Fear Not Global Warming
by Candice Watters on 05/29/2007 at 5:24 PM
I've read with ongoing interest, and dismay, the volume of reader comments in favor of radical efforts to address so-called global warming. The consensus among readers seems, strangely enough, to be that the Boundless staff is daft for not jumping on the climate-change-crisis bandwagon. Such hysterics is a prime example of why it's so important to know history. Regardless of what the science really says, and what does or doesn't eventually happen to the polar ice caps and oceans, we relinquish our liberties for the purported "greater good" at our own peril.
I'm happy to have a copy of a new book on the subject and eager to jump into it. It's called Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. I'm planning to write a review of it for Boundless.org, just as as soon as I meet my own book deadline (another subject for another day).
In the meantime, I was reading Edith Schaeffer's, A Way of Seeing, and found her chapter about fear a welcome reminder of how we Christians should respond to all potential catastrophes. She said,
Our Father in heaven ... knows that our energies, time, emotions, conscious thought, and creative possibilities can be nibbled at, wasted, or even destroyed by being "afraid of sudden fear." Don't we see how fantastic is God's understanding, as He shows us how we are so often afraid of fear unknown, unnamed -- a nebulous, floating thing we are apt not to recognize, and which therefore eats away at us, spoiling what we could be right now, because of what we fear in the future? The word comes sharply to us -- "Don't!" We are not to waste our time being afraid of something, although it may come suddenly and will be real at the moment it does come.
Whatever your thoughts on the evidence, or lack thereof, of global warming, if you claim to be a follower of Christ, what you must not be is afraid. And certainly you must not make decisions or take actions based on fear. God's Word is clear,
Be not afraid of sudden fear, neither of the desolation of the wicked, when it cometh. For the Lord shall be thy confidence, and shall keep they foot from being taken" (Proverbs 3:25,26).
Of course I'm eager to see the believers in global warming stop letting their fears drive their politics. But equally important is overcoming my own fear that such fear-driven politics will prevail.
1. Anna said the following at 5:34 PM on May 29:
Very good point. :)
2. Jonathan from Canada said the following at 5:34 PM on May 29:
I am pro climate change because without it, North America would still be in an ice age.
On the other hand, I also support the efforts of climate change alarmists to voluntarily stop driving cars, using electricity, and divest all investment from carbon producing businesses. They should try to convince me of the merits of their arguments instead of trying to impose it via the force of the state.
Then again, with China, India, and Brazil exempt from anti-GHG initiatives, all that's happening in the West is self flagellation. For every gigaton we cut back over the next few decades, those countries will produce a few more.
3. Jethro said the following at 5:40 PM on May 29:
I don't know that I would characterize the responses of Boundless readers as favoring "radical efforts" re global warming. Unless merely accepting the fact of global warming is radical? In Boundless' eyes it seems that it is though.
As for 'relinquishing our liberties for the greater good'. Well, that's just called the social contract, it's not a new concept and I hate to burst your bubble Candice, but we are all doing it already.
4. Leah said the following at 5:40 PM on May 29:
Heh. I certainly haven't jumped on that bandwagon either. It's quite clear that the earth IS heating up- but it's also quite clear that humans are responsible for only a minute amount of it. There are so many other factors, including the sun heating up, the sun enlarging (yes, it is, one day it'll explode if judgment day doesn't come first)... I mean, just because Earth is heating up does not make it our fault. Mars is heating up too (hence its ice caps melting) and Jupiter is also heating up. We are not responsible for those so why assume we're responsible for earth's heating?
Obviously we are responsible for some of it, but the truth of the matter is, carbon emissions etc etc are responsible for something like less than 5% of warming. A huge amount of "greenhouse gases" are naturally-occuring.
Like the title of your book suggests, the Earth has been undergoing warming and cooling phases for thousands of years now. What do we think caused the ice age? A dramatic drop in temperature. Was that humans' fault? What about before then? We know that there used to be tropical rainforests in far north america and far south Australia, so the Earth clearly was once warmer than it is now. Was that humans' fault too?
People need to stop and think that perhaps this is a natural cycle that will happen whether humans are around or not.
5. JB said the following at 6:26 PM on May 29:
Of course appealing to fear is always a popular course in politics, but I see the discourse about global warming as far less fear-based than the discourse on other issues. Aside from arguments that global warming might cause an increase in hurricanes, there isn't much claim that you and I are in personal danger from the Al Gore camp. His case seems to be more of the, "The possible effects of warming are very bad, so we ought to do something about it" variety.
On the other hand, the discourse about the "war on terrorism" from the right is unremittingly alarmist. Fox News can't go a day without a story telling us that Osama bin Laden wants to eat our babies. Remember how the Bush administration invoked the image of a mushroom cloud over American cities when they wanted to invade Iraq? Fear seemed to be the entire basis of Bush's re-election campaign. Just the other day, Bush told a reporter who asked him a question about war policy that terrorists wanted to kill his (the reporter's) children. It seems to me that the Republican party is absolutely terrified in a way that environmental groups are not.
Of course, I wouldn't expect you to criticize Republicans . . . except for Giuliani.
6. k. said the following at 6:27 PM on May 29:
For my part, I'm interested and dismayed at the way you guys repeatedly scoff about global warming, and disparage those who dare to be Christians and still disagree with you (the nerve!).
At a certain point, if enough people in your own camp disagree with you, it's worth exploring and reevaluating your stance. Your readers are presumably by and large evangelicals, politically conservative, etc. In other words, they're like you. And yet, apparently a significant number of us differ from you on the "global warming bandwagon." Have you asked yourselves why? Frankly, I doubt very much that all of us are Chicken Littles, running around squawking that the sky is falling, help help help! Rather, we're realistically concerned about a very real problem. At the very least, this topic gives us leeway for legitimate differences of opinion among believers.
