That is an excellent question… we must examine the motives behind the climate change hoax, to understand why they are perpetrating this hoax. As with many issues, there are several motives, sometimes overlapping, and sometimes separate.
Some who perpetrate or support the hoax don’t know about the other people’s motives, and some don’t care, as long as they support and promote the idea of global warming. They assume if it they can fool the people into believing in man made global warming, it doesn’t matter why the fall for the hoax.
In some cases it is a philosophical motive: some just don’t believe that God created man in the image of God at the pinnacle of creation. They worship nature and think mankind is just a nuisance and an intruder to nature.
Their agenda, radical environmentalism, is not the advancement of human health, human happiness, and human life, but rather the creation of a world where "nature" is deemed to have "intrinsic value" that ought to be revered for its own sake, irrespective of any benefit to mankind. Radical environmentalists espouse "deep ecology," which asserts that the environment is an end in itself and that man is an intruder -- if not a rapist and despoiler -- who should have no greater priority than any other species. From this axiom, they reason that any human action that changes the environment is necessarily immoral.
Notably, radical environmentalists invoke the doctrine of intrinsic value not against wolves that eat sheep, or beavers that gnaw trees; they invoke it only against man, only when man wants to use natural resources for the advancement of some business endeavor. Thus they tend to reflexively oppose the pursuit of such endeavors as oil exploration, logging, housing development, and all manner of commerce.
The “green” movement hides behind the smiley-face rhetoric of "sustainability" and "conservation", but in reality they have a dark agenda. The authoritarian impulse underlying the Green crusade aims to regulate your behavior, downsize your lifestyle, and invade the most intimate aspects of your personal life. Whether they're demanding that you turn down your thermostat, stop driving your car, or engage in some other senseless act of self-denial, the Greens are envisioning a grim future for you marked by endless privation.
In other cases we can “follow the money” and that leads us to the motives. Many like Al Gore have invested in carbon trading schemes, and many politicians seek to use climate change to extract more taxes and gain more control over individuals. Others do not believe in Gods command “Thou Shalt Not Steal”, which is a command to respect private property. They believe that free-market economic systems are inherently plagued by greed and by a willingness to exploit the environment to whatever degree is necessary for maximum profit, without regard for any resultant ecological harm. Consequently, a hallmark of radical environmentalism is its hostility to capitalism and its embrace of socialism as a preferred economic model.
It is imperative to distinguish radical environmentalism from conservationism -- the rational, or conservative, brand of environmentalism that rejects any and all gratuitous or preventable damage to the natural world. Conservationism is committed to minimizing air pollution, water pollution, the destruction of natural ecosystems, and the unnecessary depletion of natural resources. By the same token, however, it understands that the potential benefits of progress and industry (conducted in an environmentally responsible manner) may sometimes justify mankind's manipulation/exploitation of landscapes, forests, rivers, mineral reserves, etc.
From a Christian perspective, the problem I see with radical environmentalism and the global warming hoax is that it condemn the world’s poor to generations of continued misery characterized by rampant disease and premature death.
The "true path to personal salvation" does not lie "in nature-and in the actions one takes after encountering God there." The "true path to personal salvation" lies in encountering and receiving the grace of God through the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Nature does not save; only Jesus saves.
I think this is a real danger when people start worshiping nature instead of Jesus, and start blinding following the global warming hoax without checking out the true science of the matter.
For example, 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhD:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
There is also a good peer reviewed research paper at this site, called "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide". Unless we read both sides of an issue, we may be blinded by those with an agenda or hidden motives ("nature worshiping philosophy, making money or gaining political power from the global warming hoax, etc.)
That is an excellent question, "what should we do"? First, we should do our own research and discover why the man-made global warming hoax is being perpetrated on us. We can get a Christian perspective from the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, at http://www.cornwallalliance.org/
Once we study the science and understand that man made global warming is a hoax that is hurting people, we should try to tell as many of our family and friends as we can. God commands us to help the poor and needy, and since the polices being put into place by those who are promoting the global warming hoax are hurting people, we should expose them and stop them. We should stop them at the ballot box, in the media, and in our personal lives.
God commands us, "Thou Shalt Not Lie" and the global warming hoax is a lie that needs to be stopped. We should fight this lie with the truth and good, sound, reasonable policies that protect the environment without punishing good human beings who are following God's cultural command and using the good things he has given us.
