
12:03 PM
#31 Chris,
I will take a pass on the rebuke for now. I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Help me out by answering a couple of questions for me
1) Does man have any responsibility at all in caring for the environment God has created?
2) Is planting a tree to replace one cut down to be used as timber for my furniture an afront to God’s sovereignty
3)How does one “demand” that something is false in this instance?
4) Who is Kim R. and would you care to lend me your copy of her study on the book of Revelation if you think that would be helpful to a brother?
And as I return to my natural habitat of being a lurker on this blog let me repeat the original request I made to Mr Challies in my comment
“What about giving us the biblical reasons why the other side of the argument that you support is more likely to be the right one”
38. Wonkyhead
February 27, 2007
12:47 PM
David,
They may be tiresome, but they certainly aren’t generic. Christians have the Scriptures, which were written by human beings, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In these Scriptures I find evidence of God’s tender heart toward ALL of His creation. I read of His desire that a mother bird should be released if her eggs are gathered for food. I see that a kid is not to be boiled in its mother’s milk, and that a righteous man regards the life of his beast, and attends to the well-being of his flocks. I read instructions on how to humanely kill an animal for food. I also see the future king of Israel putting his life on the line to rescue a lamb from the jaws of a lion (a foreshadowing of the Good Shepherd to come).
If God is concerned for His creation (and apparently He is), then I believe we should be as well, and instead of abdicating our responsibility in this matter, we should demonstrate stewardship that honors Scripture and the God whose glory is reflected in His creation. Instead, we have allowed the world to hijack and define what it means to be a good steward, and the result is that we have extremes; the PETA folks on one hand and production farming on the other. (No flames, please! I am not implying that farmers are evil!)
I don’t claim to have all the answers nor do I believe that Christians can solve all the world’s woes, but we can and should be salt and light.
And if you think I haven’t encountered the people and situations to which I referred in my earlier post, the truth is that I have - which is why I wrote about them. I could give you examples of professing Christians who use animals for target practice, who participate in contest kills and canned hunts, who refuse to care for the animals they own, who believe that God and capitalism are synonomous and vote (and live) that way - I know them personally, and I simply find their attitude disturbing. Do I believe this of ALL Christians? No I do not. But I believe it is a minority who even give these matters much thought.
Maybe to you my post is a litany of tiresome accusations, but to me they’re cause for concern.
If you believe MOST Christians have exercised godly leadership in this area, perhaps you will provide me with specific examples as well.
Blessings to you. You and I are privileged to hold to our opinions, shaped to some degree by our (probably) vastly differing experiences, and still affirm our common ground. I believe that is a good thing!
39. Wonkyhead
February 27, 2007
1:02 PM
Ron:
If you’re referring to my post, I don’t hold the earth in higher esteem than God. I see evidence in Scripture that He is concerned (in fact, the Bible uses the word “tender”) about His creation. I find it difficult to believe that He would have included these instructions and admonitions if He didn’t intend for them to influence our behavior.
Of course we alter the earth and I’m not suggesting that we cease from doing so. But can we not exercise a little wisdom and creativity in how we go about it? Or should the quickest and most expedient solution be the ONLY solution?
If you don’t want to do anything about it, that is your choice. You are free to do or not, as you see fit. But those of us who want to try to reclaim the concept of good stewardship from the world are also free, and have the authority of Scripture behind us, I believe, as long as our efforts do NOT dishonor God or His Word. What problem could you possibly have with that?
Dominion is not a license to wage destruction. An interesting book on this subject was recently published: “Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals and the Call to Mercy” (and no, I don’t agree with all of the author’s conclusions).
Mercy. If only we really understood that word.
40. David Pearson
February 27, 2007
2:48 PM
Sorry Wonkyhead,
I have no problem whatsoever with production farming or hunting. I’ve also never met a real Christian who abuses their animals or uses them for target practice. I’m sorry if you have. These are 2 totally different situations - as much as I believe you would like to blend hunting and food production with abuse. It’s pretty well known that hunters do more for animals than animal rights fanatics.
The OT gets into some pretty detailed descriptions of animal sacrifice as well. Does that bother you?
A few questions:
If a Christian shouldn’t eat “production” meat - where would one get meat? Should we grow and slaughter our own? If we live in the city, should we be vegetarians - since a personal slaughterhouse is out of the question?
Since you spit “capitalism” out like a swear word, does that mean a Christian shouldn’t vote Republican?