As the saying goes, you're not paranoid if they're really out to get you--being concerned about something that is a legitimate problem, and wanting to fix it, is hardly being a slave to fear.
Believe in global warming or don't--that's your privilege. But don't slam the rest of for daring to disagree with you. As far as I know, God has not installed a direct line into your offices. This means that, just like the rest of us, you are fallible beings who are capable of being completely mistaken (although well-intentioned) about global warming and the environment. And perhaps we people who believe global warming is a pressing concern are wrong...time will tell. However, you come across as being both condescending and demeaning when you complain that readers, "strangely enough," go into "such hysterics."
7. Sam said the following at 6:47 PM on May 29:
I would completely agree that *fear* of disaster should not drive a Christian to do something, such as take care of the planet to avoid global warming.
Rather, for a Christian, the motivation must be the responsibility and obligation to be a good steward.
Just as you would feed your child food -- even though you know God is sovereign and you need not fear -- so you should also take care to look after the earth and it's creatures.
(All IMHO).
8. Laura said the following at 7:01 PM on May 29:
Candice, it would help me to better understand the Boundless staff's perspective if someone could explain why it doesn't make sense to take proactive steps to avoid a situation that seems to the vast majority of people who are truly educated on this subject (namely, the climate change scientists) to be an obvious end. I don't think there's anything wrong with recognizing a threat and taking steps to prevent that problem. If my family and I live in tornado alley, we buy a house that's made of brick, and we dig a storm shelter. That doesn't mean we're hysterical, fearful, or being driven by a trend of the day. It means that we're using the minds God gave us to be sensible, and do our part to avoid future destruction.
It would also help me to understand why the Boundless staff thinks that pro-environmental policies on the part of the government constitute a threat to our liberties. There's a big difference between limiting freedom of speech or of religious expression and taking steps to ensure that the water we all have to drink drink and the air we all have to breathe is clean.
9. Jordan Peacock said the following at 7:24 PM on May 29:
While I don't agree with most of the political arguments presented here, when scriptures are exegeted you do a consistent, quality job.
Fear is not the calling of the people of God. This has implications that shatter our personal, professional and cultural lives. Candice here asks about living environmentally without fear: not without wisdom or respect, but without FEAR.
The distinction is crucial. Love triumphs over fear, and we too triumph as we cling to God & the love that emanates from God instead of the petty fears, be they of embarassment, national struggles or environmental disaster.
I read a note from Rosseau that addresses fear and freedom and with it, will close. Rosseau is referring to those who fight for political liberty, but the lesson has broader implications.
"I know that [civilized men] do nothing but boast incessantly of the peace and repose they enjoy in their chains.... But when I see [barbarous man] sacrifice pleasures, repose, wealth, power, and life itself for the preservation of this sole good which is so disdained by those who have lost it; when I see animals born free and despising captivity break their heads against the bars of their prison; when I see multitudes of entirely naked savages scorn European voluptuousness and endure hunger, fire, the sword, and death to preserve only their independence, I feel it does not behoove slaves to reason about freedom."
10. John said the following at 7:47 PM on May 29:
I don't fear global warming. I'm firmly convinced that, even if some warming is occurring (like one degree or something), most if not all of it can be attributed to causes other than man-made greenhouse (so-called) gasses.
Cyclical warming is one factor; from c. 1000-1400 grapes were grown in northern Europe, and the Norsemen colonized Greenland. (Hint: why do you think they called it Greenland instead of "Solid White Wasteland of Ice"?)
Also, volcanic emissions of gas can have a far greater effect on the climate than man-made gasses. A large volcanic eruption occurred in 1815; the following year was the "Year Without A Summer" in which frost was reported on the ground in Virginia on the Fourth of July and crops suffered because of frigid temperatures and snow.
Whatever the state of the climate may be, the current greenhouse hysteria is being driven by those who profess love for the environment but are at heart socialists who hate capitalism and modern civilization. Their type has been characterized as "Watermelon Environmentalists" -- green on the outside, red on the inside. The goal of the Kyoto Protocol is the subsuming of the United States'economy into a one-world socialist government and economy. (Note that the Kyoto Protocol imposes looser restrictions on India and China than the United States, as if their pollution didn't hurt the atmosphere as much as ours.)
When you hear political propaganda, consider the source. Look behind the rhetoric and try to figure out the speaker's motivation and agenda. And remember what Hitler knew -- that if you repeat the big lie often enough, people will accept it as truth.
For the foregoing reasons, I remain entirely skeptical of the global warming hysteria, even as sultry temperatures descend upon the East Coast of the U.S. and make me sweat.
11. Ted Slater said the following at 9:36 PM on May 29:
Laura -- read the following post I wrote a while back on Global Warming: A Global Warming Primer.
That explains that "clean water and clean air" is a TOTALLY different subject from global warming and greenhouse gases. Environmentalism/conservationism is TOTALLY different from talk of anthropogenic global warming.
For what it's worth, more and more scientists are rejecting the current fad that humans are the primary cause of global warming. Some day it'll be obvious to all that Al Gore et al. were just plain wrong in their alarmism.
12. Keb said the following at 9:48 PM on May 29:
It occurs to me that my generation has been taught since childhood how important the environment is. I was 9 years old in 1989. That was the year the Berlin Wall fell. I have no memory of anyone even mentioning it to me. Yet I very clearly remember studying the Exxon Valdez oil spill for weeks at school. Now as an adult, I wonder about the difference.
