I have been seeing a lot of talk lately of worries in the church over women preachers, children in communion, and other things that are going on in the CRC. These are very valid things the church needs to be concerned about.

However, I have begun to become concerned over the lack of dialog about global warming. With our generation playing the most important role to date in the fight against global warming, it concerns me that the church has not made a stand in support of the fight against global warming. I blame this partially on the view that many seem to hold that global warming is not a big deal or does not exist. I have seen many people in the CRC have this stance on it and it worries me. As people CALLED to be stewards of God's creation we have a huge responsibility to protect the environment from being destroyed due to our own fault.

I think this issue needs to be dealt with by the church. (Something may have already been said about this, and I'm just behind the times, but if not...) It needs to put out a statement saying it takes a firm stand against the amount of pollution being put out. It is ridiculous that the church should ignore the harm that is being done to God's creation.

If anyone knows if such a statement exists, I just have not heard of anything that the church may have said on this topic.

Honestly, from the limited study I have done, as best I can tell Global Warming is 90% hype, and 9% natural cycles that God has put in place since the flood destroyed the earth. That leaves at most 1%, in my opinion, that we might in someway contribute to climate changes. What is happening is, we are leaving the last ice age (from 500 years ago or so??), the earth will continue to warm, and then it will head towards the next ice age cooling off again. If we really think we are so big and bad, that we can ruin God's whole plan for this world, then we have our thinking out of wack. Humans are tiny, and other than nuke warfare, there's very long term damage we can do.

Now, I am in favor of reducing pollution, and being stewards of what we've been given. Not for fear of doomsday global warming impact, but because we are called to by God to be stewards, and also because of the health implications pollution has on our society and us. Cancer and diseases are real threats. Global warming melting the poles off, and eating holes in the ozone layer is a figment of Al Gores imagination.

The last Ice Age wasn't 500 years ago, that would make it be 1500 that was an ice age, and I'm pretty sure that isn't correct. According to science, the last ice age was about 10,000 years ago.

Yes, natural cycles do give some explanation for what is happening, but the extreme amount to which it is happening is massively due to humans. We do more damage than you could even imagine. Have you ever looked at the effects of clear cutting in the Amazon region? Have you seen the effects of oil spills? These are all due to humans. We're the one that are killing off all our animal species and releasing tons of carbon into the air that causes global warming?

Here are some "fun" facts for you: Did you know the average American (yes, that's you) releases 15,000 POUNDS of Carbon per year? Let's do some math, there are more than 300,000,000 people in the United States. 15,000*300,000,000=4,500,000,000,000 pounds of Carbon into the atmosphere per year!!! That's just from the USA. We're only about 30% of the Earth's pollution. However, we are also the highest...

Your last paragraph also contradicts itself, by the way. You say we should be stewards because of the health implications and God tells us to. Well, if we reach another ice age as you say we will, then think about how many people on the Earth will die. That's a pretty severe health implication, and I don't think God would be too happy about us knowingly letting the Earth go to pot without us trying in some way to lower our already large impact on it.

As for Al Gore, I think you should be praising his desire to promote stewardship of the Earth rather than bash him for trying to bring awareness to an issue that the Republicans are blowing off because it is as they say, an "inconvenient truth." If you haven't watched it, I highly recommend you do before calling him a liar. Ignorance is no excuse and your political beliefs should not make you blind to truth, that's ridiculous.

I'm not going to wade into the debate on global warming, as to the causes of it, whether what we are witnessing is a result of a cyclical long-term weather pattern that has observed extremely warm tempteratures in the past (prior to humans, if you subscribe to evolutionary science) only to see it now again, or whether it is man-made. Although I've read the debates and heard it explained from different points of view, and though I've made up my own mind on the issue, I'm not going to debate it since I do not have a good enough grasp on the finer details and names.

But I will reply, Luke, to your desire about why the CRC doesn't debate this issue more. I guess the quick answer is there are circles in the CRC that do debate it and are very concerned about it. I am not one of them, however, for the basic reason that though that's a good and healthy debate to have, it is also a debate which is outside the "domain" of the church. By that I mean the finer matters of global warming and what is causing it.

The church can speak about our need to be good care takers of the earth, which is a good general message. And the church can also speak on God's promise to Noah (the Noahic covenant) that the seasons of the earth and the cycles of the planet will continue, for God will never destroy the earth in a flood again. This the church can proclaim, which covers "both sides" in the sense that we as people won't ever be granted the power to destroy our own planet, nor are we freed from the responsibilities to take care of it.

