The Funding Behind The Evangelical Climate Initiative
My friend Justin Taylor sent me an article this morning discussing the Evangelical Climate Initiative. Concerned Women for America has done the legwork and found something quite surprising and disturbing. “A new effort to mobilize evangelical Christians on the problem of global warming received $475,000 from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, one of the top funders of abortion programs in the United States and abroad.”
Sure enough, a couple of Google searches turn up evidence that the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation has given significant amounts of funding to organizations that stand opposed to Christian values. Among them are:
- Activities of the International Planned Parenthood Foundation, the most dominant pro-abortion organization, and its subsidiaries in Latin America, where it promotes the �legalization� of abortion, the morning-after pill, and �sexual and reproductive health and rights issues,� which stands for graphic sex education, abortion, sterilization, and the mainstreaming of homosexuality.
- More than $2 million in the last three years for the Center for Reproductive Rights, a legal advocacy organization that works through courts to impose abortion on demand.
- A $1 million grant for Planned Parenthood to provide its services, including abortion and the morning-after pill, to those hit by Hurricane Katrina.
- Gifts totaling $739,000 in 2001-2003 to the National Abortion Federation, the �professional association� for abortionists.
- The Abortion Care Project, to train abortionists in Vietnam.
- The Abortion Access Project, which works through medical students and trains medical professionals in the United States in �abortion care.�
- The University of California, San Francisco�s Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy, which attempts to counter the stigma attached to abortion and the lack of medical professionals willing to do abortions through studies, papers, and advocacy.
Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America says �Hewlett Foundation is one of the most prodigious and unabashed funders of abortion causes, with much money going to make abortion acceptable. Its significant grant for this initiative, along with the controversial Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, reveals where this effort could lead. They would not fund something that contradicts their main missions.�
She seems to hit the nail on the head when she says, �The radical environmental, pro-abortion lobby has learned to adopt language to win over unsuspecting, well-intentioned people. I am sure that most of the evangelical leaders who signed on have no idea of the history and missions of the groups that have made this initiative possible with their financial backing,� said Wright.
This has become something of a theme lately in the evangelical world. Evangelicals are being drafted into service by organizations that are seeking ends diametrically opposed to Scripture. It seems that, in many cases, Evangelicals are allowing themselves to be used. Even when the end result is admirable, Christians are still culpable before God for the means they use to get there!
Comments (41) »
1. Steve Camp
February 18, 2006
2:14 PM
Your findings are correct Tim—I came up with the same evidence as well.
We shouldn’t be surprised at this, should we… For the most part, any kind of “global environmental concern” (i.e. over population; reproductive rights; global warming, etc.) is usually born out of liberal political expediency with another agenda in mind; and is usually antithetical to a biblical worldview.
Warren has thrown his hat in among them—if you read the list of signatories from Christian leaders, most are very liberal, almost all not doctrinally or theologically constrained.
And this cause is not admirable; it is a complete myth. Psalm 104; Col. 1:15-19 give us insight into Who sustains this planet, its resources, its future. It is the Lord. We are to be stewards of all of God’s creation; but global warming is not a stewardship, it is a fabrication.
We are small creatures (all 6 billion of us) compared to this planet and universe. We are not capable of destroying it and depleting its resources necessary to sustain life for all peoples. We cannot even begin to remotely affect the kind of change Warren and his environmental friends think we can to alter the earth’s eco-systems producing the kind of devastating and catastrophic fallout on humanity.
I know this is even a more sensitive issue in Canada.
Good post here brother… Steve 2 Cor. 4:5-7
2. DLE
February 18, 2006
2:20 PM
And Concerned Women for America have Christian Reconstructionists writing for their Web site. I can’t believe that most readers of Challies.com support Christians overtaking States and then running them as theocracies that have split off from the rest of the United States.
Tim, please don’t go down this route. With enough searching just about any Christian or Christian organization can be tied back to something or someone questionable. This trend in 2006 among some bloggers to try to run a Six Degrees of Separation smear on other Christians by using guilt by association is one of the worst developments I have seen in a long while.
In every case it is possible to tie the very people who are using this tactic into the people they love to smear. It’s a simple thing to prove anti-mystic Ken Silva (who uses this tactic a lot) is a supporter of mystic Teresa of Avila, for instance. All sorts of decent Christians can be hurt if we start doing this. C.J. Mahaney can be tied to Benny Hinn, while Al Mohler can be tied to Jack Hyles. It’s very easy to do, which is one reason we should not do it.