It's very true that we need to care for our resources and not take things for granted. Enacting short-sighted legislation to try and force this care isn't the answer, however, and scare tactics to make it the only viable answer aren't helping science to construct real solutions to environmental issues.
Interestingly, while reading some articles about global warming, I came across a study that indicates the obesity epidemic may be related to the use of certain plastics.
13. xeres said the following at 10:04 PM on May 29:
k, Candice isn't trying to be condecseneding. She is trying to say that whether Global Warming exists or not, significance is more important than mere survival. As Christians, we need to stop living for just mere survival and start living like as if the Lord is coming. All of us Christians should be preparing for the Secong Coming by living patiently while make most of the moments God gave you for his Glory. Since Jesus left Earth to Heaven, we always have been living in the end times. We will never know when Jesus is coming. Mere survival and self-preservation shouldn't be the primary motive for taking care of the environment, which is why I am uncomfortable about this whole GW thing being the primary motive for taking care of the environment. If anyone wants to know my opinion on GW, I have no standing on it.
14. xeres said the following at 10:49 PM on May 29:
Here's my insight on the environment.
http://thoughtsflyingthrough.blogspot.com/2007/03/effect-of-worldview-in-biology-part-1.html.
Hope this insight is helpful regarding the environment, to have perspective.
15. Jethro said the following at 11:45 PM on May 29:
K,
Bravo. Well said.
16. Holly said the following at 8:11 AM on May 30:
A couple of years ago, our conservative and Christian leaders told us there was no such thing as global warming.
Today, our Christian leaders (or emissaries thereof, like the Boundless staff) are telling us that there IS global warming, but it's natural and not man-made.
A couple of years from now, there will be some other argument. Perhaps, "There IS global warming, and it IS man-made, but the solution isn't regulation...it's even MORE money to corporations! Offer the first corporation to provide a viable 'treatment' for it, uh, no taxes in perpetuity! Yeah! Capitalism is the solution to everything! Jesus, whose contemporary followers shared everything in common, says so!"
Looking at the unsaved among my co-workers, neighbors, cousins, and friends, I know only one person for whom the merging of Christianity and conservative politics has not been a serious impediment to hearing the Gospel. (He is a libertarian and an atheist.) I doubt anyone -- especially Ted or Motte -- cares, but do you realize how your political rhetoric, especially when it gets to be what just about anyone (abortion bliss) would call extreme -- interferes with hearing the gospel? I know four -- FOUR -- women who had abortions at Planned Parenthood. All are desperately wounded. Unfortunately, I mentioned at a lunchtime Bible study where three were present that I was enjoying this blog. Now I PRAY they never decide to surf over here and read about "Planned Parenthood Abortion Bliss" -- what could be more of a spitting in the face to a wounded soul than that?
Did Jesus command us to go and make Republican voters out of all nations? Perhaps I've been mis-reading that verse all these years.
17. Jessica said the following at 8:15 AM on May 30:
After reading several of these posts, I have to say several things:
1.) While this website may have disagreement about whether or not global warming is a real problem or whether or not it's hype or hysteria, I think it is also fair to say that we are not to live in fear as Christians, I would also like to say that we are not to live irresponsible lives and we are to be good stewards over EVERYTHING that God has given us. In many ways, I believe that there are deeper issues here than simply global warming. I would rather talk about how issues about the environment underscores the problem of taking care of each other and taking care of the environment we live in. That is not to say that I put the environment above my own survival or my family's. But just because the Earth is God's and He is Sovereign and the does NOT give mankind the excuse of using its resources for our own glory instead of God's. The last time I checked, using the Earth's resources to kill each other, oppress each other, and to satisfy a lust for power didn't qualify as glorifying God.
2.) Even if you took away the global warming argument, there is still need for Christians to be good stewards over the environment. But let me be clear: just because I care about the environment as a Christian doesn't mean that I don't care about what's going on in my country and the world. I am tired of Christians bashing each other for caring about the environment. Not everyone who cares about the environment is someone that would put the environment over human life.
So bottom line, my questions for Boundless are the following:
Does Boundless take the position that Christian's shouldn't care about the environment?
What are the political priorities for Boundless in ranking? Does caring for the environment actually make Christians "soft" on other issues?
18. Tuckster2000 said the following at 9:10 AM on May 30:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the post doesn’t seem to be about ‘global warming’ per se; rather, my impression is that Candice is simply using global warming as a springboard to address the broader topic of fear in the life of a Christian. If so, fine; it’s a valid point.
Still, the problem is that Candice appears to conflate ‘fear’ with ‘appropriate concern and responsibility’. It’s true that when disasters happen, we should trust God and not fear. It’s also true that disasters *happen* – and we should be prepared for them.
There is a vast difference between being ‘afraid’ and being ‘responsible’. Calling anti-global warming politics ‘fear-driven’ is simply inaccurate and is not conducive to fruitful discussion.
19. cn said the following at 10:01 AM on May 30:
if you want to look at history you also have to realize that no one has ever burned as much fossil fuel as we have from the industrial revolution until now. and there are consequences for that. just as adam and eve's sin corrupted the earth, our sin continues to hurt it. recognizing that cycle is not a fear issue, is a cause and effect issue. if we dam up a river to create a lake, yes, its going to effect an eco system somewhere else. if we dump trash into the ocean, yes, its going to affect coral reefs. if we continue to burn fuels, yes, its going to affect air quality. even if there is a 1500 year cycle of warming and cooling, that's not to say that we don't need to recognize that our actions have consequences, even when it pretains to the environment. lets work with the creation God gave to us instead of against it.