I agree with you Cindy, recycling or believing in the man-made global warming hoax is not a salvation issue. We should all care for the world God created. I think it's important to distinguish radical environmentalism from conservationism -- the rational, or conservative, brand of environmentalism that rejects any and all gratuitous or preventable damage to the natural world. Conservationism is committed to minimizing air pollution, water pollution, the destruction of natural ecosystems, and the unnecessary depletion of natural resources. By the same token, however, it understands that the potential benefits of progress and industry (conducted in an environmentally responsible manner) may sometimes justify mankind's manipulation/exploitation of landscapes, forests, rivers, mineral reserves, etc.
I have been reading a lot about the environment from a Christian perspective from the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, at http://www.cornwallalliance.org/
You and others may be interested in reading more from this site. They have done a lot of thinking and research in this area. From their web site:
"Dominion. Stewardship. Conservation.
What do these words mean? How do they interact? And just what is humankind’s responsibility to care for God’s creation?
In the closing years of the last millennium, these questions gained unprecedented prominence in religious circles as clergy, theologians, and laymen alike grappled to establish a firm environmental ethic. In the face of growing concerns about how our rapidly advancing technologies, coupled with our increasing demand for resources, were impacting creation, yet at the same time trying to balance the need for increased progress and productivity – especially for the world’s poorest citizens – many divergent views emerged.
A major step was taken in the spring of 2000 when a coalition of scholars and religious leaders put forward an ethical statement of belief called the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship. This declaration has so far been signed by over 1,500 clergy, theologians, policy experts and other people of faith, – including such well-known leaders as Dr. Charles Colson, Dr. James Dobson, Rabbi Jacob Neusner, Dr. R.C. Sproul, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, and Rev. Dr. D. James Kennedy, among others. It has come to be viewed as one of the most significant expressions of belief about religion and the environment in modern times.
Regarding Cornwall‘s contents, the declaration recognizes “the moral necessity of ecological stewardship has become increasingly clear,” and then seeks to clear up three common misunderstandings that can impede a sound environmental ethic.
First, the document notes that “many people mistakenly view humans as principally consumer and polluters rather than producers and stewards.”
Second, Cornwall takes a critical look at the perception that “nature knows best,” or that “the earth, untouched by human hands is the ideal.”
Third, the declaration points out that while “some environmental concerns are well founded and serious, others are without foundation or greatly exaggerated.” This is of particular concern in developing nations, where basic issues like inadequate sanitation, widespread use of primitive fuels like wood and dung, and primitive agricultural practices go largely unaddressed while more distant and theoretical issues receive the lion’s share of funding and attention.
The Cornwall Declaration further sets forth an articulate and Biblically-grounded set of beliefs and aspirations in which God can be glorified through a world in which “human beings care wisely and humbly for all creatures” and “widespread economic freedom…makes sound ecological stewardship available to ever greater numbers.”
By all accounts, Cornwall provides the philosophical and theological underpinnings upon which a broad environmental ethic can be formulated."
I'm truly sorry to hear you were lonely. I'm from the west also. I hope you find good Christian friends here and also in your church and community. God loves you and wants us all to live in harmony and to love one another. And don't forget, Jesus is always our friend as well as our savior:
14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.
I am so sorry to hear about your trouble, Ken. I can't believe your church is too busy with "more important stuff" because showing love to you and everyone else is one of the most important things the church can do. Hopefully someone from your church will read this and pay you a visit! In the meantime, yes you still have your family and yes of course Jesus cares for you and your family. But, we are all praying that the relationship between you and your church improves.
To keep this a bit on topic for this area of the forum, what do you think of Newt Gingrich's common sense ideas for immigration reform?
Ken, that is a shame you feel that way. I think it is obvious that it does matter which polices we implement. The way we are going now, we are being led down a path to European style socialism and failure. I want better for our children and the world, and a good example is Newt's policies on immigration. The current system is unfair and Newt has put together a non-partisan coaltion that is not interested in politics, they just want good ideas that work. I can understand why you would not be interested but many want the best for our children and those that enherit the world we leave.
Ken, I resent your false accusation that I am "itching for a fight". I am through with that too, and I don't want to argue with you either. I know the purpose of this forum is to discuss things in Christian love, and see how other churches do things. I think it is important to ask questions and compare notes with other Christians across the CRC, whether they are down the street or across the country. I assume you and others are doing ministry just like me, so I want to ask for help, share my experience, and connect and learn with others!
So, again, anything discussed here will be done in Love. To me, NOT discussing various ideas on the best way to do something, and ending up with a less optimal solution, is not love, it is a disservice to those we want to help. The poor and helpless suffer more if we don't figure out the best way to help them. I can understand if you don't want to join the discussion but please don't cast aspersions on those who want to discuss issues and seek the truth.
