-
“In sum, I do not think I can fulfill my missional obligation without long term relationship with secular people in my city. ” Good stuff.
A friend linked me to this story today, and it interested me enough to try to write down a few thoughts. According to the AP story, the National Association of Evangelicals has now decided to work with a leading scientific group to combat global warming.
“Whether God created the Earth in a millisecond or whether it evolved over billions of years, the issue we agree on is that it needs to be cared for today,” said Rich Cizik, vice president of government relations for the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents 45,000 churches.
Eric Chivian, director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, agreed, saying: “Scientists and evangelicals have discovered that we share a deeply felt common concern and sense of urgency about threats to life on Earth and that we must speak with one voice to protect it.”
The NAE is thus joining a statement signed by 86 evangelical leaders back in February 2006 to “fight global warming, saying that human-induced climate change is real, that its consequences will hit the poor the hardest, and that Christian moral convictions demand an urgent response.”
I think this move by the NAE is a mistake on several grounds.
1) Global Warming – maybe. Human-induced? Not so much.
This is probably my biggest issue with the environmentalist global-warning folks as a whole. I will agree that depending on how you look at climate data, it appears that our earth is getting a bit warmer. I will also note a bunch of caveats to that assertion, including the fact that we have a limited amount of historic data, and that the conclusions you can draw vary widely depending on what data set you choose to interpret. Remember, the Time Magazine headlines back in the 1970’s were wondering if we were going to enter a new ice age.
That all being said, even if we can conclude the earth is warming by fractions of a degree, you’re hard-pressed to prove that the warming is human-induced. While certainly human industry and automobiles generate gases that are nasty, there are large environmental processes at work that we don’t totally understand that also cause changes. I just don’t think we’re at a point where we can conclusively say that humans are causing global warming.
2) Where is our priority?
If a Christian organization is going to spend major amounts of time and money on an issue, there needs to be some careful prioritization of resources. For any Christian organization, number one should be advancing the kingdom of Jesus Christ. In the news story, it seems a torturous bit of stretching to deal with this issue: basically they claim that global warming leads to suffering for the poor, thus necessitating action to relieve that suffering. But I’m skeptical.
If you want to relieve the suffering of the poor, send ‘em food and supplies. Speak out against repressive governments that are hurting their people. There are lots of missions doing very practical work to help these people. We can support those missions. In my cost-benefit analysis, spending money to lobby the American government to enact standards to reduce gas emissions by industry and automobiles that might in turn affect the climate is a lot more cost for a lot less benefit. Sure, maybe twenty years from now we’ll have managed to cool the planet by a degree or so. But that won’t have provided food or water or medical supplies for the millions that are currently starving and sick. They’ll just be dead.
3) Strange Bedfellows
I want to be careful with this one. I’m not trying to say there’s anything inherently wrong with Christians working with non-Christians to attain mutual goals. But I am saying we have to be very careful. Even if we have some present mutual goals, our motivations and perhaps some of our long-term goals are different. Environmentalists see man as a destructive blight on the earth and in an extreme view think the earth would be much better off without mankind around. A Christian view, though, tells us that God purposely placed us here, created the Earth for us, and now commands us to cultivate and use it. Very different perspectives.
I will grant that even amongst Christian denominations there are various views on environmental care for the earth. I’ve heard the opinion that “it’s all gonna just go downhill and then burn, so use it up, baby!”. There is another school of thought that says that part of God’s plan for the Kingdom is redeeming the Earth from the Fall, in which case we should care for the earth and work to improve it. I’m not quite sure yet where I fall on that spectrum. We should be good stewards of the world that God has given us. And just in a practical sense, if we are trying to show God’s goodness to the world around us, part of that should include a desire to make the world a more pleasant place, which includes caring for the beauty of creation. But let’s make sure we keep it in perspective, and not start worshiping the created Earth instead of the Creator.
So, when all is said and done, I think the NAE has gone the wrong direction here. There are far better ways their money and time could be spent than in trying to push an environmental agenda.
