Immoral pregnancies?!

So I just posted the other day about the problem of seeing children primarily as economic entities and basing "family planning" decisions upon such a view. I argued in that post that this view is common, even though it sounds awful if you actually put it on paper.

Well, it seems I understated the case. I don't normally recommend overly-long web articles to you folk, but you really should read this.

It seems babies aren't "eco-friendly"...

I hope you just finished reading the article and are now outraged. If not, please stop reading my post and go read that article - the whole thing. Sometimes it's useful to be outraged...

Read it? Good.

Obviously I have serious issues with these women, especially the first one. Remember my contention that people view children as economic entities? How about this statement from the first woman in the article:

"I've never doubted that I made the right decision. Ed and I married in September 2002, and have a much nicer lifestyle as a result of not having children... We love walking and hiking, and we often go away for weekends... Every year, we also take a nice holiday - we've just come back from South Africa... We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population. "

So this is the latest in the "offsetting carbon credit" thinking?! Unbelievable.

The second lady in the article, to her credit, does not appear to be a materialistic hypocrite. Hers is a problem we should not be surprised by. Allow me a brief (but relevant) aside into social history:

In the 19th century, Charles Darwin introduced what was inarguably the most significant concept of the century - evolution. Today we talk about the nuances of micro- versus macro-evolution (at least, we should acknowledge this hugely significant difference... funny how public schools don't, but I digress). But in Darwin's day, the concept was (for most of his followers) as simple as "survival of the fittest".

What followed was horrific, but perfectly understandable. Social evolutionists popped up on the scene and began arguing that only the "fittest" of people should be encouraged to bear children and populate the earth. Then came forced encouragement - Hitler, for example, clearly based his genocidal methods on the concept of "survival of the fittest". For him, Jews were least fit and therefore did not deserve the natural resources they were consuming. Killing them merely sped up the natural process of evolution toward a superior race.

In light of all this, the notion of a Creator-God that sustains all life slowly faded from the social consciousness of many peoples around the globe. "Mother Nature" was said to be able to take care of herself, thank you very much! And since Mother Nature doesn't need our help, it has for some become only natural to believe that ...

... the earth would really be better off without people screwing it up.

The second lady in the linked article clearly believes along these lines. It seem unbelievable that she could, but clearly she does. And I'm sure she's not alone. She's just got the courage to live her convictions to the fullest, regardless of where they take her. Most people of her persuasion only say the earth would be better off without us - she's actually living that principle.

I guess she should be commended... ?

No. She's traded the Almighty God for an idol; an image she perhaps calls Mother Earth. She's quite literally perverted the very nature of God and the universe in her own mind.

And you thought evolution was no big deal, didn't you?


Hatushili

---

Note: The only possible good news that can be squeezed out of a story like this is a truth that sociologists have recently begun to pick up on: "liberals" are having far fewer children than "conservatives" and will therefore likely be severely outnumbered in the coming generations. [Please don't comment on my use of liberal/conservative - I understand the limitations and am merely using the term as sociologists tend to.]

Read More......

A reasonable approach?

As most of you know, I have worked in the Lawn & Garden industry for a long time now. I've also been working for a rental company for the past eight years. Consequently, I get a lot of industry magazines related to engines, emissions, etc...

I finally got around to reading the June issue of Rental Management the other day. It features a number of articles about "going green" in the construction and rental industry. The feature story is listed second on this page; it's called Being Green.

The article raises an interesting concept that is being played out as we speak, and I think it just might work...

As you might have guessed from my posts in the past, I am a big fan of free-market economics. I am also an environmentalist (of the 'steward God's creation' stripe). Very often these two positions are contradictory. Most environmentalist advocate sweeping federal regulations to require this or that level of emissions. And while I think a certain amount of legislation is necessary on this front, I don't think it's the ultimate answer to the problem.

Enter the rental business.

It seems that many state governments (and an ever-increasing portion of the federal government) are now requiring that contractors demonstrate a specific level of "green building" proficiency before they'll be awarded government bid jobs. Consequently, rental yards that offer green engines, chemicals, etc... can be an asset to the general contractor who isn't quite ready to plunk down the kind of money needed to buy a whole new fleet of equipment.

But the point is that this concept utilizes legislation to a limited extent (for government bid jobs only, not the general public) but leans mostly on free-market economics. I'm inclined to believe that eventually these government bid contractors will find it more profitable to buy their own green equipment, and they'll begin using it on other (non-bid) job sites. This equipment will thereby find its way increasingly into the general market. The demand for the product, fueled by economics, will prompt more research and development and provide and impetus to make these green changes as inexpensively as possible, allowing developments to build upon one another.

It's not the complete answer, but I think this sort of thinking just might be a major part of the answer.

Hatushili

Read More......

What's a "Social Conservative"?

As you might have guessed from a cursory reading of my blog, I'm a follower of Christ. I know, big surprise! But what you might also guess about me is that I'm therefore a "social conservative". This is true enough, but perhaps not in quite the way you might think.