I don’t understand why this conspiratorial nonsense has taken such hold in Christian circles lately. It’s like something out of a Hal Lindsey book. This gains us nothing and amounts to little more than gossip in most cases.
Please don’t join in this craziness.
3. candyinsierras
February 18, 2006
2:23 PM
I have stated this elsewhere, but it doesn’t take much research to understand the agenda the Rockerfeller Foundation has in mind. Rick Warren is a pawn for the United Nations. He has taken on whatever trendy causes show up because he gets to hang out with Bono and other trendy sorts of folks. I wish he could wake up to how much of a pawn he really is. He is blinded by his fame.
4. Brian Thornton
February 18, 2006
2:38 PM
DLE, if it is true that the Hewlett Foundation is contributing to the Evangelical Climate Initiative, then that is not six degrees of separation, but only one degree. You can’t discount everything and say we shouldn’t try to be discerning because that makes us hypocritical when we can make connections between someone like Mahaney and Benny Hinn (which, by the way, I would like to know what you are talking about).
And even if it is true - that connections can be made between Mohler and Hyles - does that make it okay to join in with the likes of the Hewlett Foundation under the banner of a noteworthy cause (a made up one at that)?
Social causes so often make for strange bedfellows…and this one seems to be no exception.
5. cwv warrior
February 18, 2006
3:01 PM
Don’t you think this is a result of the platonic Christianity taught by Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto and Pearcey, Total Truth? Christians must get their heads out of the clouds to realize their very lives demonstrate their faith in EVERY choice and activity. You can’t leave God at the church!
6. Mike
February 18, 2006
3:08 PM
C.J. Mahaney can be tied to Benny Hinn, while Al Mohler can be tied to Jack Hyles.
Now let’s see if we are comparing apples to apples.
Has Mahaney given money to Hinn’s minisitry? Has Mohler sent money to Hyles? I think not.
This trend in 2006 among some bloggers to try to run a Six Degrees of Separation smear on other Christians by using guilt by association is one of the worst developments I have seen in a long while.
6 Degrees of Separation?? They send money to multiple organizations. 1) Glorbal Warming 2) Planned Parenthood. It is 1degree of separation. It is something that they support.
I don’t understand why this conspiratorial nonsense has taken such hold in Christian circles lately.
Where is the conspiracy? They unashemedly support pro-abortion organizations. This is a matter of discernment not conspiracy.
When we give up the right to exercise discernment we have lost any practical value to ourselves, our church, and our society.
In Christ alone, mike
7. Matthew
February 18, 2006
4:19 PM
Brian and Steve: global warming a fabrication? There’s only a small minority who still hold to that view, and with recorded rises in temperature during the past century it’s hard to see why. The world is warming, almost certainly as a direct result of human actions. The power is there to do something about greenhouse gas emissions, but the political will isn’t. To be faithful in our stewardship of the Earth we should be supporting action to counter climate change and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. God doesn’t just use Christian organisations to do his work: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him” (Romans 8:28). The fact that this group are pro-abortion should hardly concern us. They’ve donated half a million dollars to a good cause. If churches or Christian organisations refused donations from people whom they disagreed with on secondary issues, they would receive a lot less income. Abortion is not a gospel issue. Neither is global warming, but we are called to be stewards of the creation and refusing money from people who believe something different to us in order to further this work is nonsense, surely?
8. Matthew
February 18, 2006
4:28 PM
Just to add: of course the gospel is more important than “being green”, and we should be more concerned about people’s salvation than their worldly happiness. And of course God is in control of the world and if he does not will it then nothing bad will come from global warming (or indeed, without God’s will there will be no more global warming). These things do not mean that we should not be active in these fields - just that the gospel is more important. God makes things like this happen, and we are called to continue doing what he has called us to do, whatever the situation. I believe this means that if the world is being disrupted by global warming, then we should, as good stewards, do our bit to counter it.
(I’m a Brit and know very little about the organisations signing their names to this initiative by the way. I’m just glad that some Christians across the pond are actually doing something in this area.)
9. Brian Thornton
February 18, 2006
4:50 PM
Matthew… not even sure where to begin in response to your comments. You seem to have backtracked a little bit from your first post in your second. I guess that’s a good thing, since there was no mention of the gospel in your first post…only admiration for people banding together for a good cause, regardless of their standing before God.