OK thank you for your honesty, Ken, I guess we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on my goals here. Yes I did spend time explaining my views on an issue and I hope others do the same. It is only in that way we can learn from each other and sift through ideas, letting the good ones come to the top. I hope you don't jump to the conclusion that this church and network are not to my satisfaction; I'm not sure where that came from. Yes, of course we all see areas for improvement, we all care, that is why this forum was created, so we could discuss what we care about and then take the best ideas for our own churches. I really wish you would stop stereotyping people with "I live with your type of people with the same attitudes". Ken, you really don't know my attitudes on many issues. I think many of them you would agree with, and many would surprise you! Why don't we get to know one another in Christian love before casting these aspersions?
Ken, I do disagree with one point you made, though. One can't "beat people into submission with ideas"! That is not possible. One can only explain one's ideas, and if they make sense, others will adopt them. If they don't make sense, they are free to explain why and maybe they will change the minds of others in the process. I think too many people are afraid of ideas, they think we should all just follow the "conventional wisdom" or what is "politically correct" and leave it at that. If our founders followed that philosophy, where would be now? Or if Jesus just went along with the "accepted" ideas of his time, where would we all be?
So yes, you have judged my motives incorrectly, and my actions of discussing good ideas and soliciting other ideas should not cause you any strife. In spite of your mistake on me, I welcome you too, and I look forward to future discussions of ideas, if you feel like participating. No pressure, Ken! Yes, of course we can be friends and brothers in Christ even if we disagree on issues, and of course we will both continue to be civil and engage in intelligent discourse. That is how Christians should and do act.
Yes, thank you too, Ken. God bless you and I really meant what I said about the issues you expressed. I really do hope your local friends and family, and your church, can bond together and get through these difficult times. There are many issues that need to be addressed, some at a local or regional level, others at a national or international level. The original post by Kate Kooyman spoke about immigration reform, the CRCNA's and President Obama's speeches and responses, and upcoming legislation. My only goal here is to shed some light on the diversity of viewpoints that exist, in the hope that we all as Christians can see the light and come to some conclusions as to the best way forward.
If some agree with me, fine, then can say why. If others disagree, no problem, we can politely disagree and state our reasoning. I happen to think that if all ideas are allowed to compete in a fair arena of ideas, people are smart enough to see through bad ideas and adopt the good ones. This is not always the case, some get stuck on bad ideas and will not let go, but that is the exception rather than the rule.
Thank you for your comments though, Ken, and I really do wish the best for you and your family going forward. I did not mean to minimize your personal situation, I was merely trying to keep this thread on the original topic. God bless you.
Kate, I'm glad you started this discussion. I am concerned about immigration and I want a new system that is fair to everyone too -- that includes those from other countries that want to come to America, those waiting in line to get in legally, taxpaying citizens who are currently legally in the USA, and those that have broken the law and have come across the border illegally. As a Christian, I love and care for all of the people named here, and I want everyone to take a deep breath and take a step back and look at things from all perspectives.
Newt Gingrich has done a lot of non-partisan, common sense research and open discussion with Democrats, Independents and Republicans on this issue. He has provided long discussion and working sessions with input from all sides. He is getting a lot of support from people who don’t really have an ideological bent, they just want common sense solutions and want to get something done, with compassion and sound principles. He points out that in the past year Marco Rubio was elected Senator from Florida, and the Latino people and all Americans are proud of his accomplishment. Susana Martínez became the first Latina governor in the country. A number of new Hispanics and Latinos were elected across the country. Republicans are not the problem. President Obama and the Democrats had two full years to pass a good immigration law and they totally failed. Obama ignored most of Latin America in the state of the union speech. He emphasized Korea and didn’t talk at all about the Columbian Free Trade Agreement.
We should be very clear: it is impossible to pass a single, comprehensive immigration reform bill. We saw the problems with the huge, costly Obamacare health care take over. We should have a series of good steps, with vivid and clear goals:
We want legality. We want control of the borders. We want easy deportation of felons and gang members. There is no excuse for dangerous gangs to be in 65 American cities because of the complexity of American deportation laws. We want English as the official language of government, but we respect every language as the language of life, politics and commerce. We absolutely believe every citizen ought to learn American history, both American born citizens and first generation immigrants.
We should have a dramatically bigger visa program for well educated people, because it is absurd to have someone graduate from MIT or CalTech, or other good American schools, and they have to leave the country to create a new factory in India, because we won’t let them stay here and build a factory.
We need a guest worker program driven by economic reality, and the guest worker program should be outsourced to American Express, Visa or Mastercard, because they are the only systems capable of running a fraud free program, and I would never trust the federal government with a a guest worker
Once there is a guest worker program with real time, equivalent of ATM speed, then any employer who hires someone who is not an American citizen, or have a guest worker program or other legal documentation, I would hammer them economically so you would eliminate hiring people illegally. That way people who are hear legally would have a couple of choices.