While I don’t think Christianity and capitalism are synonymous - I would like you to point me to the country that gives it’s citizens greater freedoms. If you’re not voting for the “capitalist” are you voting for the “socialist”? - because everyone has a world view and it doesn’t take very long to see that folks who believe they are on the “middle” of most issues actually lean further to one side than they care to admit.
I don’t want to take this off-topic - since you gave the examples about animals - when this post is about global warming - perhaps you could explain how Christians have “have failed abysmally in their mandate to steward the earth with wisdom, compassion and mercy” in regards to global warming. I don’t feel I need to provide examples because I believe this to be junk science with no basis in fact - just as global cooling of the 70’s.
Anyway - Thanks for the reply. I applaud your soft heart for animals, but I believe we have very different opinions of what being a good steward means.
41. Wonkyhead
February 27, 2007
4:02 PM
Likewise, I don’t have a problem with hunting, when it is done with skill and attention to judicious use and management of wildlife. I have a very big problem with contest kills (in which hunters kills as many of a certain animal, usually coyotes, as possible, and the one with the most kills wins a monetary prize). Some hunters oppose this practice, others participate in it. I also don’t like canned hunts, which are designed to give the hunter an extreme advantage over his/her quarry; i.e. it cannot escape because it is fenced in.
Certain methods employed by production farms are starting to change, thankfully, due in part to legislation introduced by the Humane Society and other humane treatment advocates. As I have stated before, just because something has always been done a certain way doesn’t mean that there isn’t a better way. Farmers who have adopted improved farming methods have reaped a number of benefits, as have their animals.
I realize that our society is disconnected from the earth and the entire process of obtaining food, and I think this has been to our detriment. Most people have no idea what is involved; however, some have started to take more of an interest in the idea of sustainable living. I think this can only bode well for them and the environment.
Where should you get your meat, if not from an old-school production farm? There are myriad options. There are small scale farms that raise and slaughter their own beef, without resorting to the use of cramped feedlots, steroids and growth hormones. I know of several, and while the meat may be a bit more expensive, it is healthier and tastes better. A Google search will reveal just how many choices you have, whether you are looking for eggs, chicken, beef or vegetables.
I am saying there are better, more compassionate ways to do things, and you say we have different ideas of what it means to be a good steward. So be it.
I do NOT spit capitalism out as a swear word; that is purely your interpretation. I do NOT, however, believe that certain capitalistic principles are upheld the teachings of Scripture, that’s all. I see the fallout; I see how people are hurt. That doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the fact that I was born in the US, or that I harbor some sort of secret socialist agenda.
While I am not a liberal, I also do not believe the GOP is the Party of God.
I think I already mentioned that I haven’t made up my mind about human-driven global warming. I am not referring to the exercise of sound Christian leadership in this area specifically. I am talking about a broader application of the concept of stewardship, and yes, many Christians are content to let the world take the lead, or they are indifferent altogether. I just wonder why.
This has gotten off-topic, so we will just have to agree to disagree.
Blessings.
42. Tim Challies
February 27, 2007
4:10 PM
“Who is Kim R. and would you care to lend me your copy of her study on the book of Revelation if you think that would be helpful to a brother?”
I’ll go out on a limb and suggest this refers to Kim Riddlebarger.
43. DH
February 27, 2007
4:12 PM
Brian,
Re: “Are you suggesting that Christians who own an SUV and drive it to church are somehow not living a life of moderation, and at the same time are providing good grounds for criticism from the world?”
Read the entire post. I used SUV-filled church parking lots as an example. Don’t miss the big picture by worrying about one small part.
Big picture of entire post in nutshell:
a)Christians ought not worry about this latest green fad, instead they ought to worry about winning souls.
b) If Christians were worried about the latter, they would have minimal time (or reason, with an eternal perspective) to accumulate material wealth here on earth.
c) Such Christians, then, would be immune to criticism of “waste” in the first place (not owning enough to be wasteful with) and… beyond that… they wouldn’t give a rip about what Al Gore’s latest pronouncement was anyhow, because it would be unimportant to them.
Clearer?
44. chris
February 27, 2007
5:01 PM
Robbo,
Tim was right it is Kim Riddlebarger and if you give me your email address I will be happy to send you a copy. Let me answer your questions.
1) Does man have any responsibility at all in caring for the environment God has created?
