Monday, February 14, 2005
The 'Evangelical Environmentalism' Discussion Continues
Over the weekend, Warnie Award Winner, Transforming Sermons promised to offer some biblical principals for "Evangelical Environmentalism." This morning he made the first such post on his "To The Word" blog.
I was hoping for better things. His opening statement:
This is the common mantra of environmental activists, but it is in no way necessarily true. As I have said repeatedly, defending or denying this statement is a HIGHLY TECHNICAL discussion. The best overview on the matter I have read remains "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lumborg. This book should be read by anyone that wants to enter a discussion of environmentalism. In it Lumborg argues that human creativity makes the impact sustainable -- that in fact the negative impacts are a part of human development that are naturally compensated for as progress continues.
I do not have time for a complete exegesis of Rev Stanley's post, but I also think he engages in the grossest sort of proof-texting.
I Timothy 4:4 is a part of a passage in which Paul is addressing false teachings about acceptable dietary practice amongst Christians. The old "should Christians keep kosher?" discussion that prompted the meeting in Jerusalem between Peter and Paul.
This is why I remain grossly concerned about any discussion of "Evangelical Environmentalism." There is so much crap about the environment out in the public sphere, that it is almost impossible to put your hand in and pull out a good starting place.
I was hoping for better things. His opening statement:
Present rates of human impact on the environment are unsustainable.
This is the common mantra of environmental activists, but it is in no way necessarily true. As I have said repeatedly, defending or denying this statement is a HIGHLY TECHNICAL discussion. The best overview on the matter I have read remains "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lumborg. This book should be read by anyone that wants to enter a discussion of environmentalism. In it Lumborg argues that human creativity makes the impact sustainable -- that in fact the negative impacts are a part of human development that are naturally compensated for as progress continues.
I do not have time for a complete exegesis of Rev Stanley's post, but I also think he engages in the grossest sort of proof-texting.
Even after the fall, everything God created is good (I Tim 4:4)
I Timothy 4:4 is a part of a passage in which Paul is addressing false teachings about acceptable dietary practice amongst Christians. The old "should Christians keep kosher?" discussion that prompted the meeting in Jerusalem between Peter and Paul.
This is why I remain grossly concerned about any discussion of "Evangelical Environmentalism." There is so much crap about the environment out in the public sphere, that it is almost impossible to put your hand in and pull out a good starting place.
