Friday April 24, 2009
The Bride Was Beautiful
"Katie Kirkpatrick, 21, held off cancer to celebrate the happiest day of her life. Katie had chased cancer, once only to have it return-to clog her lungs and grab hold of her heart. Breathing was difficult now, she had to use oxygen. The pain in her back was so intense it broke through the morphine that was supposed to act as a shield. Her organs were shutting down but it would not stop her from marrying Nick Godwin, 23, who was in love with Katie since 11th grade." (HT:Jollyblogger)
An Interview with Bruce Ware
JT interviews Bruce Ware about his book Big Truths for Young Hearts.
Gospel Coalition Audio
You can now download the audio for each of the messages from this week's Gospel Coalition conference.
Birth Control and Earth Day
We are starting to see more and more of this--birth control being touted as a solution to environmental issues.
"Katie Kirkpatrick, 21, held off cancer to celebrate the happiest day of her life. Katie had chased cancer, once only to have it return-to clog her lungs and grab hold of her heart. Breathing was difficult now, she had to use oxygen. The pain in her back was so intense it broke through the morphine that was supposed to act as a shield. Her organs were shutting down but it would not stop her from marrying Nick Godwin, 23, who was in love with Katie since 11th grade." (HT:Jollyblogger)
An Interview with Bruce Ware
JT interviews Bruce Ware about his book Big Truths for Young Hearts.
Gospel Coalition Audio
You can now download the audio for each of the messages from this week's Gospel Coalition conference.
Birth Control and Earth Day
We are starting to see more and more of this--birth control being touted as a solution to environmental issues.
Comments (19) »
1. Tom Sturch
April 24, 2009
8:55 AM
RE: The Bride…
It is both poignant and instructive to observe how the one dying chooses between living sacrificially and dying selfishly. While our hearts break over such stories, we must come to see that the same choice confronts each of us every day.
I have a fourteen-year-old friend who is dying of a glioblastoma. Each day for the last sixteen months Brandon has chosen to live well and bless others. His witness teaches me about the distinctions between life and death and how too much of my life is invested in the latter.
“We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death.” 1Jn 3:14
2. Reg Schofield
April 24, 2009
9:02 AM
The photo journey of Katie Kirkpatrick was poignant and moving . Having watched my Mom lose her battle with cancer and my wife diagnosed almost 2 yeas ago , so far things have gone well , I was moved to tears. This young woman showed much courage and looked beautiful on her wedding day . As one looks around at this broken world full of pain and suffering , it is a beautiful thing to know one day all things will be made new when Christ comes again and wipes our tears away . Moving story ….
3. J.P.H.
April 24, 2009
10:08 AM
Right or wrong, limiting the human population on earth does “work” as far as providing a benefit environmentally speaking. That’s why it’s so frustrating when opponents support their view by arguing that population control isn’t necessary or effective.
4. Dana
April 24, 2009
10:31 AM
Re birth control being touted as a solution to environmental issues. It is nearly unbelievable how America is starting to resemble Germany in 1932. Yet not altogether surprising. A nation with a rich, earth-changing religious history succumbs to secularism and liberalism and philosophy, jettisoning God from his rightful place. Thus Romans 1 - He turns them over. Removes the restraints. And leaders misinterpret it all as Change We Can Believe In.
5. Michael Duenes
April 24, 2009
12:38 PM
JPH - It may “work” as you say, but it brings a lot of other things in its train. I would commend to you the documentary “Demographic Winter.” It is phenomenal and sobering.
I would also ask you what a policy of population control is “necessary” to bring about? Can you show a true causal link between certain population projections and what it will do to the environment? There are just too many unknown variables. And the question has to always be returned to: What is our specific stewardship when it comes to the earth and its resources? God commanded us to “be fruitful and multiply, ” and as far as I can tell, that command has never been abrogated or superceded by anything else in Scripture. Thus, God does not think of freely reproducing and stewarding the environment as in any way incompatible. The real problems are not related to overpopulation, but what any given population decides to do with their lives and the resources God has given them. If we are truly interested in “doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with our God,” I think the size of the earth’s population won’t really be a problem, no matter what its size.
6. Brendt Waters
April 24, 2009
2:01 PM
Tim, thanks for the “overall” link to the GC messages. JT kept giving them out piecemeal. ;-)
7. Daryl Little
April 24, 2009
3:07 PM
Sorry J.P.H., but you’re just wrong about that. Population alarmists have been at it for years, and in every case, without exception, their dire predictions have been proven false.
In fact, in every case, what they predicted over-population would cause, was in fact cause by the resulting under-population that occurred in some places when silly people heeded their warnings.
The earth needs people to operate well. Less people, less dominion, less productivity and less bounty.
8. J.P.H.
April 24, 2009
3:37 PM
“It may “work” as you say, but it brings a lot of other things in its train.”
Yes. And many of those things, e.g. increased support for abortion, are evil. So argue against those things; don’t try to argue that population control won’t achieve its stated end of relieving human pressure on the environment.
It’s like arguing against pre-marital sex by attempting to demonstrate that pre-marital sex isn’t physically pleasurable.
“I would also ask you what a policy of population control is “necessary” to bring about?”
Every person born has an impact on the earth. He eats food, which has to be farmed. He lives in a structure that has to be built. He typically moves himself around physical using some means that has an environmental impact.