I’ll defer to Steve for any further comments, as he has quite a good post on his blog concerning this whole issue. You can find it here: http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2006/02/evangelical-climate-initiativewarrens.html#links
10. candyinsierras
February 18, 2006
4:54 PM
Matthew..in the 1970’s, one of the prevailing thoughts among scientists was the concern that there was actually global cooling! An aspect that is not addressed is the fact that government creates a crisis in order to bring about a predetermined outcome. I am really into the outdoors and wilderness, so I am as concerned as the next person that we are good stewards of the environment. There is however, an agenda that goes beyond just caring for the environment. There is a manipulation that goes into how we will manage resources for the masses, and also, how to create “open space” and lessen private property for private citizens. If these groups are being funded by nefarious organizations, research the real agendas these organizations have in the back of their minds. We are such dupes sometimes.
11. candyinsierras
February 18, 2006
4:56 PM
p.s. when I say we are such dupes….I mean us Christians in general.
12. Cennan
February 18, 2006
5:39 PM
DLE,
re. anti-mystic. From what has been presented it’s way more than a “six degrees” thing. These guys in the emerging church are promoting people like Thomas Merton and The Cloud Of Unknowing as consistent with the Christian faith. Both present teachings closer to Buddha than Christ.
13. Jim
February 18, 2006
5:42 PM
As usual the devil is not concerned about us saving anything, as long as it’s not people. Let us get ourselves wrapped up in protecting the latest endangered butterfly or some obscure tropical flora, but not winning the souls of men.
We are not commanded to go into all the world and save the whales, or cut down on greenhouse gases. Even that phrase alone has been created by the ultra-left humanistic NGO’s whose goal is to eradicate any reliance upon God and reference to our creator. After all, man is now the possessor of his own fate and therefore we cannot trust an omnipotent God to control His universe.
Don’t waste your breath and money on the vanity of humanistic ambitions!
14. Steve Camp
February 18, 2006
6:50 PM
DLE:
Theonomy is troublesome, myopic, unbiblical, and really a dead eschatological world-view being kept alive by “theological life support” by a few fringe people. I don’t believe in theocracies either…
But the source of the funding and who you have to partner with to obtain those funds is crucial for a believer in the Lord.
Matthew:
Global warming is a myth… a fabrication. Here are a few basic links I Googled about this issue. I hope this will help you a bit more to become further acquainted with the truth of this issue:
1. Myths of Global Warming from the National Center for Policy Analysis.
2. The CEI Environmental Studies Program some facts and figures for you.
3. A Reprint by The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)
4. RealClimate -climate science by climate scientists.
Enjoy the earth—it belongs to the Lord and He alone is the One in whom all things consist. Not us.
In the wise words of my friend, Dr. John MacArthur, he says, “if you think we’ve made a mess of this planet, wait ‘til you see what Jesus does to this place…” So what do we do in the midst of this globally fabricated artificially induced raising of the earth’s temp crisis that Rick Warren so desperately wants to be the champion of?
Keep on with your biblical duties (begin with the Sermon on the Mount [Matt.5-7]) and then may i suggest the following:
-trade in your hybrid cars (they actually cost you more $ in the long run) -drive an SUV, if you can afford one; -build a campfire; -turn up the heat; -use air-conditioners; -use oil and oil by-products; -grill outside more often; -fill up your gas tanks; -take long trips with the family; -smoke cigars and pipes if your conscience allows; -and continue to fly jet airplanes. (All for the glory of God of course.)
We all should be more active in proclaiming the gospel of sola fide and sola gratia, calling a lost world to repentance and to be followers of Jesus Christ as Lord of their lives, amen? That is the real crisis facing our planet—people dying without the Lord!
Grace and peace, Steve
15. Randy
February 18, 2006
9:08 PM
Don’t you think this is a result of the platonic Christianity taught by Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto and Pearcey, Total Truth? Christians must get their heads out of the clouds to realize their very lives demonstrate their faith in EVERY choice and activity. You can’t leave God at the church!
Which is exactly what Schaeffer and Pearcey would teach. How can you accuse them of being Platonists? That’s absurd.
16. wfseube
February 18, 2006
9:34 PM
Matthew wrote The world is warming, almost certainly as a direct result of human actions.