Classical music has had a big influence in my life. My parents are both lovers of classical music. (Probably my dad more than my mom, but I’m not too sure there.) It was pretty much all we had on at home growing up. Lots of ::wikipedia(“Bach”):: and ::wikipedia(“Beethoven”):: all the way through ::wikipedia(“Rimsky_Korsakov”,”Rimsky-Korsakov”):: and ::wikipedia(“Igor_Stravinsky”,”Stravinsky”)::. I started playing the piano at age 7 and thus entered a bunch more classical music. I played lots of Bach, Chopin, Beethoven, Debussy, and Grieg. I really enjoyed it. I was the nerdy kid who at age 12 listened to a NPR program where they compared two new recordings of Rachmaninoff’s Vespers, and enjoyed it. But I digress.
It’s hard to say which composer or era is my favorite. I love the Baroque for Bach (Das Wohltemperierte Klavier) and Handel (The Messiah, Water Music). I dig the classical and romantic periods: the beauty of Mozart, the intensity of Beethoven, the breadth of the piano works of Chopin. I about wore out a tape of Haydn Cello Concertos whilst growing up, and Dennis Brain’s legendary recording of Mozart Horn Concertos is never far from my iPod’s playlist. But then you get to Rachmaninoff. Of all the composers, I adore Rachmaninoff. I fell in love with his second Piano Concerto in my teens, managed to learn enough to hack my way through the easier bits of it, then in college reacquainted myself with Vespers and more of his solo piano works. They’re ridiculously difficult to play, but remain my favorites. And don’t let me forget the French guys like Debussy and Poulenc.
I have to confess that my appreciation for “classical music” written in the later parts of the 20th century wanes quite a bit. I have yet to develop the love for Stravinsky that my father has. Neither am I real fond of Ives, Barber, or Bartok. Aaron Copland is on my “love him” list, though, as is Ralph Vaughan Williams. As for real modern stuff, I’m not really current on it. I’ve heard a bit of Alan Hovhaness that I liked. By the time you get the late 20th century, the orchestral stuff I really enjoy has mostly been written as film scores by guys like John Williams, John Barry, and James Horner.
So, more than you wanted to know about my tastes in classical music, right? Feel free to leave comments below.
-
Gerald Ford, Oprah Winfrey, Pat Robertson. Let’s discuss.(tags: religion commentary)
-
‘You can’t go into a mall an say “will all the postmodern emergents please stand up” and hope that anybody will respond.’ We need to see the unbelievers how they see themselves if we want to reach them.(tags: church)
-
Adam O notes that the Christian life has more days of maintenance than magnificence.(tags: religion)
-
Mark Driscoll on why Mars Hill uses the ESV
Brilliant stuff from Jonah Goldberg today on the increasing desire of government to regulate the “little stuff”. He begins by listing everything the New York City Council banned or tried to ban in 2006. It’s a long list. And he notes some other bans around the country.
Then he pulls out a penetrating comment from deToqueville:
“It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life. For my own part, I should be inclined to think freedom less necessary in great things than in little ones. …”
“Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their own will.”
Then Goldberg brings it home with stunning clarity (emphasis mine):
This is a typically penetrating insight, and one with new relevance these days. This country seems to have inverted de Tocqueville’s hierarchy. On countless fronts, the natural pastures of daily liberty have become circumscribed by dull-witted but well-meaning bureaucrats slapping down the paving stones of good intentions on the road to hell.
The rule of thumb for a free society should be that it infringes liberties rarely, but when it does so it is for important reasons. Today, that thumb has been cast down, Caesar-like, pointing in the opposite direction. We have democratized the small assaults on freedom so that everyone must endure them, while we caterwaul about the tyranny of any real inconvenience that might fall “disproportionately” on the few. We ban using trans fats for millions but flinch at the idea that some kid might have to endure the Pledge of Allegiance or a moment of silence in school if it conflicts with his conscience. Everyone must surrender his shoes, his regular-sized toothpaste and shampoo at the airport, but we man the barricades to protect a few young Muslim men from being inconvenienced for an extra five minutes at the airport.
Free speech is most restricted where it is most important — in political contests near Election Day — while it is maximized to an absurd level at the fringes of culture and decency. Banning “hate speech” from everybody’s lips is a progressive priority, but electronic eavesdropping on a few terrorists is an impermissible leap down the slippery slope to the police state.
Goldberg is right, as usual. Go read the whole article.
Brilliant stuff from Jonah Goldberg today on the increasing desire of government to regulate the “little stuff”. He begins by listing everything the New York City Council banned or tried to ban in 2006. It’s a long list. And he notes some other bans around the country.