20. xeres said the following at 10:35 AM on May 30:
holly, you are sure harsh.....:(. I understand but having disagreement isn't a bad thing. We as Christians shouldn't live for just mere survival and self-preservation, Holly. We are sons and daugthers of God, being remade in the process. That's why this GW debate thing does more harm than good. I think GW should never be a primary factor on whether we should take care of the environment in the first place. I care for the enviroment but we should be live patiently while practicing the spiritual discipline of simplicity. Are we so impatient that if things don't change as fast as we like them, we started taking anger on our siblings in Christ, which will break God's heart in the process.
Holly, I understand your frustation with some things in Boundless. However, don't fall into the temptation of self-righteous confrontation. I do seen some staff members fall into that in some of their post but that doesn't mean you do the same either.
The quotation says it quite nicely, "Probably, the best criterion for determining whether our confrontation is compassionate rather than offense and our anger rigtheous rather than self-righteous, is to ask ourselves if we ourselves can be so confronted."
21. Caleb said the following at 10:56 AM on May 30:
Candice et al,
It's difficult to have a legitimate debate or discussion on global warming when so much of the commentary is phrased in ways like "all climatologists agree" or "whatever you think about global warming, SUV drivers are bad," etc. The problem with much of this discussion is that it's not nuanced. Plenty of environmental scientists disagree on the question of 1) global warming at all 2) the causes for it. Just recently a prominent French scientist who actually coined the term global warming wrote about his own newfound skepticism of the issue. Furthermore, "fixing" global warming, if it exists, is not a simple matter of changing lightbulbs and driving less. It's a multi-trillion dollar expenditure that - even if fully implemented - would likely at best have a marginal effect on the environment. That's the real problem - for the Sheryl Crow's of the world - any price is worth paying to prevent climate change - but that's something we can debate about.
One other thing - counting up posts on a blog pro or con is probably not a very accurate way of getting a feel for your reader's viewpoints. Lots of people will read and agree or disagree without saying anything - and since it's often in our nature to be contrarion - I'd imagine people are more likely to post if they disagree than if they agree...however, that's not a claim that can be quantified.
Regards,
22. Phoebe said the following at 11:09 AM on May 30:
I have not read much to convince me one way or the other on the GW controversy. But my common sense has me a lot more concerned about pollution and waste, the traditional concerns of conservative conservationists, (including my own grandfather). Pollution is something that has and will continue affect the quality of our peoples' lives and the health of nature. I agree that air pollution, leading to supposed global warming, is bad, but I'm more worried about chemical pollution. I've heard that the rivers in China are any color but natural! I continue to be amazed at the consumerism of daily life in America. The tons and tons of trash caused by disposable food-wrappers and boxes is amazing to me. Can anyone who knows more about this than me back me up in saying that this is where we should devote our energies?
23. Holly said the following at 12:54 PM on May 30:
Oh, xeres, you're probably right. My frustration level skyrockets when Christian leaders are far more of an impediment to bringing unsaved family and friends to know the Lord than their secular university educations, media consumption, etc., is, and the situation only seems to be getting worse.
Almost every unsaved person under the age of 25 that I know (and I am a black belt in a martial art, so I spend a LOT of time around unsaved teenagers and college-age folks) has NO conception of Christianity apart from conservative politics. They HONESTLY believe that "register as a Republican" is part of the steps to salvation. They can't or won't do that, for infinite reasons, so they think that means they cannot even consider the claims of Christ. We are losing an entire generation because they disagree with us on gay marriage or the morality of pre-emptive war.
May God have mercy on us for conflating a set of political ideas with the truth that saves men's souls. They are not the same thing.
24. JenR said the following at 1:01 PM on May 30:
How is it that panic about GW must be the same as being conscious about preserving the environment? Is it not a different facet? I am all for recycling to keep waste at bay; carpooling and biking (and walking!) to preserve resources; building smaller houses and having more land; keeping rivers and bodies of water chemical free; and so forth.
However, I don't see how America (or the rest of the world) is suddenly going to save us from GW even if every plan goes into action. I admit, I am of the "it is a natural cyclical change" camp. I won't deny that the earth is warming (although I scoffed that idea this winter, when we in Colorado experienced one of the snowiest winters in a long time!). But I don't see how we humans are heating up the earth to such extremes (and how in the world are we humans reaching the sun, which is warming as well? Do we now blame ourselves for Sun Warming?).
I am not a scientist, but an historian -- so I am reminded of the "Medieval Warm Period" (when the aforementioned Vikings colonized Greenland) and the "Little Ice Age" (when the Vikings left for warmer climates and helped settle one of the towns I used to live near in England). It's only been in the last couple hundred years that we've been growing out of that Little Ice Age -- so of course things are getting warmer, because, well, things were chillier than the norm back then.
Then again it could be argued that humans caused the Little Ice Age to end (perhaps that is the temp the earth is supposed to be!). It seems ridiculous to blame SUVs for the warming that occurred in the 1800s.
Lastly, I agree with those who have pointed out that this article is about not being a slave to sudden fear, merely using GW as a springboard. To requote Schaeffer (quoted by the OP): We are not to waste our time being afraid of something, although it may come suddenly and will be real at the moment it does come.
25. xeres said the following at 1:18 PM on May 30:
you got to be serious, Holly? They really believe that you have to be a republican to be saved? That's messed up. The Christian values should influence our political ideologies, not the other way around. We need serious help!!!
