A group of Evangelical ministers (NY Times articel) have decided to get behind the environmental movement citing it as a Christian issue
I particulary like this quote.
Amen brother!
And then he goes on to say
Evangelical Christian meet Tree Hugging Hippie, Tree Hugging Hippie, Evangelical Christian.
If were gonna let the government meddle in the environment, it oughtta be because science says it’s the right thing to do. Not because a bunch of Jesus-lovin’ granola-heads who believe in the inerrancy of a fictional round-robin written work and that the earth is 6000 years old think God’s gonna get pissed off at us after we’re dead for burning too much fossil fuel. Otherwise, government—and God—can butt the hell outta my business.
Tell me, are these guys charismatic evangelicals? Playin’ with snakes and speakin’ in tongues. too?
Sorry to be so harsh, but superstition is a pretty sorry reason for screwin’ around with the climate.
Agreed, Unc. These people might admit that the earth goes around the sun, but they still believe the universe revolves around them. We may the stewards of our own habitat, but of the earth? Come on. The earth as a whole doesn’t even know we’re here and if it did it couldn’t care less. It was here long before humans were and will be long after humans are gone.
Geez, UncleBeer, relax! Did the OP push too many of your buttons or what?
In any case, they don’t seem to be pushing specific actions just because the Bible tells them exactly what to do. They could easily be motivated by “superstition” to take up “stewardship of God’s creation” and still look to science for environmental problems and potential solutions.
What distinction are you making here? Sure, the earth is a ball of rock that we can’t do much to, but our habitat is just about anyplace anything lives here, and that we can screw up. Cut the Bible a little slack here, and let it use a figure of speech.
Yeah, I guess so rjk. Again, Zebra, my apologies; my words here are far too harsh - especially for this this particular forum.
But:
Refusal to believe in evolution and a 4+ billion-year-old earth inherently precludes these people from seeking a rational scientific solution to a problem which has as contributing factors natural climatic cycles many dozens of times longer than the6000 year-old earth of their fables. Their intrinsic beliefs disqualify them from advocating, hypothesizing, or even analyzing, any phenomena which occurs in a geologic time frame.
Evangelical doesn’t mean Young Earth Creationist.
Another group you might be interested in, Zebra is Sojourners, an evangelical group commited to social justice, anti-poverty and anti-war.
Not all Christians are creationists and/or think the world is 6000 years old.
Me, for example.
Don’t worry about it; I’ve been known to get a bit over-the-top myself.
As Homebrew says, they may not be Young-Earthers, but even if they are, there are short-term things they can look at scientifically, like pollution, overfishing and overhunting, bad farming practices, exhaustion of fossil fuels, and so on.
I’m just seeing this story as a ‘strange bedfellows’ thing and I am not about to become an evangelical Christian because some of them want to protect the environment. Their reasons for becoming environmentalists may not be reasons I agree with but I think the fact that they are being (imho) more consistent with applying Christian values to government in that a true Christian would be an envrionmentalist.
I welcome them to the environmental tent and as they would likely have much more pull with the current house and senate than the tree hugging hippies.
But the AECC (American Evangelical Christian Churches) have adopted this as one of their first Article of Faith: The Bible as the written Word of God.
And also has this to say:
http://www.aeccministries.com/aof.htm
The Canadian Evangelical Christian Churches have adopted similar language. As has the National Association of Evangelicals.
And a literal reading of the Bible yields a ~6000 year-old earth. What am I missing here?
Perspective.
If they want to join the environmental movement, they what difference does their motivation make?
From the National Association of Evangelicals website
Now certainly I disagree with them on many issues. But why can’t we work together on this issue?
For my money (ain’t much, but it’s here), something like this:
“We believe in a literal, inerrant Bible, which tells of an Earth six thousand years old. We reject carbon dating, plate tectonics, Big Bang Theory and all other attempts by the scientific community to discredit or disprove the Bible’s portrayal of the history of the Earth.”
Obviously the important parts are the literal and six thousand years old parts. Granted, you’ve been sniffing out YECs longer than I have, but I don’t (necessarily) see that being a core tenet of these folks.
Very few environmentalists are environmental scientists. Environmental scientists can determine how specific issues need to be addressed, but it takes far more than just environmental scientists to raise the public’s awareness and change the political and economic landscape. Environmentalism can and does make use of a wide variety of skills.
The same skills and determination that evangelicals use to promote their religion can be put to good use in promoting environmentalism, even if their foundation is not in environmental science.
I’ve been saying for years we need a religious left in the public discourse. Now it’s finally catching on, with an article in the current issue of Utne and this week’s similar article in Salon. Here in Washington DC, the Reverend Grayland Hagler has been in the forefront of progressive action for years. If you come to DC, check him out. He’s a great guy. Even though I’m not a Christian, I welcome progressive action from Christians and am happy to work with them.
As much as I loathe the willful ignorance of many (I know, I know, not all of them) evangelical types, I’m happy to see them embrace environmental values. After all, it’s results that matter and if their religious beliefs result in better environmental conditions, then who cares *why * they did it?
Do you have a cite for this? If it has been proven fictional, then those who believe it should be treated as mentally ill, yes?
Yuh huh. If we only let those folks who are fully cognizant of all the science behind environmental biology advocate environmental responsibility, we will never see ecological improvement.
Me, I’m just glad to see an evangelical waving the “stewardship” flag, rather than the old “dominion over all living things” banner.
-Ogre, MS in biogeography and working conservation biologist.
A cite supporting the Bible as a fictional work? I hardly think I need to demonstrate evidence supporting that claim. After all, the Bible is full of self-contradictory statements - right Genesis within the first 4 chapters there are two different accounts of creation. This alone prevents the Bible from being a factual record.
And no, people are capable of having faith in all sorts of things without being mentally ill. I never said anything like what you propose; it is a strawman.
The Evangelical Environmental Network, which figures prominently in the NYTimes article linked by Zebra has issued this statement. Here’s what I’d call the introduction, or preamble:
I’d like someone to demonstrate to me how faith in “the full authority of the Scriptures” can possibly solve a single environmental problem.
That statement seems to me to take an exceedingly parochial view of God’s creation - essentially they’re limiting it to the Biblical era only; they’ve discluded any period of time outside of known human history. This makes me feel quite comfortable in labeling them as young earth creationists. If they wish to restore environmental conditions on earth to status quo ante, as that statement seems to indicate, they’ve selected a rather arbritrary point to draw the demarcation line - unless, as I said, they’re young earth creationists. After all, if the earth, from time immemorial (meaning more than 4 billion years ago as science tells us) is of God’s creation, they why are these folks so concerned about restoring the state of the environment to what is demonstrably quite recent?
And this portion of the Evangelical Environmental Network’s declaration is wholly laughable:
Surely they’re not trying to tell us that poverty didn’t exist during the time Jesus walked the earth. Even it they’re not saying that (which they probably aren’t), this statement ignores the vast improvment in the human condition which technology (and pollution) has made possible for large segments of the world’s population. Surely they don’t want to toss all that away.
And another thing:
There is also evidence - and by evidence I mean scientific evidence, not something based on “faith” - that global warming - whatever its cause - can, through the longer growing seasons, help lessen famine. With a warmer climate we’re quite simply capable of feeding more people. Without that food, many potential converts to the evangelical Christian faith will die and be denied the opportunity of Salvation. The folks, by the implementation of their beliefs of the stewardship of the environment would condemning a certain segment of the earth’s population to eternal damnation.
I’m gonna ask the mods to move this topic to GD. We’ve exceeded the limitations of this forum.