Not sure what this has to do with man using fossil fuels which God provided. The real question is do you really think God is sitting on the sidelines or is He ruling over the earth, fulfilling His will? If He is than no matter what man does it cannot change is Will.
2) Is planting a tree to replace one cut down to be used as timber for my furniture an afront to God’s sovereignty.
You can plant all of the trees you want. It won’t to a bit of good. If God wants trees planted he will blow the wind and produce millions at his beckon call. Are you to suggest that man planted all of the trees? I remember trees being on the earth from the beginning!
3)How does one “demand” that something is false in this instance?
Its false because this movement is not coming from the people of God but coming from Hollywood and the world. Unfortunately it is now creeping into the church now which is truly shameful as if God wasn’t in control. As if God needs man to help his creation. The same God which will burn this earth is right now Creating a New Heaven and New Earth. Can’t wait for that.
I would love to send you a copy of Kim’s study on Revelation. It is truly a great read.
chris
45. donsands
February 27, 2007
5:49 PM
” … the creation itself will be delievered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.” Rom. 8:21-22
The earth is under God’s own curse. God is going to redeem it.
Until then we are living on a cursed planet. And yet there is still the beauty and wonder of god’s creation as well.
But this earth is nothing compared to what the next earth will be like!
” … even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.” v.23
God is redeeming for Himself a people, and a new earth. he is gracious and sovereign.
46. ron
February 27, 2007
7:47 PM
“If you don’t want to do anything about it, that is your choice.”
Okay, I’ll follow the Great Gore and buy a mansion. This is ridiculous. Wonkyhead, what do you want all of us “Earth Destroying Christians” to do? The point is many Christians who don’t buy GW science are probably just as conscientious, if not more, than many of those who are worried about us melting.
I do believe we should be good stewards. It’s not such an easy answer though to determine what good steward means in this day and age. Driving a Prius, is that it? (which, btw, has been proven to be less effective than some regular gas engines) Do I think some people drive ridiculously large vehicles and could downsize a bit? Sure. Same with houses and other things. Interestingly, I don’t associate the wisdom of downsizing first as a concern with global warming. It’s more of getting ourselves less consumed with “stuff” As a side benefit we would use less energy and that is good. But, making the climate the primary reason is foolishness. It’s more about spiritual health. That is where most GW advocates get it wrong. It is more about the earth to them instead of their own spiritual sickness.
47. Concerned Reader
February 27, 2007
8:19 PM
Many of the comments in this discussion are bordering on the idea of fatalism. God is in control and sovereign, but that doesn’t mean that we sit around and do nothing or contribute to the problem ourselves. Whether or not global warming is real, we have still played a role in polluting our air and our water and our earth. Just look at Denver and Los Angeles and all the air safety warnings they have, where they can actually see the air. Why would we fight about having to take care of our earth? This seems like something that is a given, whether or not we believe that GW is false or politically driven. God is sovereign, but let us not become fatalists and sit, hoping that God will do something. God works through us. And new trees are often planted because he uses people to do it. And if you think about it, Christians being involved in the environmental sphere of life will be a good witness for unbelievers. Who better to speak to environmentalists than Christians who are in that realm themselves, and I currently see no Christians involved in this issue, though correct me if I am wrong… I’d love to meet them.
48. Wonkyhead
February 27, 2007
8:51 PM
Okay, I’ll follow the Great Gore and buy a mansion. This is ridiculous. Wonkyhead, what do you want all of us “Earth Destroying Christians” to do? The point is many Christians who don’t buy GW science are probably just as conscientious, if not more, than many of those who are worried about us melting.
I don’t recall holding Al Gore up as a model to be emulated. I also did NOT say that buying into the idea of human-driven GW is necessarily part and parcel of a healthy, Scripture-honoring concern for the lower orders (the animals and the earth), although I don’t understand the knee-jerk denial that it could be possible. I mentioned twice that I haven’t made up my mind on this issue.
I do believe we should be good stewards. It’s not such an easy answer though to determine what good steward means in this day and age. Driving a Prius, is that it? (which, btw, has been proven to be less effective than some regular gas engines) Do I think some people drive ridiculously large vehicles and could downsize a bit? Sure. Same with houses and other things. Interestingly, I don’t associate the wisdom of downsizing first as a concern with global warming. It’s more of getting ourselves less consumed with “stuff” As a side benefit we would use less energy and that is good. But, making the climate the primary reason is foolishness. It’s more about spiritual health. That is where most GW advocates get it wrong. It is more about the earth to them instead of their own spiritual sickness.