You have to have some sort of local system with human discrimination, like we did in the past with draft boards during WWII. It has to have human discrimination, because for example, there is a young man in Dallas, Texas who is 19 years old, who came here when he was three. He doesn’t speak Spanish. Now to say to him, “Gosh, you need to go back to Mexico”, strikes me as something that no common sense group of American neighbors would do. So there has to be some way to distinguish. But, everybody who ends up as an illegal guest worker, HAS to go to the back of the line and fill out an application for citizenship, because we CANNOT punish those who have been obeying the law, waiting in their home country, being patient, by telling them they were dumb, they should have broken the law and come to the U.S. and we’d eventually take care of them. We have to control the border.
Once the new regime is set up, everyone who comes into this country illegally is deported in 48 hours. This nonsense system we currently have is so heavily rigged against deportation that it is an absurdity. And remember, most of the people who came here came legally, then their visa expired or whatever. So we need to pass a series of building blocks over the course of 1-2 years.
This is just common sense. The so-called “Dream Act” attempted to put the wrong policies in place and empower Democrat politicians, and went against common sense and the will of the people. That is why it was defeated. We need a good common sense immigration law as outlined above. The Dream Act would give citizenship to illegals and allow them to jump past those that are patiently waiting in line and obeying the law. We CANNOT do that, it is unfair and immoral to those people who are doing what is right. The Dream Act was designed by politicians to be defeated, so they could use it to demagogue the issue. We are all immigrants but we came here legally. The other problem with open borders is the threat to homeland security. If we don’t know who is streaming across the border, how do we know if we are letting the next terrorist in? We need to check out who is coming in. We don’t want a terrorist to come across our border, and kill 10 or 20 thousand Americans in a mass attack. At that point liberal Christians will say “Let us pray for God’s peace and understanding for the families of the victims…”
We don’t want to have to pray for victims…we want to PREVENT the next attack by checking the background of people attempting to enter the country.
The term “social justice” is just an innocuous phrase to most people. To many Christians, it just means “fairness” and it is used as a substitute for "outreach to the poor." This is what Jesus commands us as individuals to do: help the poor, reach out to the weak and helpless, protect the innocent children, born and unborn.
The problem arises when some try to pervert and hijack the term "social justice", and somehow try to force redistribution of wealth on people, with a hostility toward individual property rights. They sometimes do this under the guise of charity or justice, but this corrupts true charity because it takes away the personal one of one helping of Christian charity. None of us feel very “charitable” on April 15th when the government raises our taxes, then proceeds to waste our tax dollars through fraud and redundant programs that the government has no business running.
If your church is promoting a liberation theology style "social or economic justice," you should run from it or at least get educated on what progressives mean by this.
Here's a simple rule of thumb: Make sure your church puts God first and politics and government last. Here are the clear warning signs: "social justice" or "economic justice" or "ecological justice." If these so-called church leaders start attacking capitalism and promoting socialist or communist ways, stay far away.
So to be clear: Some people look at social justice as going out on mission and going out and doing good works for God. That's great — as long as you are personally, or in a church group, representing the hands and feet of Jesus here on earth. If your church leaders or anyone else starts promoting a government-bloated program, steer clear!
Hi Ken! Thank you for posting and you asked a good question. I joined because I wonder how other churches do things and I wanted to find out! I think it is important to ask questions and compare notes with other Christians across the CRC, whether they are down the street or across the country. I assume you and others are doing ministry just like me, so I want to ask for help, share my experience, and connect and learn with others!
I think there are various viewpoints and policies that all say they are working toward the same goals. The Christian community should not follow one political party or the other blindly, we should examine every policy from a Christian perspective, using our God given minds and our God given logic and ability to reason and look at history and empirical evidence. We should explore and discuss and make sure the policies we are promoting are actually doing what they say they will do. If we just support a policy because it makes us feel good, or it is politically correct, but doesn't actualy help the poor or powerless, then I don't think we should support those policies.
Posted in: A Christian’s Perspective on Caring for Creation?
Hi Ken,
That is an excellent question… we must examine the motives behind the climate change hoax, to understand why they are perpetrating this hoax. As with many issues, there are several motives, sometimes overlapping, and sometimes separate.
Some who perpetrate or support the hoax don’t know about the other people’s motives, and some don’t care, as long as they support and promote the idea of global warming. They assume if it they can fool the people into believing in man made global warming, it doesn’t matter why the fall for the hoax.