But beyond that, if the church wades too much into a political debate, such as global warming and the implications of it, then we stray too far from what we as a church are called to focus on, which is the proclamation of the gospel. Global warming, though an important issue and debate that should take place, is a debate that the church shouldn't focus too much upon. More important than the saving of this earth and physical lives is the saving of souls, and looking to a life and a world which will last forever. To a new heavens and new earth which will be recreated by the Lord. To a storing up of treasures in heaven. To a calling of people to repentance, and finding forgiveness in Jesus.

That is the domain of the church, where her authority lies. I would not want to see that authority dilluted in her wading into a debate which is controversial and yet not at the heart of her mission. We as a church must preach Christ and Him crucified. That's our job.

Very wise and mature comments Tyler. I couldn't have said it as well, but I whole heartedly agree with what you stated. The environment is important, but it pales greatly in importance to the everlasting gospel of our Savior.

What I am going to say is pretty much the same thing as Pastor Tyler. I once asked a very wise semanarian (one that is a member of this site) about what he thought about Global Warming. I thought that one of the natural disasters that God promises will happen to the earth in Revelations could be Global Warming. However, I was told that if Global Warming truely happened, the earth would be destroyed in a flood. Which God promised us would not happen. So, I think it's true to say, we don't have to be misguided about Global Warming.
I do think we should pay more attention to protecting the earth than what we do. I think the Spirit convicts us in different areas because we can't serve 100% in every area the way we should. I think the Holy Spirit leads some to protect the Sanctity of Life, some to long-term mission work, some to our youth, some to assisting and caring for our shut-ins, some to teaching, some to protect the earth as we were told to do in Genesis... I'm very thankful the Spirit has put on your heart to care for the earth because that is just as important as the others. I encourage you to read 1 Corinthians 12. That entire chapter speaks about different gifts we have been given from The Lord. "There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men." 1 Corinthians 12:4-6. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is important to focus on protecting the earth just as much as it is important to focus on other acts of service, but we shouldn't expect everyone else to be called to serve in the same way. I do agree that I should focus much more on protecting the earth than what I do though.

I understand where you guys are coming from, but I'm afraid that your logic is a bit off. Where you say that Global Warming will destroy the earth in a flood, that more than likely won't happen. What would happen would me more akin to the poles melting, the sea levels rising (but certainly not "flooding" the earth, there is proof of this that can be found) Global warming doesn't have to flood the earth to make it unlivable. Deserts everywhere that greatly impede the Human's ability to survive on Earth are more likely. An ice age that would freeze many people is more likely.

As for wading into a political debate, I would expect this to be the first place to find the Christian church. I would expect them to be on the forefront of this, calling people to preserve and protect the earth. Hiding behind a claim (that yes, I do believe is true) that God won't flood the earth is not a wise choice. Tyler, you say that we are called to proclaim the gospel and to save souls rather than physical bodies, but I ask you, who would trust you to preach a message of Christ and his love while they lie on the ground dying? Wouldn't someone rather believe a person that is willing to get down with them in the dirt and figure out problems that are affecting our everyday life. The key is to relate to people, to show them you care about them and their physical wellbeing. Then you open a door to their spiritual wellbeing. You can't sit up on a stool and preach to people about Christ while they are being bombarded on all sides by completely different topics. Trust me, if sermons aren't applicable, I tend not to listen. If CJ were to preach a sermon about a current issue, which he often does, I tend to pay MUCH more attention because it applies to my life. It is something that affects me and that is how you get people to listen.

Think of how many more people could be reached by having the church put forth a sincere interest in Global Warming. Politics or not, it is a big issue that has a lot of interest by the public. It wouldn't be a bad way to garner some attention by telling the world that the Church finds it to be an issue of great concern.

One more thing, I'd like to make a point that no matter how cliche still seems to apply here. The WWJD braclets asked people what Jesus would do in their situation. I think that same principle applies here. Would Jesus not find something wrong w/ what is going on in the world today as far as pollution goes? I agree, his main message would be about the saving of souls, but if here were preaching today, I wouldn't be one bit surprised to go to one of his sermons and hear him denounce the trashing of his planet, and I'll bet he'd have a nice large crowd at that sermon too.