And the so-called scientists will also tell you that “man almost certainly evolved from single-celled slime”
This is yet another case where otherwise well-meaning Christians have turned over their faith to “science” instead of the Bible. Liberal causes such as evolution and “global warming” are religious causes and their supporters worship that cause rather than God.
I have to laugh when scientists quote stuff like “the last time the Earth warmed like this…” Don’t they realize what they’re saying?? It doesn’t take humans to cause the globe to warm. It’s happened before, it may be happening now, and it’ll happen again.
I spent two years studying metorology and climatology in college (prior to changing majors), and I’m rather familiar with the theories and principles. I’m not convinced, by any stretch.
bill
17. Frank Martens
February 19, 2006
12:54 AM
This goes to show tha the end never justifies the means.
18. Matthew
February 19, 2006
7:29 AM
Brian and Steve: I read Steve’s article in between my two comments, and have since read the pages he linked to. They have done nothing to convince me that global warming is a myth. On the other hand, I’ve read articles in the newspaper in the past few weeks stating that the ice caps are melting at twice the rate they were five years ago, and that the Bush administration tried to gag the NASA scientist saying it. If there is a conspiracy about global warming, it seems to me far more likely that the websites linked to are the ones being duped. Even the weather in my own country shows evidence of global warming - eight years of the past decade are in the top ten warmest years since 1860. 2005 was the hottest year on record. This year we have a water shortage.
wfseube: I knew someone would bring evolution into this, but I really don’t see what relevance it has - evolutionists are not climatologists. I agree that a lot of evolutionists are poor scientists (take Richard Dawkins for a prime example) but this does not make the same true of climatologists. The Bible doesn’t speak specifically on mechanics, yet we “put our faith” in cars and aeroplanes. The Bible doesn’t speak specifically on global warming either. Looking at the evidence and saying global warming is happening and we should do something about it is no more “putting our faith in science rather than God” than driving a car without fear.
The gospel comes first. This is a given. Proclaiming the gospel to those who haven’t received it is the most important work we can be doing. This goes without question. But it does not mean that looking after the world does not bear any relevance to our lives. In Mark 2 Jesus shows that the paralysed man’s state before God is more important than his physical well-being - but he still heals him. Social action was always important to Jesus, though his message came first. The gospel comes first, but there are other things we should also be concerned about.
Forgive the ramble, my thoughts aren’t coming out in a particularly cohesive form.
19. One Salient Oversight
February 19, 2006
7:37 AM
There are times when I learn from my North American Christian bretheren, and there are times that I shake my head in wonder at just how many silly things you guys decided to take issue over.
Steve Camp… When I found your website and looked through it I was impressed by your theological knowledge and your critique of modern Christian music and worship.
Then I come here in this comments thread and find you peddling conspiracy theories and taking a moral stand on an issue that the majority of the world thinks is important. Moreover, you take the word of an incredibly small amount of radical scientists over the beliefs of the vast majority of scientists in this matter.
It’s thoroughly embarrassing that Evangelicals in America have this attitude to the environment. It’s certainly made me lose a huge amount of respect for both Tim Challies and Steve Camp that they have made a stance on this issue.
Challies in now off my bookmarks list. I can no longer trust you guys to be judicious and circumspect.
20. wfseube
February 19, 2006
8:32 AM
OSO wrote “It’s thoroughly embarrassing that Evangelicals in America have this attitude to the environment.”
Oh, please. Lose the dramatics. Just because some Christians don’t believe in pseudo-science laced in politics doesn’t believe we’re not concerned about the environment. We just don’t happen to believe this particular bit of malarkey. I am quite happy to take actions that help the environment - preserving forests, recycling, etc. But taking ultra-radical actions (e.g. Kyoto Protocol) to solve a dubious problem is simply wrong. Even the countries that bought into the hooey, such as the UK, are backing out because compliance is impossible.
Like evolution, where there is no proof of evolution from slime, no one has proven that the warming that (might be) taking place is the direct result of human interaction. The current blather is the result of scientific and political scare tactics intended to further the cause of radical environmentalists.
bill
21. Rick
February 19, 2006
9:09 AM
There’s so much to comment on here. Even the comments warrant comments. But I will try to stick with the point I had in mind when I surfed in.