They don’t see their own spiritual sickness, any more than we saw ours when we were dead in our sins, which is why Christians should be involved - to bring the witness of Jesus Christ to the debate and to bring about change that is actually honoring to God.
But if God is sovereign, why bother, right? After all, if he wanted trees, he could blow them in on the wind. It’s as though many here believe human effort is an affront to the sovereignty of God. Take the argument to the limit of its logic: If caring for the environment is insulting to a God who doesn’t need our help, then why would you bother to make repairs to your house? After all, God is sovereign and if he wanted your house to be in good shape, he’d do it himself. Why bother to make an effort to feed the poor? God has the power to rain bread down upon them! Why bother to get out of bed in the morning, when “it’s all gonna burn anyway?”
Absurd, yes, and I’m not suggesting you think this way, but there are those (here and elsewhere) that seem to. I guess I’m just mystified by why the idea of being involved in ways that benefit humans, animals and the earth meets with such resistance from many Christians. Why would a brother hint that I may be a card-carrying commie simply because I believe that living beings (human and animal) should be treated with mercy and compassion? Why is the desire to mitigate suffering held in such disdain?
49. Wonkyhead
February 27, 2007
8:57 PM
Many of the comments in this discussion are bordering on the idea of fatalism. God is in control and sovereign, but that doesn’t mean that we sit around and do nothing or contribute to the problem ourselves. Whether or not global warming is real, we have still played a role in polluting our air and our water and our earth. Just look at Denver and Los Angeles and all the air safety warnings they have, where they can actually see the air. Why would we fight about having to take care of our earth? This seems like something that is a given, whether or not we believe that GW is false or politically driven. God is sovereign, but let us not become fatalists and sit, hoping that God will do something. God works through us. And new trees are often planted because he uses people to do it. And if you think about it, Christians being involved in the environmental sphere of life will be a good witness for unbelievers. Who better to speak to environmentalists than Christians who are in that realm themselves, and I currently see no Christians involved in this issue, though correct me if I am wrong… I’d love to meet them.
Thank you. Well said, and I agree completely. I alluded on a different blog to the fatalism you mention, and I hope someone can help me out; how exactly is that honoring to God? Why is human effort in this area (or any area), born of a relationship with God and a desire to serve Him, an offense to his sovereignty?
I am personally looking forward to becoming more involved in environmental and sustainable living issues in the future. I hope to see more of a Christ-honoring presence there as time goes by.
Blessings.
50. David Pearson
February 27, 2007
9:26 PM
Well, Wonkyhead, we agree on a couple of things: You said - “I do NOT, however, believe that certain capitalistic principles are upheld the teachings of Scripture, that’s all”…agreed - I believe Capitalism without the tempering of Biblical morality can be a bad thing. I also do not believe the GOP is the Party of God.
I was just about to apologize if I was the one who you were speaking about when you said “Why would a brother hint that I may be a card-carrying commie…”, then in the very next post you mentioned “sustainable living issues.” I’ve been reading about these environmental issues and agendas for a long time - long enough to know the politics behind “sustainable living”. Sounds nice, but it’s built on a foundation I won’t mention right now again…we’ll just say - more politics.
51. ron
February 27, 2007
9:35 PM
Concerned Reader,
Do you not think that Christians who reject much of the GW science are capable of having a reasonable view of how we should take care of the environment? Why are people assuming that because there is an argument against the GW movement (the one that people like Gore espouse) that the detractors don’t care, or don’t do anything? I consider myself a conservationist because I do care for how we tend to the planet, and apply thought and action to where and how I live.
To answer your question about why we fight about how we take care of the earth, it’s simple. There are those who believe everything certain scientists say about human impact on environmental and climate change, and those who do not. There most likely would be huge economic and societal ramifications about implementing alarmist rules. That’s why.
You want Denver and LA to be smog free. Well, I imagine most every resident in those cities agree. But, I guarantee you, if you imposed effective rules to reduce smog you would potentially position LA on the verge of riots.
The question is: what can be practically applied to positively impact the environmental concerns that you are wringing your hands about? The fact is there is a progression towards better handling of the environment. The U.S. is factually a cleaner place and less polluting per capita than it was 30 years ago. We should always try to improve and be more conservation oriented, but make no mistake, the activist green movement as we currently know it has nothing to do with godly stewardship.