Sorry, one more thing.
Ilovebrian: just because we all have different gifts doesn't mean that big issues can be ignored. If I care a lot about environmental issues, that doesn't excuse me from saying that abortion isn't wrong or that I shouldn't worry about it. Of course I should worry about it. I should show concern and try to help. What I'm saying is that just because environmental issues aren't your forte, doesn't excuse you from a complete disregard or disagreement for these issues as I see in many Christians. (btw, I'm not using "you" to directly point you out, I'm using it as a general term.)

Luke,

The problem with addressing this issue in a detailed manner is there is great disagreement about the details of global warming. I don't think you would be too excited about my particular slant on the whole issue, but then if I take that perspective and say "Thus saith the Lord' before it as I preach on it from the pulpit, well, I would actually do more harm to the gospel than not. Sure, I would win some to my side, but I would alienate others on this issue. If I'm going to offend people, I want the gospel to be what is offensive to them, not my particular slant on the environment.

Personally, I don't believe global warming is much of a product of human activity. I don't believe we have caused it, and I don't believe we can do much to "fix" it. Now do you want me to talk about that perspective from the pulpit? Probably not. Nor would I want to hear a minister preach to me Al Gore's perspective on the environment, because I think he's misrepresented the material and drawn faulty conclusions. It's an honest intellectual disagreement. But it's not a gospel or doctrinal issue.

So if I don't believe that global warming is a result of human activity, what am I supposed to tell the people? Now I will tell them to be good stewards of God's creation, for a number of reasons. To take care of the earth and not waste resources. To not waste resources so we have more to share with those in need. To think of future generations and their needs. Etc. That is all very real and an age-old Christian virtue, whether you're speaking of the environment or you're speaking of money or time or whatever other resources God has entrusted to our care.

Should I tell my congregation that the Nobel Peace Prize is a big joke, when it is awarded to charlatans like Al Gore or the former head of the PLO, Yassar Arafat? No. I'm not going to preach my politics from the pulpit, because that's not the place for it. Whether it's the politics of war, the politics of the environment, the politics of the Presidential race, etc. If I'm going to offend people, may it be with the cross of Christ. That's all I'm saying.

BTW, here's something I pulled off of a British news source about a British judge's recent ruling on Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," on what British students must first be told before a teacher shows it to them. I wish the same could be said about teachers and professors in the U.S. Anyway, you'll find it below:
________________________________________

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies are:

The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.

The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Maybe I'm not a expert on weather science, but here's someone who is. http://www.halflifesource.com/news/2007/11/08/article10005.htm

Hey there!

I think that Christians ought to pursue a non-politicized perspective on this issue. Christians ought to rebuke the hype of the left and the dismissal of the right--and I would add, Christians should be doubly suspicious of the politicians on their own side of the political spectrum.

We are called to stewardship on the one hand, but also to justice. I believe "global warming" is also a justice issue in that the most affluent people in the world are currently creating the most pollution (yet they are some of the only ones who have access to more expensive, creation-friendly technologies); and it just so happens that the people most affected by global warming are some of the poorest people on earth, whose farmland may turn into dust.

So, I would say that a Christian response to global warming includes at least some of these things:
1) Preaching about God's love for his cosmos, the world, his creation.
2) Prophetic preaching on ignorant affluence, entitlement, and American nationalism.
3) Christians in politics and science to promote truth at their own expense.
4) Increased giving of alms to the poor globally (also locally, and especially through organizations that teach better farming techniques like the CRWRC).
5) Christians to make wiser choices when it comes to buying cars and heating/cooling their homes, and teaching children to take shorter showers.

It seems to be that global warming is driving primarily by greed. This illustrates how human sin directly adversely affects the created order, which in turn "grows thorns"--creation strikes back!

When it comes to the CRC, if we don't yet have a study report on global warming, we should get one! ; )

"Global Warming" is a bit of a misnomer. The better term is "climate change" because the way the earth's atmosphere is changing effects different areas in different ways. But this is a side-issue.

I think a more important issue for the church than what to do politically is for us each to consider how we relate to the material world around us. This country has a serious, spiritual problem with idolatry - of idolizing the markets, or celebrities, or technology, or media. The church has a responsibility to name the spritual diseases that come with affluence, and to call people back to the very things that the "returning church" cares about.

I do advocate for changes in government policy in order to mitigate climate change, but I think the church's most important role regarding this issue is to help people to simplify their lives so that Jesus, his Word, and the Holy Spirit's calling is our priority. And I think we can all agree on this, whether we agree or disagree on the issue of climate change.