It's long bothered me that we, as evangelical Christians, have adopted only some of the really pressing "social" issues of our day as near and dear to our cause. You know the two biggies: pro-life and pro-family. But what about others, arguably just as important? ...

As I see it, there are at least five "social" issues that Christ's followers should be passionately concerned about. In broad categories, these are:

1: Pro-life - I find it appalling that we've killed roughly 48,000,000 (yes, that's 48 million) babies since Roe vs. Wade in 1973. Let me put that number in perspective for you. If you add up the entire population of Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio and West Virginia you don't quite reach 48 million. That's how many babies America has killed since the year I was born. That fact shocks my soul. It just can't be. But it is.

Followers of Christ must be pro-life.


2: Pro-family - While I don't often agree with the tactics used by many, I nevertheless find it critically important to support the Biblical concept of family. But don't let that mean "anti-gay" in your mind. The fact that I support traditional marriage is only a small part of what it means to be truly pro-family. I support traditional motherhood, too. I believe that it's critically important for the welfare of children that their mother be with them as much as humanly possible. I'm not saying a woman can't work outside of the home, but that if possible she oughtn't while raising children. But pro-family doesn't stop there, either. What about the training of my children? To be pro-family means to be actively involved in their education and training, regardless of what method (public, private, or homeschool) you use.

Followers of Christ must be pro-family.


3: Pro-environment - Here I may begin to lose some of you, but hear me out. If it's true that God created this entire world and all that's in it, and if it's true that God intended it to be Edenic, and if it's true that God will one day restore this earth to that original Edenic state, and if it's true that God gave mankind the responsibility to care for and nurture it until such time as He works this restoration, then how can His children not be environmentalists? I don't mean "tree-huggers", for sure. But I mean Christians committed to the care of His world as much as we care for all the other blessings He's given us. How often have we heard a Christian refer to (for example) their house as a "blessing from the LORD"? [And it is; I'm not denying that.] That same follower of the Son will take steps to care for his house, won't he? He'll not let the roof fall apart. He'll mow the lawn. He'll make sure the pipes don't leak, and he'll fix them if they do. He'll likely even beautify his house and property.

Why don't we think the same way about this planet?

A follower of Christ must be pro-environment.


4: Pro-justice - The Minor Prophets are, more than anything, written to portray God's judgement against His people for their many sins. But do you know what sin seems most often mentioned? Social injustice. God judges His children because they take no care for the poor and destitute of their society. He scolds them for abusing the weak and powerless. He views their material prosperity with contempt, because it's been built on the backs of downtrodden and maligned people. Christ's followers (not the government) have the primary responsibility to see that these things don't happen in our society today. Support soup kitchens and food pantries. Vote against people and measures that would hurt the already helpless. Be a thoughtful consumer - the most important issue in whether you buy from X or Y isn't always price!

And what about the more massive issues? Katrina. Darfur. International child trafficking. AIDS in Africa. There's plenty of work to do, folks.

A follower of Christ must be pro-justice.


5: Pro-peace - "Pursue peace with everyone" (Hebrews 12:14a). I want to be careful here to distinguish between us as individuals and churches, and us as a nation. There is a difference, though perhaps not as great as some would make it. Nevertheless, the principle is clear: whenever possible, peace is a better option than conflict. Do I have a "right" to be in conflict with my neighbor over the bush on the property line that hangs into my yard? I suppose the American court system might say so, but I chose peace. Do you have a "right" to avoid your sister because she's done your family wrong? Chose peace. Do we as churches have a "right" to be in conflict with the local skater kids that we sometimes find in the parking lot? Chose peace.

Whenever possible, chose peace. This often requires active pursuit, as the verse in Hebrews mentions.

A follower of Christ must be pro-peace.

---

So what exactly is a "social conservative"? If you mean what the rank of file of America thinks when you say that phrase, I want no part of it. They tend to think "social conservative" means "anti-abortion, anti-gay, no fun and holier-than-thou".

So in that sense I'm not a social conservative. And frankly, I'm not really bothered by that. I'd much rather be known as a Christian that's devoted to these five social issues than merely as a "social conservative". I'm not saying I've got it all figured out and live these principles fully and wholly - I'm a sinner just like you. But these are the social principles I feel passionately about.

What about you?

Hatushili

Read More......

Global Warming Fundamentalists?

I've had a bit of an epiphany. I've heard others say that the "global warming" crowd has become more or less a religion. I agree.

But it goes beyond that. The "Global Warmers" are recreating a history parallel to my own religious tradition. I grew up a "Fighting Fundamentalist" and saw first-hand some of the foolishness that passed for "logic" and "apologetics" back in those days. Looking back, I see why we were mocked and ridiculed. We told ourselves that it was because we were "doing the LORD's work". The truth - perhaps as often as not - is that we were doing really stupid things in the name of the LORD's work.

