Here are couple of other stories that have emerged during the day.
It seems like Romney has really gotten under McCain's skin. Here, McCain takes a serious swipe at Romney and his criticism of the immigration bill (which by the way is being slowed by strong opposition). The outburst comes on the heels of a the story about McCain's foul mouthed shouting match with Sen. Cornyn over the same bill. Maybe McCain should take a vacation? This type of behavior is common for McCain. I fear his skin is too thin for this type of race. Since the media love-affair with him is long over, don't be surprised if you see any more outbursts from the hot-tempered Senator.
In another story, Christian, Jewish, and Islamic religious leaders are releasing a signed statement urging Congress to take action on global warming. In the statement, they say the "climate change is real." Did they study meteorology or theology? I am not sure how non-climatologists can make a definitive statement like this. Obviously a lot of scientists say it is real, but as this blog has illustrated, a lot of scientist do not think climate change is an issue (or at least not an issue Congress can do anything about). This raises the larger question. I agree that Christians should take care of the environment, but how do we do that in a God-centric, Human-centric way. How do we approach these issues without making the environment an idol? Also, when should religious leaders step in? I certainly believe that religious leaders should play an active role in social issues, though this unsettles me. The New Right is calling for your comments on this topic. Please let me know what you think. I will put the best comments in a future blog posting. Let the debate begin!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
NT –
You article raises a slew of tough questions for thinking Christians. Let’s take it apart for a moment and figure out how Christians should be thinking about this:
"Christian, Jewish, and Islamic religious leaders are releasing a signed statement urging Congress to take action on global warming."
I see two problems here: The first, I will address later and that is the issue of the relevance Christians taking action on global warming. The second (and most important) is the idea of Christians, Jewish and Islamic leaders forming a “partisan” campaign to fight global warming. My question is: Should these three groups even come together in an ecumenical form when the foundations of their worldviews are so completely different?
Should Christians be for or against such a union? I would argue that they should indeed be against it. Why? Because one is doing in the name of “Allah.” One is doing it in the name of “Jehovah” (which I would argue that the present god of the Jews is an idol since he does not take the form of the Holy Trinity). And one is doing it in the name of Jesus Christ. The primary issue here is glory of God in Jesus Christ. In 2 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul says, “Whether you eat or drink, do all for the glory of God.” I do not believe it is ethical for Christians to let God share the spotlight with false gods.
Now back to Christians on taking actions on global warming:
We must establish that if global warming is true and humans are on the brink of extinction, we must not lament over it as if we are innocent and repent in a worldly way (eg. starting focus groups, picking up trash, recycling, youth education, etc), for 2 Corinthians 7:10 says, “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.” Rather, we must first repent against God. Everyday we disobey God and deserve his eternal wrath. If global warming is true, we should not be astonished that it is currently happening, rather we should be astonished that it hasn’t happened already and that we are still breathing air and enjoying His creation.
Next, we must look into the issue on whether or not global warming is a scriptural possibility. Will polar ice caps freeze and flood us all into a “Water World” like environment? I would argue that a general rise in climate tempertures is scripturally possible, but it could not end in a world-wide flood. Genesis 9:11-17 describes God’s interaction with Noah after the global flood:
I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”
If one is a Christian, then he or she must not be anxious about a world-wide flood. But that raises my final issue that I will address at the end.
“I agree that Christians should take care of the environment, but how do we do that in a God-centric, Human-centric way.”
I would change that question with the omission of the last part. I believe scripture shows that firstly God does all things to display His own glory. With that being said, I would completely take us out of the picture. The question should be, “How do we do that in a God-centric way?”
How do we love our wives in a God-centric way? How do we do our work in a God-centric way? Raise our kids? Eat? Drink? Sleep? Pray? Worship? Indeed all things? Answer: God has made us stewards of all these things. We are to do them in a God fearing manner in accordance with the scripture. If your dad gave you a great gift for Christmas would it be appropriate for you to just rough it up when it was meant to be displayed as beautiful? I sure hope not, not if you love your father! And though I do not believe in global warming, God certainly has called us as stewards to take care of it (and one day we will inherit it as well!). It is the same as any other good gift God has given us.
“How do we approach these issues without making the environment an idol?”
The same way that we do with any other gift God has given us: realizing that it is a blood-bought gift of God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. Also realizing that we do not deserve it, but because of the riches of His kindness, he has lavished it on us.