So, then, more people = more impact. It’s not rocket science. Sure, developments in technology or changes in behavior can reduce the impact of a given person, and so those things are also desirable. But they don’t change the basic equation that more people = more impact.
Consider the two extremes. First, no people. Clearly if there are no people then there is no human environmental impact since there are no humans. Now consider the other extreme. Suppose the global population were to grow unexpectedly quickly. Say, doubling ever 10 years. So, by the year 2050 we’re at around 100 billion people, or 16x the current level. Will you argue that 100 billion people have the same environmental impact as 7 billion? What about 200 billion?
Now, I doubt we’ll ever get that far. Even operating at peak efficiency the earth can only support so many people. So, like animal populations, the population of humans would be limited by the amount of available resources. People would have babies, sure, but that growth would be offset by massive starvation and/or deaths due to struggles over the remaining resources. The population control people are basically saying, “Hey, let’s plan ahead and not let it get to the point where ‘natural’ population control (i.e. starvation and war) kicks in.”
9. J.P.H.
April 24, 2009
3:41 PM
Daryl-
Yes. With fewer people there would be less “productivity”. There would also be fewer side-effects of productivity, e.g. pollution, extinctions due to the reduction of habitat, over-hunting/fishing, etc.
The world population in 1950 “worked”, just to pick a number out of a hat. It would “work” even better with today’s technology. There’s no reason that population level couldn’t “work” again. The problem is getting there. Population control schemes typically result in a lopsided population distribution, which is where you get the negative effects. Lots of unproductive old people and not enough productive young people, basically. If you could avoid that, however, then there’s nothing inherently “unworkable” about a smaller world population than the current 7 billion.
10. Rachael
April 24, 2009
3:48 PM
Wow, the last page of the photojournalism story on the bride Katie is…something.
11. Nathan
April 24, 2009
4:01 PM
As an actuary, I can easily see the problems with both overpopulation and under-population. The problems with under-population seem to be based on man-made economic and social constructs, whereas the problems with overpopulation seem to be more intrinsic limitations of resources.
The earth indeed has a limited carrying capacity both globally and locally. A carrying capacity is based on a single limiting factor — which could be anything from clean water and air, to food production (based on proper climate, good and bad insect populations, disease, etc. etc.), to energy, etc. etc.
The commandment of being fruitful and multiplying is not for everyone. If it is, then Jesus did not obey His own command.
Quotes like, “The earth needs people to operate well. Less people, less dominion, less productivity and less bounty,” makes me believe that a significant portion of Chris Hedges’ book, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America is correct!
12. jackie
April 24, 2009
4:49 PM
The bride pictorial really was good. How do you chaps react to links like that? Is it just gals that get a little catch in our throats?
13. James
April 24, 2009
6:13 PM
J.P.H.
Where’s is God’s sovereignty in your equations?
14. Nathan
April 24, 2009
6:59 PM
James,
God’s sovereignty is IN the equations. He created the universe that works in specific ways. One of which is human life having a certain set of requirements to live. If the requirements aren’t met, humans die…
Of course God can and has intervened, but is that the norm? Where is God’s sovereignty and my faith in that sovereignty when I look both ways before I cross the street?
Nathan
15. J.P.H.
April 24, 2009
7:05 PM
About the same place it is when I take an antibiotic. Can God cure whatever bug I have? Sure. But if I can make some effort on my own part to fix what’s wrong, should I not do it?
Besides, sovereignty isn’t really germane to my original point, which was that “population control doesn’t accomplish its stated goal” isn’t the best way to argue against population control.
16. Christopher Lake
April 24, 2009
9:23 PM
Jackie,
The bride pictorial is very, very moving. It is not only women who can be emotional about such things. :-) However, I do have to say, many church leaders (even in the best of churches) often teach “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus” views of gender that I firmly believe are more cultural than Biblical.
17. Reg Schofield
April 25, 2009
7:09 AM
The fact of population control being stated as a means for environmental control goes to prove the worship of the earth and environmentalism as a new religion is here. Plus if trends continue in the west , we will be in decline within the next 100 years . It frightens me , as it should all free citizens when a group begin to advocate something this radical. Children are a blessing from God and when you begin to see them as a nuisance , that is dangerous. Taking care of the earth is every Christians duty , we are to be good stewards of the earth bu I think that can be achieved regardless if I decide to have 1,2 or 10 children. Plus many of these new “fundamentalist” advocate that a rat has just as much a right to live as a new born baby but that is what happens when you worship the creation over the creator .
18. Michael Duenes
April 25, 2009
10:57 AM
JPH - First of all, it doesn’t follow that more people will mean more support for abortion. But secondly, you did not answer my question. More people = more impact is obvious. The question is, what is the goal of having less impact? In other words, what is the kind of environment you think we should have? Is there some kind of ideal as to how many resources humans should use up? Do you know what population would achieve the desired end? This is what my question was asking, not whether more people would have more impact. The environment was created for people, not people for the environment. We have no right to rape and pillage it, but we have a mandate from God to reproduce and to fill the earth and subdue it. We don’t have a mandate to keep the polar ice caps at a certain size (as though we could no what the right size is).
19. J.P.H.
April 27, 2009
9:45 AM
The population control folks’ main tenet is that the more people you have the more “raping and pillaging” is going to happen.
Post Your Comment Here »