 |
 |
|
"Adam committed high treason; and at that point, all the dominion and authority God had given tohim was handed over to Satan. Suddenly, God was on the outside looking in...After Adam's fall, God found Himself in a peculiar position...God needed an avenue back into the earth...God laid out His proposition and Abram accepted it. It gave God access to the earth and gave man access to God...Technically, if God ever broke the Covenant, He would have to destroy Himself." -- Kenneth Copeland |
|
 |  |
News: Christianity Today: Second Coming Ecology
Posted on Monday, July 21 @ 14:34:42 PDT by Virgil |
|
Sunday morning, May 18, 1980, my children were leaving the little Presbyterian church in College Place, Washington, where they had been attending a program. They looked up at the sky, and a verse they had read in the Bible leapt to their minds. Jesus said that in the last days, the sun would be darkened, and the moon would not give its light. The sky was so preternaturally dark that my girls thought that the end of the world was upon us. They joined hands and ran the several blocks to our home.
What had happened was the deadliest and most economically destructive volcanic event in U.S. history. Mount St. Helens had blown its dome, killing 57 people and destroying 250 homes, 47 bridges, 15 miles of railway, and 185 miles of highway. The ash cloud darkened our skies, and the nasty stuff settled on our houses and yards and cars, making it impossible to drive without clogging the air intakes and harming the engines.
It was tricky to cope with the event for the next few weeks, but the damage near our home was minor compared with what people in western Washington had to deal with. But for my little girls—for just a moment—it was the end of the world.
Christians have consistently been end-of-the-world people, with at least one eye on matters related to eschatology or "last things"—final judgment, the second coming of Christ, death and the resurrection of the dead, the renewal of Creation, and the coming of God's rule in its fullest and most visible expression. Yet contemporary realities have forced Christians to explore what it means to be an anticipatory people with a strong orientation to these last things when facing environmental degradation, and perhaps even environmental disaster.
Too Future-Minded to be of Present Good?
It's often said that many Christians—particularly evangelical Christians—don't care for the environment precisely because they are so focused on end times. If God is going to come and destroy all this anyway, why should we invest our energies in preserving it? A frequently cited example is James Watt, an evangelical believer and former Secretary of the Interior during the Reagan administration. Here is one account: "James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, 'After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.'"
To many minds, this succinct quote effectively sums up the attitudes of evangelicals, except for one crucial fact: James Watt didn't say that. This oft-repeated quote comes from a journalist who didn't bother to confirm something that he read on the Internet.
What did James Watt actually say? The only time he gave public testimony about the relationship between his Christian beliefs and care for the environment was in February 1981, in response to Oregon Democrat Jim Weaver, before a House subcommittee on the environment.
Mr. Weaver: I believe very strongly that we should not … use up all the oil that took nature a billion years to make in one century.
We ought to leave a few drops of it for our children, their children. They are going to need it … I wonder if you agree, also, in the general statement that we should leave some of our resources—I am now talking about scenic areas or preservation, but scenic resources for our children? Not just gobble them up all at once?
Secretary Watt: Absolutely. That is the delicate balance the Secretary of the Interior must have, to be a steward for the natural resources for this generation as well as future generations.
Click to read the rest of this article
|
| |
 |
^^Go to Top - E-mail to Friend - Print - View PDF - Subscribe - Comments RSS
Re: Christianity Today: Second Coming Ecology (Score: 1)
by Ed on Monday, July 21 @ 17:48:23 PDT (User Info | Send a Message) | There's so much wrong with this article that I think an entire article correcting its errors would be necessary. Since I have no time to do so, I'll leave it to others. I will, however, point out a couple of obvious flaws - one theological, one economic, and one environmental.
First, theologically we are told by the author that we need to "live with a theology of limits." A consistent preterist can see how erroneous this statement is; redemption is complete, all is fulfilled, man is no longer at enmity with God - there are no limits. That's the theology that we Christians need to embrace - the unlimited grace, pleasure, passion, prosperity, forgiveness, mercy and joy of God. Only "wilderness Christians" (to quote Tim Martin), who believe they still live in the wilderness, awaiting entry into the Promised Land, can believe such tripe. Those who realize that the Promised Land has been entered, the kingdom restored, the fullness poured out upon the whole world, cannot believe in limits. The possibilities are endless; unlimited.
The second quick point is economic. If you want to see environmental degradation, go to socialistic countries. Without the mechanism of private property, there is nothing to keep the government from trashing the environment for its own benefit. Private property, and the economic theory which is based upon it (capitalism) compels the owner of the resource/property to care for it; either for his/her own enjoyment, or for the economic benefit of it. Either way, ONLY people with an economic interest in something seeks to protect it.
Finally, environmentally we must wake up to the fact that the single NATURAL eruption of a volcano did more environmental damage than years of automobiles and other "man-made" environmental degradations. Yet, after only a few short years, the area which was devasted by Mount St. Helens had recovered and began thriving once more. The earth's own natural processes, put in place and controlled by God, do far more damage than the supposed damage done by evil Westerners.