52. ron
February 27, 2007
9:45 PM
Wonkyhead,
Those who do go to the extent of not caring because God is sovereign have no idea what it means to acknowledge God’s sovereignty. They have much bigger problems than being indifferent to environmental concerns. It’s called Hyper-Calvinism, and is a travesty.
53. Wonkyhead
February 27, 2007
10:04 PM
I was just about to apologize if I was the one who you were speaking about when you said “Why would a brother hint that I may be a card-carrying commie…”, then in the very next post you mentioned “sustainable living issues.” I’ve been reading about these environmental issues and agendas for a long time - long enough to know the politics behind “sustainable living”. Sounds nice, but it’s built on a foundation I won’t mention right now again…we’ll just say - more politics.
But not for me! My foundation is the Word of God and my relationship with God through Christ. I cannot speak to the politics of certain groups who may be involved in the sustainable living “movement” (for lack of a better word), but my motivation has nothing to do with Marxist leanings. I simply do not want to leave it to them! Their ideology shouldn’t frame the debate; I am interested in bringing a Christian worldview to bear on the issue.
And just to clarify, I haven’t yet had the opportunity to do a lot of what I’ve written about…but I’d like to at some point.
Maybe that helps? :-)
Blessings!
54. Wonkyhead
February 27, 2007
10:07 PM
Those who do go to the extent of not caring because God is sovereign have no idea what it means to acknowledge God’s sovereignty. They have much bigger problems than being indifferent to environmental concerns. It’s called Hyper-Calvinism, and is a travesty.
I agree totally - see, we agree on something!
Blessings to you brother.
H
55. donsands
February 27, 2007
11:18 PM
Those who do go to the extent of not caring because God is sovereign have no idea what it means to acknowledge God’s sovereignty. They have much bigger problems than being indifferent to environmental concerns. It’s called Hyper-Calvinism, and is a travesty.
Would you say there are comments on this blog that fit your description?
I’d appreciate it if you would identify them. For I haven’t seen one that is hyper-calvinist toned.
56. Witsius
February 28, 2007
3:18 AM
Has no one read State of Fear?
Perhaps a review of Michael Crichton’s (no friend of Christendom AFAIK) brutal expose (in fictional format) of the environmental lobby’s (lack of a factual) foundation. Stay tuned for his non-fiction title on the same topic, due out this year!
I’ll eat DDT!
:-)
57. Chris
February 28, 2007
5:43 AM
Has no one read State of Fear?
State of Confusion, more like.
58. chris
February 28, 2007
9:32 AM
This is for all of the ones who believe in this Global Warming agenda. Where is your gift of faith? How many Christian scientist have to come out and deny this before you all believe? Who side are you on Al Gore and Hollywood or the real Church of Christ?
Did not last year these God hating scientist predict that the hurricane season was going to be the worst on record due to the rise in temperature? I think they did. And what were the results? It was as if God was saying I will show you man who forms the hurricanes!!!!
How many scriptures in the Old Testament say that God is the one who controls the weather. He can use if for a blessing or Judgement.
Please look at the following and think about it for a moment.
1. If God is using the warmth of the earth as Judgement, can man stop God’s judgements by being good “stewards”?
2. All of you Global Warming advocates please do the following experiment. I want you to take a glass. Fill it with water and then put ice cubes in it. Make sure you mark the water line. As the ice melts does that water line change? It shouldn’t at all because whether water is a liquid or solid it has the same “mass”. These foolish scientist who are saying that if the ice melts in the artic it will cause major flooding is rediculous. The mass never changes. There is only one way water level rise or fall and that is change in weight or mass.
3. This issue is not about being a “fatalist” or “hyper-calvinist”. Its about siding with God’s Sovereignty or siding with man and the world. It appears way too many Christians are siding with man. And although its not surprising because the Bible said it would. But whats surprising to me is that so many opinions on this particular website (which holds to the doctrines of the reformation) agree with the Global warming agenda.
59. ron
February 28, 2007
9:43 AM
Donsands,
No, I haven’t seen one. Wonkyhead seemed to be alluding to that type of thinking, which does exist. I wanted to clarify what he appeared to be defining.
For Wonkyhead, I would caution not to lump reformed people who don’t say things that would align with your view of environmental/climate issues into that category. Because someone doesn’t get involved (whatever involved means) in those issues does not mean they don’t care, or aren’t effectively working on personal conservation.