In some cases it is a philosophical motive: some just don’t believe that God created man in the image of God at the pinnacle of creation. They worship nature and think mankind is just a nuisance and an intruder to nature.
Their agenda, radical environmentalism, is not the advancement of human health, human happiness, and human life, but rather the creation of a world where "nature" is deemed to have "intrinsic value" that ought to be revered for its own sake, irrespective of any benefit to mankind. Radical environmentalists espouse "deep ecology," which asserts that the environment is an end in itself and that man is an intruder -- if not a rapist and despoiler -- who should have no greater priority than any other species. From this axiom, they reason that any human action that changes the environment is necessarily immoral.
Notably, radical environmentalists invoke the doctrine of intrinsic value not against wolves that eat sheep, or beavers that gnaw trees; they invoke it only against man, only when man wants to use natural resources for the advancement of some business endeavor. Thus they tend to reflexively oppose the pursuit of such endeavors as oil exploration, logging, housing development, and all manner of commerce.
The “green” movement hides behind the smiley-face rhetoric of "sustainability" and "conservation", but in reality they have a dark agenda. The authoritarian impulse underlying the Green crusade aims to regulate your behavior, downsize your lifestyle, and invade the most intimate aspects of your personal life. Whether they're demanding that you turn down your thermostat, stop driving your car, or engage in some other senseless act of self-denial, the Greens are envisioning a grim future for you marked by endless privation.
In other cases we can “follow the money” and that leads us to the motives. Many like Al Gore have invested in carbon trading schemes, and many politicians seek to use climate change to extract more taxes and gain more control over individuals. Others do not believe in Gods command “Thou Shalt Not Steal”, which is a command to respect private property. They believe that free-market economic systems are inherently plagued by greed and by a willingness to exploit the environment to whatever degree is necessary for maximum profit, without regard for any resultant ecological harm. Consequently, a hallmark of radical environmentalism is its hostility to capitalism and its embrace of socialism as a preferred economic model.
It is imperative to distinguish radical environmentalism from conservationism -- the rational, or conservative, brand of environmentalism that rejects any and all gratuitous or preventable damage to the natural world. Conservationism is committed to minimizing air pollution, water pollution, the destruction of natural ecosystems, and the unnecessary depletion of natural resources. By the same token, however, it understands that the potential benefits of progress and industry (conducted in an environmentally responsible manner) may sometimes justify mankind's manipulation/exploitation of landscapes, forests, rivers, mineral reserves, etc.
From a Christian perspective, the problem I see with radical environmentalism and the global warming hoax is that it condemn the world’s poor to generations of continued misery characterized by rampant disease and premature death.
Posted in: A Christian’s Perspective on Caring for Creation?
Interesting article here I recommend to you all:
Obscuring the Gospel in the Name of Creation Care
By James Tonkowich, D.Min.
The "true path to personal salvation" does not lie "in nature-and in the actions one takes after encountering God there." The "true path to personal salvation" lies in encountering and receiving the grace of God through the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Nature does not save; only Jesus saves.
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/obscuring-the-gospel-in-the-name-of-creation-care/
I think this is a real danger when people start worshiping nature instead of Jesus, and start blinding following the global warming hoax without checking out the true science of the matter.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
For example, 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhD:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
There is also a good peer reviewed research paper at this site, called "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide". Unless we read both sides of an issue, we may be blinded by those with an agenda or hidden motives ("nature worshiping philosophy, making money or gaining political power from the global warming hoax, etc.)
Posted in: A Christian’s Perspective on Caring for Creation?
Hi Ken,
That is an excellent question, "what should we do"? First, we should do our own research and discover why the man-made global warming hoax is being perpetrated on us. We can get a Christian perspective from the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, at http://www.cornwallalliance.org/
Once we study the science and understand that man made global warming is a hoax that is hurting people, we should try to tell as many of our family and friends as we can. God commands us to help the poor and needy, and since the polices being put into place by those who are promoting the global warming hoax are hurting people, we should expose them and stop them. We should stop them at the ballot box, in the media, and in our personal lives.
God commands us, "Thou Shalt Not Lie" and the global warming hoax is a lie that needs to be stopped. We should fight this lie with the truth and good, sound, reasonable policies that protect the environment without punishing good human beings who are following God's cultural command and using the good things he has given us.
Posted in: A Christian’s Perspective on Caring for Creation?
I agree with you Cindy, recycling or believing in the man-made global warming hoax is not a salvation issue. We should all care for the world God created. I think it's important to distinguish radical environmentalism from conservationism -- the rational, or conservative, brand of environmentalism that rejects any and all gratuitous or preventable damage to the natural world. Conservationism is committed to minimizing air pollution, water pollution, the destruction of natural ecosystems, and the unnecessary depletion of natural resources. By the same token, however, it understands that the potential benefits of progress and industry (conducted in an environmentally responsible manner) may sometimes justify mankind's manipulation/exploitation of landscapes, forests, rivers, mineral reserves, etc.