26. Holly said the following at 1:41 PM on May 30:
xeres -- I wish I was kidding. I recently invited a college sophomore to church and was flatly informed that his cousin was gay and there was nothing I or any other Christian could say to make him think his cousin was evil or bad and furthermore he thought George W. Bush was the worst President on the last 50 years so he really wouldn't be comfortable going to church, thanks anyway, he would see me at the sparring clinic. He has ZERO comprehension that the Christian faith or a Christian church could be anything but profoundly intermingled with conservative politics. And what was I supposed to tell him? "Dude, the Christian life is not about politics." And then what? When he responded with the 700 Club, Focus on the Family, Jerry Falwell, Ron Luce, Patrick Henry College, etc., etc., I could point to WHICH Christian leader or ministry who stays out of politics and focuses on salvation? Billy Graham was the only one I could think of, but his age and health remove him as a relevant figure for people born during the first George Bush administration.
People tend to become more politically conservative as they get older. Perhaps the kids I train with at my dojo have a shot at being reached that way, in 15 or 20 years. I hope so.
And my frustration level is shooting up again, so I will be ending my participation in this conversation. Thanks for making me take a step back, xeres.
27. Mark Willard said the following at 2:30 PM on May 30:
Holly, amen and amen. It's a sad, sad day when to so many people, being a Christian has more to do with whether or not your politics line up with James Dobson than whether or not you love Jesus and believe the Bible. I'm not saying this because I'm a liberal. I've voted straight Republican ticket in most elections I can remember. But I don't hold my political views as an article of my faith. And I don't believe you need to be politically conservative to be a faithful Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christian. (See Derek Webb and Donald Miller.) I believe Holly is 100% correct. The blurring of the terms "evangelical" and "Republican activist" is one of the most destructive things to happen to the American church in our generation. (And, I believe, indirectly led to the creation of the emergent church movement which is quickly moving into heretical territory.)
I could be wrong, but I think so much of the uproar over Boundless postings is due to some Boundless writers arguing for their political views as if they were arguing for Biblical theology. We have to know what's essential to the gospel and what isn't. If our political crusading is hindering our witness, it's time to re-prioritize.
28. Jethro said the following at 2:42 PM on May 30:
Holly,
Your experience accords very closely with my own. All non-Christians know of Christianity nowdays is that it's synonymous with the Republican party.
Really though, who can blame them. Almost everything we hear from organizations like Focus is political in nature. Check out Citizenlink.org and you can read articles that have no purpose but to deride democrats (ie the disgusting attack of Nancy Pelosi for flying in a private jet and not driving a hybrid car cross country). Or watch a video of Jerry Falwell talk about the 'myth of global warming'. Or listen to Al Mohler wax lyrical about the good old days of Reagan.
If Christians really cared about Christ they might think of taking a step back from politics.
29. Ted Slater said the following at 3:13 PM on May 30:
I think it's a cop-out for some of you to claim we're being "political," and then just write us off.
Of course we have opinions about how our elected representatives should legislate when it comes to things that directly affect ... families. We agree that they should enforce and enact laws protecting pre-born children, we believe they should protect the institution of marriage, we believe they should allow organizations to inform their constituents of various policies without undue red tape, and so on.
We at Focus on the Family are intent to both "nurture" family members and "defend" them -- something a large organization such as Focus tend to be able to do more effectively and efficiently than individuals.
Citizenlink.org emphasizes the "defend" side of the equation, while such ministries as Boundless emphasize the "nurture" side. Of course we are free, as Christians, to advocate certain policy preferences -- whether we're Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, or whatnot.
For those crying "politics!", I'd be interested to hear which policies Focus has supported that you disagree with. Surely you're not in favor of redefining marriage, encouraging abortion, and tying the hands of those who want to disseminate information to their constituents?
Jessica asks: "Does Boundless take the position that Christian's shouldn't care about the environment? What are the political priorities for Boundless in ranking? Does caring for the environment actually make Christians 'soft' on other issues?"
Jessica, I've never known a single Christian to advocate environmental carelessness. Please take a look at "A Global Warming Primer." As I've mentioned several times, I am among the many Christians who considers himself a conservationist. It's our responsibility to "tend the garden," as it were. It's not the top priority, but it is important.
30. Jethro said the following at 4:10 PM on May 30:
Ted,
No-one, least of all me, would deny you the right to express your political views. I think the problem arises when views are presented organizationally, as Focus does, and as the only acceptable position for a Christian.
The fact is, Christians disagree on alot of things. Some even hold contrary views on issues such as abortion, pre-marital sex and evolution.
Anyone reading sites like Citizenlink though could quite literally conclude that it is nothing but a mouthpiece for the Republican party. Alot of the language used on that site is deliberately inflammatory. Democrats are never on the left, but only the 'far left', gay people never have opinions, they have 'agendas', I could go on forever.
Anyway, the point is, many Christians and many Christian organizations like Focus advocate their position as the 'Christian position' and never stop to acknowledge that people of faith and good conscience can disagree. This upsets me and I know it upsets others. This is especially true when it comes to issues which Scripture doesn't even speak to, like global warming.
Ps. Out of curiosity, how do you see an ad hominem attack on Nancy Pelosi for flying in a government jet fit into Citizenlink's mission to defend?
31. Mark Willard said the following at 4:12 PM on May 30:
Ted, I'm not sure whether or not your last comment was aimed at me, but I'm not writing Focus off, and I don't disagree with hardly any of your politics, if at all. All I'm saying (and I think my previous comment made this clear) is that a Christian over-emphasis on politics has radically warped the public perception of Christians so that the word "evangelical" is now seen as little more than a euphemism for Republican activists. This has an enormous alienating effect on political liberals. This is especially true when so much of the rhetoric coming out of groups like Focus Action sounds very "us vs. them." The valiant defenders of the family vs. the evil, nasty liberals. What I'm asking for is more of an emphasis on the gospel and Jesus and the Bible, and less worshiping at the twin altars of "family values" and conservative politics (even though those things may be well and good in their place). If more Christians and Christian-organizations adopted a Jesus/gospel-centric worldview rather than a conservative/"family values"-centric worldview, I think we'd come across as a lot more palatable to those who have a much harder time w/ George W. Bush than Jesus.