Finally, the issue of climate change can be an issue of justice, because the poor and helpless end up being the most affected by volatility in the weather/ecosystems (eg: encroaching Saharan deserts or New Orleans after hurricane Katrina). I'm not saying that cimate change caused those things, but that we need to care about how the material world affects the ones least able to deal with big problems like this. We cannot be insular.

Zach, I do agree with you on the problem of idolatry, and the need for people to focus on Jesus, His Word, and the Spirit's leading. But, "mitigating Climate Change"??????? I suggest anyone the least bit interested in this topic, should pick up the number one book on the New York Times non fiction best sellers list right now, "An Inconvenient Book" by Glenn Beck. We need to get ourselves educated beyond the college professors dribble and hype, and start focusing on the Biblical truths the church has left (as you stated), instead of the humanist liberal pollution that the world all around us is running after. Let's have minds that are transformed by God's Word, instead of Al Gores mindless ramblings (and blatant money/power grab).

I totally disagree with your statement about college professors dribble and hype. It's this kind of mockery that prevents people from having meaningful conversations about this topic.

Furthermore, how can you possibly imply that I am not seeking to have a mind transformed by God's word simply because I care about an issue you may disagree with? I am no humanist.

As Christians we are called to resist characterizing all positions.

We are also called to exercise our dominion over Creation with care, as well as care for the least fortunate among us--and do these things while resisting greed and indifference.

These are rather basic Biblical truths, aren't they?

An interesting study that just came out on global warming. Here's the link:

http://www.citizenlink.org/CLBriefs/A000006097.cfm

Just keeps things interesting, and the debate on-going.

What I'd like to get my hands on is the BBC program that I've heard so much about, the one that debunks Gore's Inconvenient Truth.

Since the BBC is usually quite left-leaning, this program gets a lot of credibility, since it goes in the other direction.

How do we understand Revelation 11:18? It says, "The time has come for judging the dead . . . both small and great -- and for destroying those who destroy the earth."

Pre-mils say this is about nuclear war, but this is written long before nuclear bombs could literally destroy the earth. They believed that the world was flat and resting on pillars, and nothing could move the earth from its foundations except natural earthquakes. But, God will destroy those who destroy the earth. Could this be a prophecy against those who are not acting as stewards? "There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8), but obviously we must not "go on sinning that grace may increase" (Romans 6).

I'm not sure what the church's response to the world's fear of global warming ought to be, but what is the right understanding of Revelation 11:18?

Here's an interesting story that just came out on the study of more scientists (Danish and Canadian ones) about the sun and how the sun is what impacts the heating and cooling of the earth and creates "global warming" and "global cooling." It's what many other scientists have been saying for years now, ones not caught up in the global warming hype. Here's the link:

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

What do you think? I was reading in World Magazine this morning of many relief organizations spending more of their resources and money, not on actual relief, but on becoming more "green". This is where the possible mis-placed hype over man-made global warming continues to have a negative impact on people. Though they mean well in making these costly changes, that is money spent on something other than what it was intended for...helping the impoverished.

Folks, here's another interesting article I read on-line about this year's winter across the northern hemisphere. Continues to "debunk" this idea of man-made global warming, and how we might actually be entering into a period of cooling. Here's the link:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

Could Global Warming Birthing Pain of the end times? I know that it not perfect like in the garden Sunny and 75 all year round... I just wonder about the Storms and Disater if we are in the last days? We need to be good care taker. But We need to be more consered about lost souls. We are in the Last Days....

Everyone, have been reading this past week of the food crisis in a growing number of nations, and the riots that have been occuring because of it. There is a growing consensus in these and other nations that the West's obsession with global warming and the ensuing use of food stuffs (like corn and beets) for ethanol is creating unbearable problems for the poor in these countries as the price of food is forced up (supply and demand anyone?).

Here's another link to a story in the Telegraph (British newspaper) just from today about the problem:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/14/ccview114.xml

Here's another link that deals with global warming, or rather, global cooling, according to a scientist from Mexico and his findings:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.milenio.com%2Fmexico%2Fmilenio%2Fnota.asp%3Fid%3D651680&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=es&tl=en

Yet another link to a recent news story of a CNN meteorologist who is joining the growing chorus of scientists and climatologists who do not believe that mankind is able to bring about global warming:

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx

What this continues to teach us, and I hope teaches church leaders, is to be wary of putting so much time, energy, and money promoting a certain agenda when it comes to an issue like the environment which really can distract the church from it's main focus, which is the proclamation of the gospel.