I have been reading a lot about the environment from a Christian perspective from the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, at http://www.cornwallalliance.org/
You and others may be interested in reading more from this site. They have done a lot of thinking and research in this area. From their web site:
"Dominion. Stewardship. Conservation.
What do these words mean? How do they interact? And just what is humankind’s responsibility to care for God’s creation?
In the closing years of the last millennium, these questions gained unprecedented prominence in religious circles as clergy, theologians, and laymen alike grappled to establish a firm environmental ethic. In the face of growing concerns about how our rapidly advancing technologies, coupled with our increasing demand for resources, were impacting creation, yet at the same time trying to balance the need for increased progress and productivity – especially for the world’s poorest citizens – many divergent views emerged.
A major step was taken in the spring of 2000 when a coalition of scholars and religious leaders put forward an ethical statement of belief called the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship. This declaration has so far been signed by over 1,500 clergy, theologians, policy experts and other people of faith, – including such well-known leaders as Dr. Charles Colson, Dr. James Dobson, Rabbi Jacob Neusner, Dr. R.C. Sproul, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, and Rev. Dr. D. James Kennedy, among others. It has come to be viewed as one of the most significant expressions of belief about religion and the environment in modern times.
Regarding Cornwall‘s contents, the declaration recognizes “the moral necessity of ecological stewardship has become increasingly clear,” and then seeks to clear up three common misunderstandings that can impede a sound environmental ethic.
First, the document notes that “many people mistakenly view humans as principally consumer and polluters rather than producers and stewards.”
Second, Cornwall takes a critical look at the perception that “nature knows best,” or that “the earth, untouched by human hands is the ideal.”
Third, the declaration points out that while “some environmental concerns are well founded and serious, others are without foundation or greatly exaggerated.” This is of particular concern in developing nations, where basic issues like inadequate sanitation, widespread use of primitive fuels like wood and dung, and primitive agricultural practices go largely unaddressed while more distant and theoretical issues receive the lion’s share of funding and attention.
The Cornwall Declaration further sets forth an articulate and Biblically-grounded set of beliefs and aspirations in which God can be glorified through a world in which “human beings care wisely and humbly for all creatures” and “widespread economic freedom…makes sound ecological stewardship available to ever greater numbers.”
By all accounts, Cornwall provides the philosophical and theological underpinnings upon which a broad environmental ethic can be formulated."
Posted in: Immigration Reform: Synod, Obama, and You?
Hi Ken,
I'm truly sorry to hear you were lonely. I'm from the west also. I hope you find good Christian friends here and also in your church and community. God loves you and wants us all to live in harmony and to love one another. And don't forget, Jesus is always our friend as well as our savior:
John 15:14-16 (New International Version, ©2011)
14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.
Posted in: Immigration Reform: Synod, Obama, and You?
I am so sorry to hear about your trouble, Ken. I can't believe your church is too busy with "more important stuff" because showing love to you and everyone else is one of the most important things the church can do. Hopefully someone from your church will read this and pay you a visit! In the meantime, yes you still have your family and yes of course Jesus cares for you and your family. But, we are all praying that the relationship between you and your church improves.
To keep this a bit on topic for this area of the forum, what do you think of Newt Gingrich's common sense ideas for immigration reform?
Posted in: Immigration Reform: Synod, Obama, and You?
Ken, that is a shame you feel that way. I think it is obvious that it does matter which polices we implement. The way we are going now, we are being led down a path to European style socialism and failure. I want better for our children and the world, and a good example is Newt's policies on immigration. The current system is unfair and Newt has put together a non-partisan coaltion that is not interested in politics, they just want good ideas that work. I can understand why you would not be interested but many want the best for our children and those that enherit the world we leave.
Posted in: Immigration Reform: Synod, Obama, and You?
Ken, I resent your false accusation that I am "itching for a fight". I am through with that too, and I don't want to argue with you either. I know the purpose of this forum is to discuss things in Christian love, and see how other churches do things. I think it is important to ask questions and compare notes with other Christians across the CRC, whether they are down the street or across the country. I assume you and others are doing ministry just like me, so I want to ask for help, share my experience, and connect and learn with others!
So, again, anything discussed here will be done in Love. To me, NOT discussing various ideas on the best way to do something, and ending up with a less optimal solution, is not love, it is a disservice to those we want to help. The poor and helpless suffer more if we don't figure out the best way to help them. I can understand if you don't want to join the discussion but please don't cast aspersions on those who want to discuss issues and seek the truth.