"Also, when should religious leaders step in?"
I don’t think they should at all. The Christian’s job is to preach Christ and Him crucified. Non-believers aren’t going to understand, nor are they held to the principal that they should be “good stewards” of God’s gifts. Remember that the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. But, then again, global warming is foolishness to those who aren’t. Go figure!
The final issue for Christians and involvement in this issue comes down to one thing (as it most always does): the sufficiency of Holy Scripture. If one is a true Christian, than he must see global warming as a non-issue. If he sees it as a big issue, I would call into question his ideals of the sufficiency of scripture and his ability to trust God. I feel that such a “professing Christian” has only the faith needed to believe that a sovereign God created the world, and lacks faith that believes in a God who can sustain it until His purposes are accomplished and He creates a new heaven and a new earth.
Mike,
Good comments. Thanks for you contribution. Let me first clear something up, and then pose another question to you.
First, the clarification. Perhaps human-centric was a poor choice of words. What I was attempting to express was the notion that God has given the Earth and its bounty for human use (albeit it to honor God). So, I was trying to express the concept that the earth is ours to mine, farm, cultivate, fish, log, tame, etc. Basically, I was trying to say that human life is more important than "saving the earth." Some, I think, want to save the earth for the earth's sake. It makes more sense, it seems to me, to want to save the earth for human sake. All that said, I agree with you that all life should be God-centric. Thanks for bringing this point to light and allowing me to clarify for any confused readers.
Next, I want to pose a question to you. I agree with you that Christian leaders should avoid this issue. But, here is my problem. If climate change is a real problem, and if Christians are to be good stewards of the environment, why should I not like religious leaders taking their concerns to the public. I am completely supportive of Christian leaders taking vocal public roles against abortion (today) and slavery (in the past). So, if we were to conceed for arguments sake that climate change is real and the result of poor sterwardship, why should I oppose religious leaders speaking out?
One more side note. I generally agree with your opposition to ecumenical efforts. That said, I am inclined to take partners wherever I can find them in the fight against the horrors of abortion, Christian, secular, etc. Am I wrong?
Thanks again Mike. Great stuff. Keep it coming.
NT -
I miss going back and forth with you on these things in person! Praise God for technology!
First, thanks for the clarification. Now, on to the ideals of Christian leaders taking the front lines on the issue....
I am going to stand and say I still think they shouldn't. If they have Biblical permission to deny the idea of global warming, then they shouldn't deal with it. I completely agree that we are indebted to past and current Christian leaders for taking stances on slavery, abortion, etc. However, I think the idea of global warming is on a completely different level. And this goes back to your point of people saving the earth for the earth's sake. I doubt that we can compare the human dignity and the sanctity of life to whether or not the temperature is getting warmer...unless you count the suffering that people have to endure when choosing a sunblock.
Finally, your last point, in which I must also clarify something as well. I do not think you are wrong, in fact, I agree with you, with certain limitations. I think we should be willing to put individual beliefs aside for human rights issues (justified human rights issues, anyway). It could possibly open some doors to the Gospel as well. However, if such a group (eg. Christian, Jewish and Muslim) of leaders are doing it in the interest of ecumenics and religious tolerance, then I do certainly see a problem. It really should be done in the interest of the cause, not the religion, and hopefully God would open doors to the Gospel somehow, because I don't see the possibility of the Gospel being proclaimed when there is an attitude of equality within the given leadership.
I think Mike made a very good point about the ecumenical aspect that I would like to expand on. It allies Christianity to a much more insidious idol than Allah or Christ-less Jehovah- the very first idol man has ever worshiped himself. Yes, global warming hysteria, radical environmentalism, or whatever title one pronounces it by is an idolatrous religion, it is the apocalyptic sect of humanism. Whether the Earth is warming, cooling or staying the same is not the issue. The issue is that so many fear and tremble the "awesome power of man" to cause the world's destruction, while they scoff at the One who can wipe away the Earth by speaking. Their religion inspires frightened worship of the sovereignty of man. I agree, it is wrong for these Christian leaders to ally the cause of Christ to man-centered religion. But even worse is that they have submitted themselves outright to another idol. Let me know what you fellas think..NT and Mike and whoever else.
Mike and Johann,
Good Stuff. I share your views on ecumenical movements. I think Mike made an important distinction. Coming together is acceptable in the name of a cause, but not when "unity" is itself the cause.
Post a Comment