Paul's instruction to Timothy: Preach the Word. That's not just for pastors, that's for all Christians. Knowing the Word and living by the Word, being transformed by the Word will answer all the questions for people. The Word tells us we're stewards of God's creation. The Word tells us that God is the creator and sustainer of all things. The Word tells us the greatest problem people face is not global warming, poverty, injustice, but rather God's wrath toward sin. If they remain in sin, they remain dead. But if they are called to repentance, and they repent and believe in Jesus Christ, they will live.

"Do not put your trust in princes,
in mortal men, who cannot save.
When their spirit departs, they return to the ground;
on that very day their plans come to nothing."
Psalm 146:3&4

Another great link, from the founder of The Weather Channel, and his first-hand account of the rise of the "global warming" science, of who propagated it, and how it has spread. A very important read about this issue:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

This is another reminder that Christian scientists and church leaders need to be very cautious about throwing their weight and the weight of the church behind something that is really not in the domain of the church, and will come back to bite the church and make us look REAL bad in future generations. As they told us often in the Army, "Stick to your lane!"

I remember an Overture that came to Synod a couple years back that wanted the denomination to actively encourage churches to be good stewards of the environment by, in part, using flourescent lightbulbs rather than incandescent ones. Now I'm a fan of incandescendent for a number of practical and sentimental reasons. But I ran across this article that says, at least for us colder-climate locations like here in Michigan, it might actually help the environment more by sticking with those incandescent bulbs rather than making the switch to flourescent. What another good reminder to the Church to not hop on these bandwagon issues that are not the domain of the church. Here's the article:


Great News: Twisty Light Bulbs Increase CO2 Emissions

The law of unintended consequences wins again. From the NY Times Green, Inc. blog:

For those wondering if the benefits of the increasingly ubiquitous compact fluorescent lightbulb have been overstated, a report last night from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation offers a little something to chew on. The report suggested that the energy savings associated with the bulbs — which use far less electricity than their incandescent predecessors — may be offset by higher heating bills, and more greenhouse emissions.

CBC News has found that in some cases compact fluorescent bulbs (C.F.L.s) can have the adverse effect of increasing greenhouse gas emissions, depending on how consumers heat their homes.

Physics professor Peter Blunden at the University of Manitoba said C.F.L. bulbs are certainly more energy efficient than older incandescent bulbs.

But in cold-weather climates such as Canada’s, Blunden said older incandescent bulbs do more than just light our homes. During the long winter months, they also generate heat. The new C.F.L. bulbs, on the other hand, produce minimal heat so the loss has to be made up by fossil-fuel burning gas, oil or wood to heat your home.

“To some extent, the case [in favor of C.F.L.s] has been oversold” because of the offset in higher heating costs, he said.

I work for the CRC's Office of Social Justice. We recently offered a "green grant" to congregations who are being good stewards of the environment, and published the entries we received in this magazine: http://bit.ly/BEjF5.

A couple of pages in there's a great statement on creation care that was signed by the CRC in 1994 - way back before any of this became trendy. Anyway, it's a good overview of what the denomination's official stance is.

You can find more resources at www.crcjustice.org if you're interested in joining the conversation, or email osjha@crcna.org.

Just a thought in defense of Luke's position. Not that I absolutely agree with him, but here is something to think about.

There have been a number of social justice issues that, in the heat of the moment, seemed like partisan issues the church should not be involved in, but which, with the passage of time and 20/20 hind sight there is now clear consensus on.

Racial desegregation and reconciliation is the best example of this, as are woman's suffrage, and child labor laws.

M.L. King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, is a powerful call for churches to get off their asses and stand up for what is right. Many churches in the north really thought separate and (supposedly) equal was acceptable. People gave "Biblical" reasons why there should not be interracial marriage. And "science" proved that black people could not see at night, so they were not given important position in the military, but were instead relegated to being cooks, plumbers, and the like. (no offense to those positions, but when it is applied across the board...)

Global warming may turn out to be as devastating as the Y2K bug. But if hundreds of thousands of people suffer because of the effects of global warming, we may be saddled with the same guilt that the church in Germany carries, for not standing up to Hitler. Given these two potential outcomes, standing on the side of caution, and preparing for the worst seems like the only acceptable thing to do.

While I appreciate some of Tyler's concerns about dividing the church in his initial post, I applaud Luke for standing up for what he believes in. And I am very happy to call myself a part of a denomination that stood up for this at some level way back in 94'.