Posted in: Immigration Reform: Synod, Obama, and You?
OK thank you for your honesty, Ken, I guess we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on my goals here. Yes I did spend time explaining my views on an issue and I hope others do the same. It is only in that way we can learn from each other and sift through ideas, letting the good ones come to the top. I hope you don't jump to the conclusion that this church and network are not to my satisfaction; I'm not sure where that came from. Yes, of course we all see areas for improvement, we all care, that is why this forum was created, so we could discuss what we care about and then take the best ideas for our own churches. I really wish you would stop stereotyping people with "I live with your type of people with the same attitudes". Ken, you really don't know my attitudes on many issues. I think many of them you would agree with, and many would surprise you! Why don't we get to know one another in Christian love before casting these aspersions?
Ken, I do disagree with one point you made, though. One can't "beat people into submission with ideas"! That is not possible. One can only explain one's ideas, and if they make sense, others will adopt them. If they don't make sense, they are free to explain why and maybe they will change the minds of others in the process. I think too many people are afraid of ideas, they think we should all just follow the "conventional wisdom" or what is "politically correct" and leave it at that. If our founders followed that philosophy, where would be now? Or if Jesus just went along with the "accepted" ideas of his time, where would we all be?
So yes, you have judged my motives incorrectly, and my actions of discussing good ideas and soliciting other ideas should not cause you any strife. In spite of your mistake on me, I welcome you too, and I look forward to future discussions of ideas, if you feel like participating. No pressure, Ken! Yes, of course we can be friends and brothers in Christ even if we disagree on issues, and of course we will both continue to be civil and engage in intelligent discourse. That is how Christians should and do act.
Posted in: Immigration Reform: Synod, Obama, and You?
Yes, thank you too, Ken. God bless you and I really meant what I said about the issues you expressed. I really do hope your local friends and family, and your church, can bond together and get through these difficult times. There are many issues that need to be addressed, some at a local or regional level, others at a national or international level. The original post by Kate Kooyman spoke about immigration reform, the CRCNA's and President Obama's speeches and responses, and upcoming legislation. My only goal here is to shed some light on the diversity of viewpoints that exist, in the hope that we all as Christians can see the light and come to some conclusions as to the best way forward.
If some agree with me, fine, then can say why. If others disagree, no problem, we can politely disagree and state our reasoning. I happen to think that if all ideas are allowed to compete in a fair arena of ideas, people are smart enough to see through bad ideas and adopt the good ones. This is not always the case, some get stuck on bad ideas and will not let go, but that is the exception rather than the rule.
Thank you for your comments though, Ken, and I really do wish the best for you and your family going forward. I did not mean to minimize your personal situation, I was merely trying to keep this thread on the original topic. God bless you.
Posted in: Immigration Reform: Synod, Obama, and You?
Kate, I'm glad you started this discussion. I am concerned about immigration and I want a new system that is fair to everyone too -- that includes those from other countries that want to come to America, those waiting in line to get in legally, taxpaying citizens who are currently legally in the USA, and those that have broken the law and have come across the border illegally. As a Christian, I love and care for all of the people named here, and I want everyone to take a deep breath and take a step back and look at things from all perspectives.
Newt Gingrich has done a lot of non-partisan, common sense research and open discussion with Democrats, Independents and Republicans on this issue. He has provided long discussion and working sessions with input from all sides. He is getting a lot of support from people who don’t really have an ideological bent, they just want common sense solutions and want to get something done, with compassion and sound principles. He points out that in the past year Marco Rubio was elected Senator from Florida, and the Latino people and all Americans are proud of his accomplishment. Susana Martínez became the first Latina governor in the country. A number of new Hispanics and Latinos were elected across the country. Republicans are not the problem. President Obama and the Democrats had two full years to pass a good immigration law and they totally failed. Obama ignored most of Latin America in the state of the union speech. He emphasized Korea and didn’t talk at all about the Columbian Free Trade Agreement.
We should be very clear: it is impossible to pass a single, comprehensive immigration reform bill. We saw the problems with the huge, costly Obamacare health care take over. We should have a series of good steps, with vivid and clear goals:
We want legality. We want control of the borders. We want easy deportation of felons and gang members. There is no excuse for dangerous gangs to be in 65 American cities because of the complexity of American deportation laws. We want English as the official language of government, but we respect every language as the language of life, politics and commerce. We absolutely believe every citizen ought to learn American history, both American born citizens and first generation immigrants.
