jump to navigation

Warring Evangelicals Make Iron Eyes Cody Cry
February 16, 2006

Posted by Dan Edelen in : Best of Cerulean Sanctum, Boldness, Counterculture, Creation Care, Humility, In the News, Maturity

Functions : Trackback, Print This Post Print This Post , Email This Post Email This Post

I've blogged on green topics before (for instance, see this post), so perhaps I'm excluded from commenting on the recent environmental brouhaha as Evangelicals once again savage each other over an issue that neither side understands completely.

Several well-known Christians have signed an initiative asking for greater sensitivity to the issue of global warming. Iron Eyes Cody---The Crying IndianA wide variety of Christian leaders from Jack Hayford and Duane Litfin to Brian McLaren and Robert Yarbrough signed on the dotted line of the Evangelical Climate Coalition (ECC.)

Meanwhile, Chuck Colson, Ted Haggard, and James Dobson have said they don't share that same feeling. And yet again, another highly vocal group of Christians has been brutally critical of the ECC, basically calling any Christian interest in environmental issues a concession to Gaia worship.

Like so many of these stupid battles—and they are stupid—the brutal misunderstanding, tortured Scriptural citations, and outright mean-spiritedness dishonors the Lord.

Here's what I don't get:

Even if the whole global warming thing is a boondoggle, there's no reason why we can't all be less wasteful, live more simply, and show greater care of what God has given us. If the ECC accomplishes that tangentially, then we're all better for their effort.

Now say it with me: UNLESS.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,


Related posts:

RSS feed | Trackback URI

12 Comments »

Comment by Ken Fields
2006-02-16 09:39:00

Great piece, Dan. It’s not only possible to preserve and protect our environment … it’s expected that God’s people will. If you read the OT carefully, crop rotation (and allowing the land a frequent ‘rest’) is not a new thing; it’s a God-thing!

And for those who may disagree with your assertions here, I ask them to explain the meaning of “dress and keep it” in Genesis 2:15. Dressing the land has to do with subduing and controlling it. Keeping the land refers to preserving and protecting it.

I realize that some may chafe at the idea of bringing Scripture into the discussion, but these just happen to be the same reasons I teach my children to throw their trash in a can rather than a creek!

 
Comment by Dan Edelen
2006-02-16 11:35:00

If anyone’s wondering about the “Unless” at the end of this post, it refers to a children’s book.

Anyone know which one?

 
Comment by Scott Banwart
2006-02-16 12:42:00

First off, I do agree with most of what your saying. Becoming a better steward of all that God has given us is definitely a good thing. However, putting the church in this position is a really Bad Idea™.

First, having the church identify itself with a pseudo-science like global warming hurts our credibility. This hurts the primary mission of the church. (evangelism and discipleship) I would also claim that most church leaders are not scientists, and are in effect taking a position without comprehending the issue.

Second, this reeks of bad stewardship. The time and resources that will be wasted on this wild goose chase should instead be channeled towards solving real problems that exist today. Like poverty and AIDS in Africa, for example.

 
Comment by AlieraKieron
2006-02-16 12:48:00

Short answer?
THANK YOU.

And Scott, the only ‘pseudo-science’ involved is the question of how much human beings are contributing to the problem, not whether or not the problem exists. The poles are shrinking. The polar bears are starving to death.

It’s something that has always bothered me about the conventional Evangelical response: if God notes the all of the lowliest sparrow, how does he feel when an entire species goes extinct?

 
Comment by Scott Banwart
2006-02-16 13:14:00

If happen to be possession of some late-breaking hard evidence that proves global warming exists, and isn’t part of the natural climate change cycle, by all means point me to it.

Please note, bogus studies based on broken statistical models (the “hockey stick”) and contrived laboratory experiments do not qualify as hard evidence.

 
Comment by Anonymous
2006-02-16 21:48:00

Scott.

Has the global temperature increased over the last hundred years? Yes. Not even late-breaking news.

Was all that caused by man? No. Was any of it caused by man? Don’t know.

The part most people don’t understand is that *global warming* isn’t necessarily caused by *humnanity.* Why they don’t get that, I don’t know. But they don’t.

Global warming and cooling is a cyclic phenomenon. There are long cycles and hsort cycles. We’re coming to the end of a long cycle (100k years)… and the coming drop in temperature appears to be a doozy.

Go look on the ‘net. There are several recent papers out there on the subject.

I’d make an ad hominem attack, but I think everyone who believes the evidence thinks that those who don’t are blind, misguided, or selfish… or all three.

 
Comment by Ken Fields
2006-02-16 22:16:00

Scott,

In my opinion, Dan was not backing a specific position on the global warming issue. And frankly, I’m not either. Still, we are called to be stewards over all we’ve been given. This includes our finances, our family, our possessions, and the earth.

If the earth is the Lord’s, and he has granted us the privilege of living here, are we not responsible to protect and preserve it? Why the aversion to following God’s command in Genesis 2:15?

 
Comment by Dan Edelen
2006-02-17 01:03:00

I don’t support those who are screaming “Global warming! Global warming!” like so many Chicken Littles. The whole issue may be nothing more than a common cycling of Earth temps, sun variations, or any of many other debunking ideas.

But that doesn’t change the fact that we are doing a poor job environmentally in some areas and can always do better. For that reason, I support any initiatives that will save energy and resources while reducing pollutants. That’s just common sense, especially since many of us remember how bad things got in the Seventies.

 
Comment by Michael
2006-02-18 21:37:00

Hi Dan:

What is the children’s book that you allured to earlier?

 
Comment by Dan Edelen
2006-02-21 09:54:00

And all that the Lorax left here in this mess
was a small pile of rocks,
with the one word “UNLESS”
Whatever that meant,
well, I just couldn’t guess.

“But now,” says the Once-ler,
“Now that you’re here,
the word of the Lorax seems perfectly clear
UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
nothing is going to get better.
It’s not.

from The Lorax by Dr. Seuss

 
Comment by Stingray
2006-02-22 22:02:00

Excellent post, Dan. I worked in the environmental industry for 15 years and faced ethical issues several times. I often had to work with people with whom I shared one common goal — a clean environment — even though the rest of their agenda was horrific. “Family planning” NGOs and groups like Planned Parenthood seemed to essentially share boards of directors with environmental groups. If I had to work at an environmental meeting with, say, Jane from Bigshot Law Firm, our chit-chat would almost inevitably lead her to tell me that she was also on the board for one of the local abortion centers. Very troubling.

 
2007-01-24 03:12:52

[...] Warring Evangelicals Make Iron Eyes Cody Cry [...]

 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Subscribe to comments via email
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.