Then he pulls out a penetrating comment from deToqueville:
“It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life. For my own part, I should be inclined to think freedom less necessary in great things than in little ones. …”
“Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their own will.”
Then Goldberg brings it home with stunning clarity (emphasis mine):
This is a typically penetrating insight, and one with new relevance these days. This country seems to have inverted de Tocqueville’s hierarchy. On countless fronts, the natural pastures of daily liberty have become circumscribed by dull-witted but well-meaning bureaucrats slapping down the paving stones of good intentions on the road to hell.
The rule of thumb for a free society should be that it infringes liberties rarely, but when it does so it is for important reasons. Today, that thumb has been cast down, Caesar-like, pointing in the opposite direction. We have democratized the small assaults on freedom so that everyone must endure them, while we caterwaul about the tyranny of any real inconvenience that might fall “disproportionately” on the few. We ban using trans fats for millions but flinch at the idea that some kid might have to endure the Pledge of Allegiance or a moment of silence in school if it conflicts with his conscience. Everyone must surrender his shoes, his regular-sized toothpaste and shampoo at the airport, but we man the barricades to protect a few young Muslim men from being inconvenienced for an extra five minutes at the airport.
Free speech is most restricted where it is most important — in political contests near Election Day — while it is maximized to an absurd level at the fringes of culture and decency. Banning “hate speech” from everybody’s lips is a progressive priority, but electronic eavesdropping on a few terrorists is an impermissible leap down the slippery slope to the police state.
Goldberg is right, as usual. Go read the whole article.
Brilliant stuff from Jonah Goldberg today on the increasing desire of government to regulate the “little stuff”. He begins by listing everything the New York City Council banned or tried to ban in 2006. It’s a long list. And he notes some other bans around the country.
Then he pulls out a penetrating comment from deToqueville:
“It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life. For my own part, I should be inclined to think freedom less necessary in great things than in little ones. …”
“Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their own will.”
Then Goldberg brings it home with stunning clarity (emphasis mine):
This is a typically penetrating insight, and one with new relevance these days. This country seems to have inverted de Tocqueville’s hierarchy. On countless fronts, the natural pastures of daily liberty have become circumscribed by dull-witted but well-meaning bureaucrats slapping down the paving stones of good intentions on the road to hell.
The rule of thumb for a free society should be that it infringes liberties rarely, but when it does so it is for important reasons. Today, that thumb has been cast down, Caesar-like, pointing in the opposite direction. We have democratized the small assaults on freedom so that everyone must endure them, while we caterwaul about the tyranny of any real inconvenience that might fall “disproportionately” on the few. We ban using trans fats for millions but flinch at the idea that some kid might have to endure the Pledge of Allegiance or a moment of silence in school if it conflicts with his conscience. Everyone must surrender his shoes, his regular-sized toothpaste and shampoo at the airport, but we man the barricades to protect a few young Muslim men from being inconvenienced for an extra five minutes at the airport.
Free speech is most restricted where it is most important — in political contests near Election Day — while it is maximized to an absurd level at the fringes of culture and decency. Banning “hate speech” from everybody’s lips is a progressive priority, but electronic eavesdropping on a few terrorists is an impermissible leap down the slippery slope to the police state.
Goldberg is right, as usual. Go read the whole article.
Sometime while we were gone on our Christmas vacation, our local Krispy Kreme closed down. It opened back in 2000, is only two blocks from our house, and the smell of fresh donuts often wafted over to tantalize us. I have a love-hate relationship with Krispy Kreme donuts; when they’re fresh and warm, they’re a real treat. Once they’ve cooled to room temperature, they become a total sugar overload and I am no longer a real fan. But still, I’m sad to see them go.
The local Krispy Kreme franchise owner says that the distributing facilities elsewhere in the state can handle the Cedar Rapids area’s distribution needs, and Krispy Kreme donuts will still be available in many retail stores. So people can still get their fix if they really need it… but it won’t be the same as driving up to the store in the morning, the smell of donuts in the air, and being offered a free fresh hot glazed donut. Wow, those were good.
On the upside, the news story says they’re likely to open an Arby’s in the old Krispy Kreme building. That will make Becky very happy. 
-
Fantastic stuff from John Piper.(tags: sermon)