BTW, it’s interesting that Witsius point out “State of Fear” I was at a study this morning and one of the guys had the book.
Oh, and Chris, not every respected scientist agrees with the site you linked to.
60. ron
February 28, 2007
10:00 AM
Bah, my link didn’t work. The issue isn’t the facts that Crichton botched up, its the premise of the book. Anyway, the point is the science is suspect, and for good reason, and that political motivation to advance the beliefs is much more powerful than admitted.
Although I tend to agree with some of Chris wrote, he is tipping to the side that Wonkyhead is talking about. It sounds hyper-calvinistic. As if anyone who has concern for how we affect the environment or use energy is rejecting God’s sovereignty. That is wrong. I’m no global warming kook, but it only makes sense that we should be striving to keep the planet as healthy as possible regarding our effect on it, and that, by the way, is happening in many instances by people who are not global warming doomsayers.
61. Wonkyhead
February 28, 2007
10:34 AM
I don’t think my faith is suspect, although I know I can always do better in that area! I’m interested in these issues for many reasons, and taking care of the environment, of God’s handiwork, which to me is so beautiful (I am an artist, btw, so I am especially affected by images), is one reason why I’m attracted to the idea of living differently. I believe, nature and the ability to enjoy it, are gifts from God, and even though the earth in its current condition is temporary (some biblical scholars seem to think God won’t totally destroy the earth, but will, in some way, radically purify it), it is still awe-inspiring and worthy of care, if for no other reason than it is made by our Creator.
I am also interested in learning how to be less dependent on the world system. I happen to think that we may be in for a serious economic downturn in North America in the coming years, and although I know God can and will take care of us, I do not believe that SOME planning for the future flies in the face of faith OR the sovereignty of God. Certainly the Scriptures speak of goal-setting and planning in a positive light, so far as they do not attempt to thwart the will of God. And I recognize that although I may plan, God can and does what he wants, so things may yet take a different direction.
So, my husband and I (I’m a girl, btw, but of course you can’t tell from my display name) are looking into selling our house, looking seriously at building a strawbale home (quiet, extremely energy efficient, very fire resistant) as a first step. Strawbale construction was employed by early settlers on the the plains (trees were scarce) and some are still standing and in use today. They are made from what every farmer produces so much of every year - waste - in the form of straw, as opposed to trees, which take many years to grow and reach the size where they are useable.
We have other plans as well and I don’t want to use up space here outlining them - but suffice it to say we want to live simply, with as little waste as possible, as inexpensively as we can, with an eye toward using resources that are easily and quickly replaceable.
There is nothing in this that stands in opposition to God!
62. ron
February 28, 2007
12:06 PM
Wonkyhead,
Good for you! (and I mean that). If your convictions lie there, then may God be glorified by your actions. The key is that when we have what I call peripheral convictions in how we live that we never place them in a superior place than commands of much greater importance (e.g. Mk 12:30-31 or Mt 28:19), or demand them from other believers.
Blessings to you,
Ron
63. Alex Moore
February 28, 2007
5:57 PM
Ron,
“The key is that when we have what I call peripheral convictions in how we live that we never place them in a superior place than commands of much greater importance (e.g. Mk 12:30-31 or Mt 28:19), or demand them from other believers.”
Excellent post and excellent point. Where were you during the “American Idol” debate a week or two ago? I sure could’ve used you. I argued your same point (though not as concisely as you did) and was told by several people on here (not to name any names, ahem, www._?_?_?_.com) that my argument regarding peripherals was absolutely absurd.
Either way. Just so that my perspective can be clear, I am a Christian who leans a bit to the left on some of the issues, global warming being one of them. I do feel it is unfortunate that global warming is a matter of right v. left, and I do dread that people are making the anti-capitalist connection. (After all, when were Christians mandated to be pro-capitalistic? I’m not saying Jesus was a socialist, but there were certainly more social implications to his teachings than there were profit-motive implications… I digress)
However, I do STRONGLY disagree with people like Vice President Al Gore when they say “Global warming is a moral issue.” He’s wrong. Dead wrong. Despite how urgent and serious the threat of global climate change becomes, we cannot redefine morality in order to perscribe more meaning. This is just as rotten as when people say that it is our moral obligation, as Christians, to vote Republican.
Any attempt at redefining morality to serve a purpose, regardless of how noble the cause, is anti-discourse, anti-intellectual, anti-truth, and anti-God.