Am I saying that we should not care for the environment? Heaven forbid. We have all the more reason to care for it - by advocating private property, free markets, technology advancement, etc. As a more environmentally conscious public demands products which are "environmentally friendly" (like biodegradable soaps, etc.), more products will come to market, more companies will find cleaner ways to produce and distribute their products, we'll find new ways to create cleaner energy, and more efficiency which presumably is better for the environment. All these things will be demanded by a more fully informed public, a public that lives in "the new world" of the kingdom of God; both citizens and foreigners. It is the LIMITLESS thinking that will drive us to a cleaner and better world, not government mandates meant to cripple free markets and steal private property away from its owners. We, as preterist Christians, must be on the leading edge of the new paradigm. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by tom-g on Tuesday, July 22 @ 09:25:00 PDT
- by plymouthrock on Tuesday, July 22 @ 10:28:45 PDT
- by tom-g on Tuesday, July 22 @ 11:49:27 PDT
- by davo on Tuesday, July 22 @ 15:04:31 PDT
- by Ed on Tuesday, July 22 @ 15:30:27 PDT
- by Ed on Saturday, July 26 @ 07:24:14 PDT
- by Virgil on Tuesday, July 22 @ 10:56:59 PDT
- by JL on Tuesday, July 22 @ 11:23:31 PDT
- by tom-g on Tuesday, July 22 @ 11:56:03 PDT
- by JL on Tuesday, July 22 @ 13:29:20 PDT
- by tom-g on Tuesday, July 22 @ 14:03:46 PDT
- by Virgil on Tuesday, July 22 @ 14:13:27 PDT
- by plymouthrock on Tuesday, July 22 @ 18:44:47 PDT
- by Ed on Tuesday, July 22 @ 15:19:02 PDT
- by Starlight on Tuesday, July 22 @ 16:03:22 PDT
- by Ed on Tuesday, July 22 @ 18:18:27 PDT
- by tom-g on Tuesday, July 22 @ 16:06:55 PDT
- by Ed on Tuesday, July 22 @ 17:01:25 PDT
- by tom-g on Tuesday, July 22 @ 19:15:47 PDT
- by Ed on Tuesday, July 22 @ 19:25:07 PDT
- by tom-g on Tuesday, July 22 @ 22:32:39 PDT
- by Ed on Wednesday, July 23 @ 04:13:43 PDT
- by judge on Sunday, July 27 @ 03:36:02 PDT
- by Ed on Sunday, July 27 @ 05:26:17 PDT
- by judge on Sunday, July 27 @ 16:11:53 PDT
- by Ed on Sunday, July 27 @ 17:17:21 PDT
- by judge on Sunday, July 27 @ 21:26:59 PDT
- by Ed on Monday, July 28 @ 06:43:14 PDT
- by judge on Monday, July 28 @ 21:30:24 PDT
- by Ed on Sunday, July 27 @ 06:09:20 PDT
Re: Christianity Today: Second Coming Ecology (Score: 1)
by Ed on Saturday, July 26 @ 07:45:24 PDT (User Info | Send a Message) | The saga continues. In an earlier post, our good friend tom-g made claims of his debates with Sennholz, the unnamed current head of FEE (who wouldn't know the name of the man you debated), and someone named Dr. Wayne Gabel, the supposed head of CSE. This last debate is alleged to have occurred at a recent CPAC meeting.
Well, in the interest of gaining knowledge (since tom-g insists that I don't know anything about economics, and am mislead by these free-market "global socialists"), I looked up the CPAC website, and could find no record of Dr. Gabel speaking there, and in addition, no mention of Tom. So, I went to CSE's websites (they have two), and searched for this "head of CSE," Dr. Wayne Gabel, and found no record of him at either of their sites.
Since tom-g's qualification (he's mentioned these debates before) as an economist is based on these debates, I'd love to read them. If indeed he has shown Richard Ebeling (the President of FEE), Dr. Sennholz, and this phantom Dr. Gabel a thing or two about economics, perhaps he could enlighten the rest of us with the transcripts of these debates/discussions. After all, if he made such an impact, it would be nice to know what great truths he imparted to such lesser men as he.
Yes, this post is dripping with sarcasm. I seriously doubt that Tom's "debates" with these giants of economic intellectual thought were mere questions asked at the end of a speech, OR as in the case of Dr. Gabel, regardless of who he actually is, a dinner table discussion. I am also certain that their response to his assertions are similar to mine: incredulity.
IF, on the other hand, Tom can make these transcripts (or videos) available, I'll listen with an open mind to the dialogue. Otherwise, I'll start dropping names, as he does, of the people that I have e-mailed, or with whom I have discussed economics in the past. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Ed on Saturday, July 26 @ 07:47:00 PDT
- by tom-g on Sunday, July 27 @ 11:49:06 PDT
- by Ed on Sunday, July 27 @ 17:41:12 PDT
- by tom-g on Thursday, July 31 @ 07:05:26 PDT
|
|