While Warren is not perfect, I’m not aware of any evidence of him misusing money or building his own empire or anything like that. So I’m not quite clear how he has become a pawn to the Hewlett Foundation. Given that, I’m not clear why he should not receive funding from an organization with conflicting agendas.
I’m not completely bought into this whole Climate Initiative thing either but I’m missing how they are being controlled or manipulated. Do you have evidence of that or is your assumption that if money is being accepted, then there must be some control. I was hoping to give guys like Warren the benefit of the doubt and say they may be above that. Perhaps I’m naive.
It is not as if the Climate Initiative is supporting the Hewlett Foundation. It’s the other way around. Caution is warranted but you seem to be saying more than “tread carefully”. Net - I think you have over-reacted on this one.
22. Steve Camp
February 19, 2006
11:42 AM
One Salient Oversight:
Please don’t abandon this discussion or “86” TIm off your favorite bookmarks. He is doing a wonderful service to the body of Christ as I hope, by God’s grace, I am on my blogs and website as well.
I am not speaking for Tim here, but I will try, though I am sure I will fall short, to answer some of your concerns you so passionately expressed.
You accuse me of taking a moral stand on this issue… but Isn’t that exactly what you have done? Listen, let’s be good stewards of God’s creation; don’t litter; protect our streams, rivers and lakes; don’t pollute the air - work to keep it clean. Not a problem. We can all contribute to that “cause” and see immediate results that affect all of our neighborhoods. It is real, tangible, measurable and quantitative.
But the global warming phobia and political fear that many are “littering the minds of thousands around this planet” based upon fear, political expediency and peter-pan data, promotes the unfounded conclusion that we are on the brink of a catastrophic meltdown of our earth’s eco-system that could altar life as we know it forever on this planet and especially those in the most impoverished of regions globally. Proposterous. Do you think that we could literally destroy this planet; wipe out the world’s resources that sustain humankind; and cause the annihilation of millions of people in impoverished regions globally?
Here we must revert to a theological concern as well. God is sovereign over all His creation—even above the sinful imaginations and actions of man (Psalm 104). He is not only omniscient (knowing all things from all eternity past about all His creatures and creation before this universe was ever created - Psalm 139); but He is also omnipotent (all powerful to bring about whet pleases Him and accomplishes His purposes, and fulfills His pleasure and will for all of His creation and creatures on this earth for His glory alone (Job 38). Man is small; finite; whose lives James says “are a vapor”; blessed under God’s common grace to live ‘his’ three score and ten, if that. Our vaporous actions cannot thwart His divine decrees—even in the environment. That is not fatalism; but reality in our hope for tomorrow.
Man is not capable of destroying this planet or wiping out mankind and this world’s resources that sustain life. God is sovereign (and I say that not as a reformed buzz phrase) but as our reality. Do any of us really think that man is capable of somehow trumping the will of our God in His creation?
I do agree, that one day this earth will be destroyed (literally the Greek says “uncreated” and that is significant because Christ is not only the Creator of all things, but all things hold together, consist in Him, Col. 1:15-19 - He presently holds the entire universe in place, amazing isn’t it?); and a new heaven and new earth will be created for us to enjoy in the presence of our Lord forever and ever amen (Rev. 21:1ff).
That brings me hope—doesn’t it you? What man may mean for evil, God means for our good (Gen. 50:20). Why? He is sovereign—in control of all things. Again, that doesn’t abate man from responsibility—on the contrary, it makes us all morally and spiritually culpable to God. But we can rest in the fact that the future for this earth; mankind; and our world’s resources for life rests not in whether we all drive SUV’s or not, but in the immutable, unshakable, unalterable hands of our Dread Sovereign.
I hope this further qualifies some of my thoughts. Please don’t disengage — this discussion is important and your thoughts are sharpening iron. Thank you for listening.
Yours for the Master’s use, Steve Camp Psalm 8
23. Dennis Swanson
February 19, 2006
12:14 PM
Thanks for the info on this. I completed the third of my entries at my blog on the ECI at www.narnia3.com/index.html. I also plowed around the websites a little further as well. The connections are not pretty. I would take exception that these evangelicals are being “used” or “manipulated.” These are all fairly bright people and I think that at leasst some of them knew about the funding source.
