I suggested a Study Committee and encouraged delegates to explore the wealth of information regarding AGW provided by the author of Overture 7. That is not "dismissing the issue out of hand."
It was in anticipation of the possibility of a comment such as yours that I deliberately used "denomination" rather than "church." Apparently I was not successful in my intent. Please rest assured that my only purpose was to support the point of both overtures that the collective wisdom of many, delberating in the presence of the Spirit, not the personal opinions of four individuals who hold positions of leadership, should represent the viewpoint of the denomination with respect to this, or other, issues.
As to AGW itself, we may well be in the same camp. Scientifically, I think the jury is still out. We simply do not have so complete an understanding of all the variables that we can commit to a totally defined agenda. To the extent of the knowledge we do have, we certainly have the obligation to be good stewards of God's Creation. Fifty years ago, when I changed the oil in my car, I (like everybody else) just dumped the used oil. I know better now and pay a small surcharge to have it discarded in a way that does less damage to the environment.
Personally, I do not think the denomination ever needed to have an official AGW position, but perhaps we now do, if only to undo what I regard as a misguided action on the part of those denominational officials.
"One slight ..." quibble is with something I did not say. The Church belongs to Christ - our denomination (which is what I referenced) is a part of the Church, and from that perspective, is controlled by a presbyterian form of government (by its members). We do not have a pope or a supreme leader or a prophet who gets instructions directly from God and dictates them to the rest of us. Rather, we deliberate, to the best of our collective ability and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to determine what God has revealed in His Word and in His creation. Nowhere in my post did I use the words "the people."
I totally agree that this is a political issue, and my first suggested task for a Study Committee was to determine whether or not the denomination should take a stand on this issue.
Posted in: Overtures 5 and 7 (Anthropogenic Global Warming)
What if ...
I suggested a Study Committee and encouraged delegates to explore the wealth of information regarding AGW provided by the author of Overture 7. That is not "dismissing the issue out of hand."
Posted in: Overtures 5 and 7 (Anthropogenic Global Warming)
It was in anticipation of the possibility of a comment such as yours that I deliberately used "denomination" rather than "church." Apparently I was not successful in my intent. Please rest assured that my only purpose was to support the point of both overtures that the collective wisdom of many, delberating in the presence of the Spirit, not the personal opinions of four individuals who hold positions of leadership, should represent the viewpoint of the denomination with respect to this, or other, issues.
As to AGW itself, we may well be in the same camp. Scientifically, I think the jury is still out. We simply do not have so complete an understanding of all the variables that we can commit to a totally defined agenda. To the extent of the knowledge we do have, we certainly have the obligation to be good stewards of God's Creation. Fifty years ago, when I changed the oil in my car, I (like everybody else) just dumped the used oil. I know better now and pay a small surcharge to have it discarded in a way that does less damage to the environment.
Personally, I do not think the denomination ever needed to have an official AGW position, but perhaps we now do, if only to undo what I regard as a misguided action on the part of those denominational officials.
Posted in: Overtures 5 and 7 (Anthropogenic Global Warming)
"One slight ..." quibble is with something I did not say. The Church belongs to Christ - our denomination (which is what I referenced) is a part of the Church, and from that perspective, is controlled by a presbyterian form of government (by its members). We do not have a pope or a supreme leader or a prophet who gets instructions directly from God and dictates them to the rest of us. Rather, we deliberate, to the best of our collective ability and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to determine what God has revealed in His Word and in His creation. Nowhere in my post did I use the words "the people."
I totally agree that this is a political issue, and my first suggested task for a Study Committee was to determine whether or not the denomination should take a stand on this issue.