We should have a dramatically bigger visa program for well educated people, because it is absurd to have someone graduate from MIT or CalTech, or other good American schools, and they have to leave the country to create a new factory in India, because we won’t let them stay here and build a factory.
We need a guest worker program driven by economic reality, and the guest worker program should be outsourced to American Express, Visa or Mastercard, because they are the only systems capable of running a fraud free program, and I would never trust the federal government with a a guest worker
Once there is a guest worker program with real time, equivalent of ATM speed, then any employer who hires someone who is not an American citizen, or have a guest worker program or other legal documentation, I would hammer them economically so you would eliminate hiring people illegally. That way people who are hear legally would have a couple of choices.
You have to have some sort of local system with human discrimination, like we did in the past with draft boards during WWII. It has to have human discrimination, because for example, there is a young man in Dallas, Texas who is 19 years old, who came here when he was three. He doesn’t speak Spanish. Now to say to him, “Gosh, you need to go back to Mexico”, strikes me as something that no common sense group of American neighbors would do. So there has to be some way to distinguish. But, everybody who ends up as an illegal guest worker, HAS to go to the back of the line and fill out an application for citizenship, because we CANNOT punish those who have been obeying the law, waiting in their home country, being patient, by telling them they were dumb, they should have broken the law and come to the U.S. and we’d eventually take care of them. We have to control the border.
Once the new regime is set up, everyone who comes into this country illegally is deported in 48 hours. This nonsense system we currently have is so heavily rigged against deportation that it is an absurdity. And remember, most of the people who came here came legally, then their visa expired or whatever. So we need to pass a series of building blocks over the course of 1-2 years.
This is just common sense. The so-called “Dream Act” attempted to put the wrong policies in place and empower Democrat politicians, and went against common sense and the will of the people. That is why it was defeated. We need a good common sense immigration law as outlined above. The Dream Act would give citizenship to illegals and allow them to jump past those that are patiently waiting in line and obeying the law. We CANNOT do that, it is unfair and immoral to those people who are doing what is right. The Dream Act was designed by politicians to be defeated, so they could use it to demagogue the issue. We are all immigrants but we came here legally. The other problem with open borders is the threat to homeland security. If we don’t know who is streaming across the border, how do we know if we are letting the next terrorist in? We need to check out who is coming in. We don’t want a terrorist to come across our border, and kill 10 or 20 thousand Americans in a mass attack. At that point liberal Christians will say “Let us pray for God’s peace and understanding for the families of the victims…”
We don’t want to have to pray for victims…we want to PREVENT the next attack by checking the background of people attempting to enter the country.
The term “social justice” is just an innocuous phrase to most people. To many Christians, it just means “fairness” and it is used as a substitute for "outreach to the poor." This is what Jesus commands us as individuals to do: help the poor, reach out to the weak and helpless, protect the innocent children, born and unborn.
The problem arises when some try to pervert and hijack the term "social justice", and somehow try to force redistribution of wealth on people, with a hostility toward individual property rights. They sometimes do this under the guise of charity or justice, but this corrupts true charity because it takes away the personal one of one helping of Christian charity. None of us feel very “charitable” on April 15th when the government raises our taxes, then proceeds to waste our tax dollars through fraud and redundant programs that the government has no business running.
If your church is promoting a liberation theology style "social or economic justice," you should run from it or at least get educated on what progressives mean by this.
Here's a simple rule of thumb: Make sure your church puts God first and politics and government last. Here are the clear warning signs: "social justice" or "economic justice" or "ecological justice." If these so-called church leaders start attacking capitalism and promoting socialist or communist ways, stay far away.
So to be clear: Some people look at social justice as going out on mission and going out and doing good works for God. That's great — as long as you are personally, or in a church group, representing the hands and feet of Jesus here on earth. If your church leaders or anyone else starts promoting a government-bloated program, steer clear!
Posted in: Immigration Reform: Synod, Obama, and You?
Hi Ken! Thank you for posting and you asked a good question. I joined because I wonder how other churches do things and I wanted to find out! I think it is important to ask questions and compare notes with other Christians across the CRC, whether they are down the street or across the country. I assume you and others are doing ministry just like me, so I want to ask for help, share my experience, and connect and learn with others!
I think there are various viewpoints and policies that all say they are working toward the same goals. The Christian community should not follow one political party or the other blindly, we should examine every policy from a Christian perspective, using our God given minds and our God given logic and ability to reason and look at history and empirical evidence. We should explore and discuss and make sure the policies we are promoting are actually doing what they say they will do. If we just support a policy because it makes us feel good, or it is politically correct, but doesn't actualy help the poor or powerless, then I don't think we should support those policies.
Why did you join?