32. k. said the following at 9:35 PM on May 30:
I don't want to make you feel more defensive, Ted, and I actually do understand where you're coming from. (I spent most of my life there.) But I also agree with Jethro and Mark W that FOTF is too political. It makes us look like we've confused Jesus with the Republican party.
I'm not sure if your question about what part of Focus's agenda we disagreed with was rhetorical?? Because I can tell you, if that would help. I vote in every election, but I'm a registered Independent who doesn't think that Republicanism is the de facto party for Christians. I think that separation between church and state is a good thing, and that it helps protect Christianity from becoming a state institution instead of a faith. I think Christians should focus on sharing the good news with others more than on helping politicians kiss babies and get into office. (I doubt very much that Jesus, who was so adamantly NOT focused on building an earthly kingdom while He was on earth, would approve of our intense focus on getting "our" representatives into office.) I am strongly pro-life. I think family is the building block of society, and that healthy ones are vital. While I don't want to redefine marriage, I also think that gay people deserve the same rights and protections in their relationships that we get in ours--this is a civil right, and more than that, it's the right thing to do. (God is a pretty big fan of justice.) Darfur weighs on my heart FAR more than the question of whether two adult men live together. I believe God created the world, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if He used evolution as part of that. I have the utmost respect for life, but I also think that our leaders overstepped their bounds in the Terri Schiavo case. I believe that as good stewards, we should be some of the first in line when it comes to environmental issues.
I realize you're probably ready to throw up by now. But I think what some of us are saying is that we *do* have different perspectives on political issues than Boundless/FOTF does, but that doesn't make us bad Christians or bad citizens. (Although I'm sure we're a minority among your readers.)
Fwiw, I am 100% Christian, saved by grace, and *so* grateful for a personal relationship with Jesus. I just think that people can be Christians without agreeing on every single political point or issue. So, there you go...I'll climb off my soapbox now! :)
33. Jethro said the following at 6:13 AM on May 31:
K,
Thank you for saying with great eloquence what I have been hopelessly trying to convey in my posts. Spot on. Bravo. Well done.
34. Tomi said the following at 8:38 AM on May 31:
Thanks K!
You pretty much summed up what I've been feeling and trying to say, albeit a little more sympathetically--thats probably why most of my posts don't make it through moderation anymore (for some reason I don't feel the need to sugar coat my points on the internet). Good job!
35. Paul said the following at 1:30 PM on May 31:
"Of course we have opinions about how our elected representatives should legislate when it comes to things that directly affect ... families. We agree that they should enforce and enact laws protecting pre-born children, we believe they should protect the institution of marriage, we believe they should allow organizations to inform their constituents of various policies without undue red tape, and so on."
That's great, and does Boundless also have opinions about some of the other things that directly affect families, like minimum wage increases, state-funded children's health insurance, and more affordable college education? I'm sure you do, so please blog about those things too.
36. Anissa said the following at 7:27 AM on Jun 1:
Great point! I don't know if I think Global Warming is actually happening or not...but i certainly see a need for people to be socially responsible in the midst of changing weather patterns which cause tragic natural disasters. But I think that as followers of Jesus there is nothing to be afraid of. God is taking care of the whole world and I think we would do well to remember that.
37. John said the following at 9:32 AM on Jun 1:
k et al,
The Republican party has historically been the most conservative and traditional of the two parties and thereby most closely aligned with Christian values.
Keeping the state government out of the church IS a good thing, but that's not what FOTF fights against. What they fight against is the ACLU brand of "separation", which is wholly unconstitutional, secular and anti-American and anti-Christian.
If FOTF didn't fight against the evils of society, particularly in the political arena, sharing the gospel will (not might, maybe or could) become illegal, especially if "hate" speech laws are advanced in this country.
The "our" representative comment is "so" unbiblical. The bible clearly commands us to pray for our leaders and in our democratic process, we are required to elect good leaders, otherwise bad leaders make bad laws that hurt people (to put it simply). To NOT get "our" representative elected is a sin.
God only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman. Any other "relationship" is sin, as such, our laws should not reward sinful behavior, such as homosexual "relationships".
Evolution (darwinistic macro type) IS CONTRARY TO THE BIBLE. So you should be surprised if that was used, because then there was death before sin, and if that is true, then death is not the result of sin.
38. John said the following at 10:25 AM on Jun 1:
k and her liberal friends,
The Republican party has historically been the most conservative and traditional of the two parties and thereby most closely aligned with Christian values.
Keeping the state government out of the church IS a good thing, but that's not what FOTF fights against. What they fight against is the ACLU brand of "separation", which is wholly unconstitutional, secular and anti-American and anti-Christian.
If FOTF didn't fight against the evils of society, particularly in the political arena, sharing the gospel will (not might, maybe or could) become illegal, especially if "hate" speech laws are advanced in this country.
The "our" representative comment is "so" unbiblical. The bible clearly commands us to pray for our leaders and in our democratic process, we are required to elect good leaders, otherwise bad leaders make bad laws that hurt people (to put it simply). To NOT try and get "our" representative elected is a sin.
God only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman. Any other "relationship" is sin, as such, our laws should not reward sinful behavior, such as homosexual "relationships".
Evolution (darwinistic macro type) IS CONTRARY TO THE BIBLE. So you should be surprised if that was used, because then there was death before sin, and if that is true, then death is not the result of sin.
Your opinions are unChristian, anti-Biblical and sinful. Christians do not have to agree on everything, but your lack of agreement in the areas you’ve written about shows a total disregard for thinking and believing like a CHRISTIAN, thinking and believing biblically, not simply disagreeing with other Christians.