24. Steve Camp
February 19, 2006
12:35 PM
Here’s a great link for you all to read:
We’re Not Destroying the Planet
Steve
25. DLE
February 19, 2006
2:17 PM
All I am trying to say is that the trend in 2006 in the Christian blogosphere has become increasingly conspiratorial. Discernment or not, we need to be very careful what we say about other people who profess Christ, especially when we are not confronting them directly.
Jason Janz worked hard to speak to the important folks behind the scenes of the End of the Spear controversy. Good for him. That’s how it should be done.
But I have not found a single Christian blog that has attempted to get to the main players in this latest debacle with ECI and the Hewlett Foundation. Shouldn’t we be doing that before we start pointing fingers? Wouldn’t we expect the same courtesy if we were involved in s group that appeared on the surface to have shady dealings? Isn’t that in keeping with the Lord’s command to treat others as we ourselves wish to be treated? Otherwise, we start walking on shaky ground and start perpetrating “possible truths” instead of absolute truths.
Christians are called to be different. We castigate the media for the way they launch into Christian groups before they have all the facts, yet we are all too willing to do the same if we see an ox we’d like to gore, Christian or not.
If we wish to discipline a Christian organization that we believe has gravely erred, how do we go about doing it? Is what we’re doing now the best way?
26. DLE
February 19, 2006
2:32 PM
If God gave you a precious gift, would you abuse it?
God gave us this marvelous planet to live on, yet many Christians have a remarkably callous attitude toward the gift God gave us. If any of thinks that we’re not going to be held accountable for our misuse of this gift of God, then we’re fooling ourselves.
This does not have to be an either/or proposition. Responsible stewardship of Creation does not mean we can’t fulfill the Great Commission.
Whether we agree with the issue of global warming or not, the typical position of Christians when confronted with issues such as environmentalism is to lag the world rather than to be the ones who lead. This is NOT in keeping with the spirit of the Reformation.
The problem with global warming is that there are smart people on both sides of the issue. Now it comes down to which side we believe. But whether we believe it or not, the truth is that most of us live wasteful lives that consume more than we should. Isn’t one of the characteristics of a maturing Christian that we live more simply? Why are we so loathe to do that then? And if we live simply, are we guilty by association because we’re trying to do the same thing that Gaia-worshiping environmentalist are striving to do?
Tim just posted a positive review of a DVD about a family that rejected the lifestyle most of us lead, moving to Tennessee to start an organic farm, modeling their lives on those of the Amish and Mennonites in some ways. I can bet you that there are many people on this blog who would hoot and holler at those folks if they didn’t know their whole story. And that’s a terrible indictment of the knee-jerk sensibilities some of us Christians show when it comes to people who reject the gross materialism and wasteful living most of us indulge in every day. No, too many of us would label those folks wackos just like we are so willing to do with people who are more sensitive to environmental issues.
God will hold us responsible to the very first command he gave us in the Garden to be stewards of the planet. What are you doing to be more holy in this regard?
27. Jim
February 19, 2006
4:22 PM
Steve,
You make some excellent statements, why do we continue to forget that our sovereign God holds the world in His hands?
Where does all this banter for conservation come from? Is it really a harmless ideology? I think not; secular humanism is bent on changing the mindset of our world’s population to understand earth in the occultic sense of “mother”. We ignorant christians just happen to go along whenever a bible verse is thrown in and a guilt trip laid upon us in some way.
I have seen people more concerned about recycling tin cans than whether or not the gospel is going out into all the world. In fact, our civilized society spends more money on our pets and there well being then on feeding the poverty stricken nations of the world. If you really are concerned about the environment, get on your knees and pray for God’s mercy to turn the hearts of this wicked and perverse generation so that He will not have to come and judge us with destruction.
The biggest joke of Kyoto et al, is that China and India, the two most populous countries in the world will not be signing on anytime soon. They are and will continue to be the biggest polluters on the planet. The real threat behind these environmental handcuffs is an attempt to rob the western nations of their economic wealth through strict regulations and tariffs.
28. Davey
February 19, 2006
4:47 PM
Why is the presumption that if you don’t buy into global warming, then you must not believe in being a good steward of the planet? That is an absurd presumption that some of you keep on making.
One can be a good steward AND believe that “global warming” is junk-science.
I posted the following over at jollyblogger:
“German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change.
The culprits are plants.