If you’d like to be educated in how to think like a Christian I suggest you go here:
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/test/register.php
And if you'd like to be educated about conservative politics I suggest you go here:
www.townhall.com
39. k. said the following at 12:10 PM on Jun 1:
Hi John...
First of all, you don't get to determine whether I'm a Christian. That's God's call, not yours. (Thankfully!)
Now, let's get down to brass tacks. I got saved at age 5, grew up in a fundamentalist church, attended Christian school and then Christian college, and got a minor in bible (so much for not knowing what it says). I almost became a poli sci major in college because I was so interested in politics. I've been to Capitol Hill to meet my representatives and to watch Congress in action, and I can quote you both the preamble to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. My parents were quite conservative AND quite political, so I grew up accompanying my mom as she lobbied the state legislature for pro-life causes. "National Review" and William F. Buckley were routine reading in our house. I promise you, I do not need to be educated in either conservatism or Christianity. In fact, I'm willing to bet that I'm considerably more educated than you are on both topics.
Now, as far as Republicanism being the de facto "Christian" party: that is completely false. I've actually been a member of both parties: I grew up in a state where you had to be a member of a party to vote in that party's primaries. At that time, there were often NO Republicans running for office. So, I registered as a Democrat so I could vote for the pro-life candidates. Somehow, I have no doubt that Jesus approved of that.
Let me also remind you that this country provides certain rights to everybody, regardless of creed, color, etc. Those rights do not necessarily align with the bible, because we are a democracy, not a theocracy. For example, God disapproves strongly of both idolatry and witchcraft, but, in the US, we have a right to engage in both activities unmolested. In the same way, I believe that gay couples should have the same protections that the rest of us do.
Sorry John--you just got owned.
40. Ted Slater said the following at 12:16 PM on Jun 1:
K. -- I agree with you in your comment that those who act on their same-sex inclinations should have the same protections as the rest of us. They should, for example, be allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex who is of legal marrying age.
41. Mark Willard said the following at 12:17 PM on Jun 1:
John,
"The Republican party has historically been the most conservative and traditional of the two parties and thereby most closely aligned with Christian values."
Even if that's true, it seems exceedingly dangerous to me to support a party rather than supporting a position. For instance, I'm very pro-life. And that's an issue that's very important to me. So I'll support any candidate, regardless of party, on their pro-life-ness. Admittedly, Republicans tend to be more pro-life than Democrats. That doesn't mean we need to tow the Republican or "conservative" party line on every issue. And it certainly doesn't mean that Republican candidates are automatically "our" candidates. No matter their voting history, no politician is Jesus. They're flawed, sinful human beings. And our hope ultimately needs to be in Jesus, not in "our" candidate, whoever he/she is.
"If FOTF didn't fight against the evils of society, particularly in the political arena, sharing the gospel will (not might, maybe or could) become illegal, especially if "hate" speech laws are advanced in this country."
I'm not going to ask how you have definite foreknowledge of what would happen w/o FOTF, but either way, fighting "against the evils of society" does not necessitate identifying with the Republican party and hating Democrats. I think the Bible teaches to identify with Jesus, hate injustice and my own indwelling sin, and love everyone. Whether you believe it or not, it is possible to speak out against abortion, or injustice against the poor, or repression of our constitutional rights, or the redefinition of marriage without coming across as self-righteous, "us vs. them" and in general alienating to "politically liberal" non-Christians. The "trick" to simultaneously spreading the gospel and doing justice is living as if the gospel is true. If Jesus died to justify us, we don't need to justify ourselves by being right about our politics. Only when we grasp this can we argue for justice in a way that is loving and gracious and humble and kind. We can avoid ad hominem attacks because they're counterproductive, and we're not driven by a desire for "our side" to be right. In addition, the gospel will become the emphasis of our lives and ministry. When that happens, our passion for justice is more likely to be seen as an outflow of how we relate to God. In this case, we're not in danger of being thought of primarily as a front for the Republican party. When the opposite happens, to the outside world it can seem that (and sometimes actually is?) Jesus is merely a convenient figurehead to justify our political crusading, and his moral teachings are ripped out of their gospel-centered context in order to support our agenda.
42. k. said the following at 12:34 PM on Jun 1:
Ted--Oh, please. You seem intelligent enough to grasp the fact that legal protections are afforded to heterosexual married couples, that gay couples simply do not have. For example, we are able to speak on our husband's or wife's behalf if they become incapacitated. We can decide their course of treatment in the hospital, and even say who has access to them. And that's just for starters.
43. k. said the following at 1:18 PM on Jun 1:
Whoops--I decided I was too hasty when I responded to John and Ted. While I stand by everything I said, I could have phrased it a little more graciously.
So, John: I'm going to borrow from Voltaire, and say that I do not agree with a word you've said, but I would defend to the death your right to say it. (Obviously I wouldn't REALLY go that far, but you get the general idea.) Although I do have to add that I'm distinctly underwhelmed with both your arguments, and your way of expressing them.
And, Ted...you can do better than to post snarky responses saying that gays have the right to marry a straight person. Spouses have legal protections that gay couples simply do not have, and I think you know that.
44. Ted Slater said the following at 2:20 PM on Jun 1:
K. -- "Gays" (I don't like labeling people who experience same-sex attraction, which is why I put that term in quotes) are free to marry other "gays" in accordance with law and tradition. Of course, law and tradition dictate that that other person be of the opposite sex. They can't "marry" a dog, they can't marry a child, they can't marry two other people simultaneously, and they can't marry someone of the same sex. But they're free to enjoy the same rights heterosexual people have -- to marry someone of the opposite sex, "gay" or not.