They produce about 10 to 30 percent of the annual methane found in the atmosphere,…”
The above quote is how the following article begins: http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/34437/story.htm
Then there’s another article here:http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0119/p13s01-sten.html
that says the following: “Given all the scrutiny plants have undergone, one of the open questions is how researchers could have missed these emissions. “
That’s a great line. So, these scientists couldn’t even tell us that plants and trees produced large quantities of “global warming” methane until now - but they do happen to know enough to tell us that man is doing such damage to the environment that “he” must be stopped. This isn’t science. This is politics.
This bring to mind the way Hitler deceived a nation. Now we refer to it as “the big lie”. In Mein Kampf he wrote: “the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.”
To put it another way – the big lie is an easy way to get evangelicals on-board with groups and involved in causes they have no business being united with.
I am still waiting for someone to address the fact that the scientific community was convinced in the 70’s that global cooling was going to destroy the planet. Now it’s the opposite. They were completely wrong and always are on “planet destroying” (conspiracy) issues like this. Would someone please at least address the “global cooling” issue - and why we’re supposed to believe they’re right this time around?
This is a political power-grab issue by Soros-types. This is not about real science.
29. Kathy
February 19, 2006
6:25 PM
Perhaps you should also look at where the money is coming from that supports promoting the theory that global warming is at worst a myth and at best a good thing. The oil companies and the shipping companies are all in favor of melting glaciers and ice caps. Both of these phenomenon will allow for expanded exploration of oil and gas and the arctic and shorting shipping routes across the North and South Poles. That asside even if you don’t agree that human activity is contributing to global warming you have to admit that working to reduceoverall pollution by lowering the levels of carbon and sulfur dioxide in our atmposhere is a worthy cause and certainly a moral duty as being a steward of creation is concerned.
30. Cennan
February 19, 2006
8:39 PM
I still wonder why DLE didn’t address the issue I made re. his “six degrees” slam against Apprising Ministries. Anyone who reads this article about Brian McLaren’s friend Tony Campolo and their involvement in transcendental meditation will see DLE’s comment is way off-base. http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/02/emergentevange2.html
The documentation in the series produced at AM is primary evidence that these guys are becoming panentheists http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/02/the_conversatio.html
This is why they are so enviornmentally conscious, they believe they are one with creation. Warren and McLaren both are into different versions of the same Kingdom Now/Dominion theology. Once you understand that, then you can see why they are doing the things they are. Check out the evidence for yourself, they are heading to a 2 Thessalonians 2:11 deluison.
31. mikbry24
February 19, 2006
9:50 PM
Yeah……I’m sure that’s the case <———eyes roll———-> I would love to be in on all the board meetings at the “big, bad oil companies” where this is discussed.
“We have a motion on the floor to melt the polar ice caps…..do I have a second? SECOND!!!!!”
“Okay, all in favor of melting the polar ice caps please say, ‘aye!’ The aye’s have it! Stu, take your team out starting Monday and begin melting the ice caps. You’ll need a lot of kerosene and matches……” (insert diabolical Mike Meyers laughter here)
32. JohnH
February 19, 2006
9:59 PM
Kathy:
Don’t know what geography book you have, but there won’t be shipping routes across the South Pole, unless of course the land mass under it also melts, but if that happens, we’re all toast so to speak.
33. DLE
February 19, 2006
10:06 PM
Cennan,
I specifically addressed Silva in the context of his blasts against mystics while quoting A.W. Tozer, who was a strong supporter of reading the mystics. He disqualifies himself to make such assertions if he’s quoting people favorably who support the very people he’s blasting.
The problem with this kind of six degrees attack is that it will always come back to bite you. I’ve seen people taken apart because they blurbed a book by a person who blurbed a book that was suspect. If you use that same kind of tactic, why shouldn’t Silva be disqualified along with all the people he’s disqualified because he quotes Tozer?
You can ruin a lot of good, solid Christians by this kind of thing. We have to be very careful or else the very judgment we use against others will be used against us. Didn’t the Lord Himself say that?
34. Cennan
February 19, 2006
10:48 PM
Dan,
Tozer was not “a strong supporter” of reading mystics, though he was in favor of a deeper life. Also Tozer’s understanding of the “silence” was not the transcendental meditation endorsed by people like McLaren.
And when Alan Jones clearly teaches panentheism and inclusivism and Brian McLaren says that Jones is reimagining a Christianity that “emerges from authentic spirituality” and that his work “stimulates and encourages me deeply,” it’s hardly judgmental - it’s a sad fact that McLaren believes the same things.
The evidence is right here in this article http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/01/the_transformat.html Read it for yourself.
35. Kathy
February 20, 2006
8:42 AM
Laugh all you want Mikbry24 and JohnH, but if you would like to look at some facts here is an article from the International Herald Tribune about the economic benefits to the Arctic Thaw..
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/09/news/arctic.php
Here is another one from the BBC that discusses the international debate that is occuring as the US, Russia, Norway, Canada and Denmark all rush to claim the northern shipping lanes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4354036.stm
36. DLE
February 20, 2006
11:37 AM
Cennan,
I don’t know where you got the idea that Tozer was not a strong supporter of the mystics. I’ve read many of his books and he’s always bringing up books like The Cloud of Unknowing or writers like Meister Eckhart. In fact, I read The Cloud of Unknowing simply because Tozer recommended it.
Nowhere did I imply that Tozer supported TM. In fact, most of the Christians routinely slammed by people doing the six degrees thing do not support TM, though critics love to make it look like they do.
You seem to be on a roll about Silva’s writing on McLaren and panentheism, though I’ve not said one word about this. I don’t support McLaren or panentheism. I’m specifically talking about the six degrees thing that Silva did on mystic writers recently. I’ve addressed that here and shown how he disqualifies himself by his own choice of supporters. If you wish to counter my assertions, please speak to the issues I’ve raised and not to ones I have not.
37. Brian Thornton
February 20, 2006
12:58 PM
DLE said: “I can bet you that there are many people on this blog who would hoot and holler at those folks if they didn’t know their whole story. And that’s a terrible indictment of the knee-jerk sensibilities some of us Christians show when it comes to people who reject the gross materialism and wasteful living most of us indulge in every day. No, too many of us would label those folks wackos just like we are so willing to do with people who are more sensitive to environmental issues.”
DLE, do you realize you have just done the very thing which you are accusing others of doing? You have just made a broad-sweeping indictment of other Christians you don’t even know, regarding how they would react to these who have chosen to move to Tennessee. I am one who thinks you are maybe a little too sensitive to environmental issues…but I haven’t labeled you a “wacko”…not yet, anyway.
DLE also said: “God will hold us responsible to the very first command he gave us in the Garden to be stewards of the planet. What are you doing to be more holy in this regard?”
I guess Solomon is going to be in a lot of trouble on judgment day. Do you realize how many natural resources he used up in building the temple? All those trees! All that rock! All that precious gold! What was he thinking…using the earth like that???
38. One Salient Oversight
February 22, 2006
1:44 AM
Secular Humanists to blame for Sea Level “rise” (For Steve Camp and Douglas Burtt)
It has been reported that the Pacific island of Tonga has recorded a 10cm rise in sea levels in the past 13 years.
We Christians need to resist the use of scientific instrumentation to make such spurious claims. These instruments were created by unbelievers who think nothing of honouring God, and of putting forward so called “facts” that fit their atheistic, evolutionary, secular, humanistic, satanistic, communistic preconceptions.
Read the rest of this “article”:
http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/2006/02/secular-humanists-to-blame-for-sea.html
39. mikbry24
February 22, 2006
9:55 AM
I’m sorry, I couldn’t find anywhere in those articles where the “big, bad oil companies” had anything to do with the melting of the polar ice caps. I’m sure if northern shipping lanes present themselves, there will be a rush. I’m certain it would help these companies. Would they be wrong in taking advantage? Is that what you are trying to say? This is different than being “for” melting the polar ice caps. Whatever will God do with the world if the ice caps melt? I hope he is prepared for such an occurrence! :-)
40. Steve Camp
February 22, 2006
12:50 PM
To One Salient Oversight:
Help me out here… what does this article have to do with this thread and global warming?
Steve
41. GE0RGE
July 15, 2006
12:39 PM
I am appalled to see church leaders falling victim to the myth of anthropomorphic global warming.
I have and continue to characterize the movement in Christian churches as something to do when they’ve forgotten their God-given purpose. It is my hope and prayer all of us will remember God and forget the vain attempt to move heaven and earth by our puny power. The God who laughs in derision at our efforts will be more moved by prayer than by using different light bulbs.
Could Genesis 11:4 be repeated in my lifetime, this time in the body of Christ? Apparently so. Wake to the futility and re-focus efforts on the real enemy of souls.