You say that same-sex couples aren't able to speak on their "significant other's" (my term, not yours) behalf if they become incapacitated. That's absolutely not true. They can form a type of legal partnership that allows each other to represent each other in case of emergency. That law is already on the books. My in-laws, for example, have that kind of arrangement with their mother; it's not a right that only husband and wife can enjoy.
45. John said the following at 2:29 PM on Jun 1:
Ted, Motte and the rest of the Boundless crew...I'm sorry you have to put up with what you put up with, but in the name of Jesus, it will make a difference in eternity.
I've had a lot of time on my hands the last couple days, but I will probably not return here again. When posters write certain things, certain other things should be assumed, a poster shouldn't have to write like a lawyer in order to express a point. People here draw their own (illogical) conclusions without focusing on the actual point. That gets tiresome.
That being said, I give my 2 cents one more time.
1. Saying that the Republican Party has historically been the conservative and Christian party does not automatically imply that you always vote Republican or support all Republicans. (Bush has lost his mind as of late and the Republican Party deserved to be kicked out last election for, among other things, behaving too much like Democrats)
2. You do not have to be a prophet to know that the enemy will do anything to destroy souls. Russia, China and Cuba, among others, are examples of what happens when Christians do not or cannot prevent evil from ruling the country thereby preventing Christians from freely spreading the gospel, as we can here. If evil is allowed to spread, the preaching of the gospel will become illegal as it is in those countries.
3. When someone uses "quotes" that usually means their quoting someone. Hence, "our" was a quote from another post. "Our" candidates should be as close to the bible on as many issues as possible. That is our candidate. The "our" I used was obviously (or not) used with quotes to make a point.
4. Certain beliefs are wholly unbiblical. Socialism for example. State control over citizens to the nth degree, which is part of the GW agenda. Liberalism is another. Evolution, materialism, etc. If anything, this global warming nonsense is a distraction from what some here claim to be more important than identifying the gw scam as what it is, politically-driven environazism, the preaching of the gospel.
5. Like I said, this will most likely be my last post for a while, and I've spent a lot of time on this the past two days, but it appears to me that those who say they think preaching the gospel is the most important thing that anyone should be doing, spend way too much time here to be affectively spreading the gospel. Put your money where your mouth is.
6. Lastly, homosexual acts are sin. Conferring special "rights" to people who commit such acts is a sin. To believe otherwise is to believe something contrary to God's word. Condemning Christians for fighting against such evil says a lot about the people doing the condemning.
The world loves a christian who calls evil good and good evil. Wait, a Christian wouldn't do that! So the world loves its own and hates us for His sake.
46. k. said the following at 2:38 PM on Jun 1:
My point is that married (and hence straight) couples don't HAVE to make special legal arrangements to do that. They get that power by virtue of being married. However, even if a gay couple has been together 30 years and *want* to be each other's life partner, if they haven't made those special legal arrangements (whether it's because of procrastination, ignorance, an unwillingness to face mortality, etc), they can still be cut off from their partner's hospital room. And that, I think, should bother everybody who cares about justice.
47. Ted Slater said the following at 2:45 PM on Jun 1:
K. -- when I married my wife, I had to make legal arrangements to do so. I went to the city courthouse and filled out paperwork to make us legally able to do certain things that single adults are legally unable to do.
Similarly, gay couples may complete paperwork according to existing law enabling them to have certain rights that they otherwise would not have.
The process is very similar for both normal couples and same-sex couples. They just aren't currently allowed to redefine marriage. That's all.
48. k. said the following at 3:18 PM on Jun 1:
Hah -- if that "put your money where your mouth is" comment is directed at me, believe me, I'd LOVE to spend more time away from my computer right now. Unfortunately, being chained (figuratively!) to my laptop and having the Cold That Won't Die rules out a lot of other activities. :(
Of course you don't have to write like a lawyer. But, if you're going to engage in public debate, it *does* help to have 1) A solid grasp of your subject matter, 2) A sizeable logical streak, and 3) A willingness to attack the other person's arguments (not just the person!) in a reasonably constructive way. Especially when you're going up against people who feel strongly about an issue and have spent a lot of time considering it.
John, I didn't intend to "condemn" you, and I honestly don't think I have. We'll obviously never think alike on some issues, but I sincerely wish you well.
49. JB said the following at 3:24 PM on Jun 1:
Ted,
I know same sex couples who have tried to replicate the legal rights which come with marriage via other arrangements. The upshot is that while it is possible to more or less replicate these rights, it requires a lot of time with a lawyer and hence a lot of money (unlike getting married), and plenty of institutions, like hospitals, can and do disregard these legal arrangements on a whim. So in practice marriage remains a uniquely legally privileged state.
Also, let's not pretend that equality means being able to do exactly the same thing as your neighbor. I hear that Malaysia has religious equality - all people are permitted to worship Allah in a state-sanctioned mosque. Doesn't it seem odd that Malaysian Christians aren't satisfied?
50. Lilian said the following at 8:25 PM on Jun 14:
"Anyone reading sites like Citizenlink though could quite literally conclude that it is nothing but a mouthpiece for the Republican party. Alot of the language used on that site is deliberately inflammatory. Democrats are never on the left, but only the 'far left', gay people never have opinions, they have 'agendas', I could go on forever."
It's amazing how some Christians think their religious knowledge automatically gives them adequate knowledge of politics, law, biology.... these people would never talk authoritatively about, say mathematics or ophthamology if they weren't trained, yet I don't know how may times I've cringed as a minister holds forth (vaguely) on the 'third law of thermodynamics' and how it disproves evolution.