What's worse - many Fighting Fundie-types still are... But I don't just want to pick on my own; I want to show how the Global Warming crowd is following a parallel course.

Let me illustrate:

[Please note: the links I'm providing below positively do not represent my views now, though some of them have over the years.]

Fighting Fundies (I'll just call them FFs from this point forward; GW for Global Warmers) and GWs make many of the same zealous mistakes.

1. Mountains out of molehills:

FF Example: "Soft rock" is evil!

GW Example: Cow farts should be taxed, since methane is 20 times worse than carbon dioxide!

2. Truly ridiculous/paranoid claims:

FF Example: Y2K bug will open the Seven Seals of Revelation!

GW Example: Cat shelters filling up because of global warming!

3. Consistent use of ad hominem attacks:

FF Example: (There are too many to list just one! Off the top of my head, the old Pensacola Christian College "The Leaven in Fundamentalism" video comes to mind - you can't trust guys like B B Warfield, you know!)

GW Example: Again, these are too easy to find. Try this Will Ferrell video impersonating President Bush re: global warming.


I could site more similarities, but I think you get the point. It's almost eerie how much more the GW folk look and sound like a religion than a "scientific movement"! Moreover, the modern day Global Warming religion seems to be making the same mistakes as Fighting Fundies make. Perhaps this is why the average American doesn't take either particularly seriously.

Here's the rub - both groups, frankly, have some important things to say. But courtesy of the way they're saying them, few folk truly listen.

Thankfully, many people (myself included) have left the Fighting Fundie model of following Jesus and found a new and better way. My hope is that the Global Warming crowd will eventually do the same: take away the foolishness, the fear mongering, etc... and just bring us what's real.

Hatushili

Read More......

Christians and the Environment

Having just posted a review of a book about environmental issues and Christian faith, I thought I'd ask you all: what's your understanding of how a Christian should understand "the environment"? I know you're all going to say "we should be stewards/caretakers of God's creation" ... but I'm looking for more specific thoughts. For example...


1.) What about extinction? How and why should we be concerned about a species going extinct?

2.) What about hunting? How and why should a Christian hunt animals?

3.) What about "factory farms", wherein the chicken you ate for lunch was likely raised in a 12" x 12" pen it's entire life?

4.) What about organic foods? Should a Christian care about the "organic" movement?

These are just example questions. Answer one, all, or none. But I'm interested in your thoughts about environmentalism and Christian faith - what's the relationship between the two?

Hatushili

Read More......

Book Review: Pollution and the Death of Man

As JB will testify, this book review is long overdue.

Francis Schaeffer on environmentalism? Absolutely! And well worth the read. Believe it or not (he says in mock astonishment) there once was a time when environmentalists blamed the earth's eco problems on ... Christians!! I know it's hard to imagine such a time in human history, but trust me - it happened. Oh wait, it still does. All the time.

So even though this book was written in 1970, it's still of value to us today. My one most prominent criticism of the book isn't entirely fair - Schaeffer doesn't adequately reflect on postmodernity as he wrestles with the issue. Postmodernity was in an emerging state (pun intended!) in 1970, so I can't really blame Schaeffer. Still, it's probably the biggest mark against the book for us today.

On to the gist of things. Schaeffer wrote in response to a specific article (included in the appendix of the edition I read) that explicitly blamed the Christian doctrine of "dominion over creation" for the ecological problems of the day. In his short book, Schaeffer responds to this criticism and turns the tables. For Schaeffer, not only is a proper Christian worldview not the problem, it is in fact the only real solution.

In a nutshell: we are creatures, in that we are created beings. So are trees and flowers - we therefore share a base-level commonality with these other created things. As such, we should show tremendous respect for them, in their place. In other words, we cannot let the needs of a tree override the needs of a family. But that doesn't' mean we can treat the tree however we choose - it is, after all, a fellow created being. Our position as Christians is to act as God's stewards - we care for the earth, not dominate it.

Here's where Schaeffer turns the tables: non-Christian environmentalists, no matter how well-meaning, are ultimately serving out of selfish motives. Most genuinely believe they are "saving the earth for future generations" - but even that is a humanocentric way of looking at things. Only the Christian can honestly say, "I'm caring for the environment selflessly - I'm just serving the LORD who created it and me". Some would argue that Christians are, in fact, doing this selfishly (with an eye to some sort of divine "reward") but this reasoning is too presumptive and cynical to take seriously. Do any of us truly think that God somehow "owes" us a reward for anything we do here on earth?

But don't think that Schaeffer is letting Christians off the hook. Not at all! He calls out those who misuse the environment for what they are - wrong, and in sin. We can never go back to the oft-heard "Christian" attitude of the past, "The LORD's coming back sometime soon, anyway - what's the sense in caring for the planet?"... I've actually heard Christians say that - one as he was throwing a Styrofoam cup out of his car window!

So let's embrace the challenge of making the environmental movement a distinctly Christian movement. We have the best answers and the purest motives, after all.

And a Biblical mandate to steward the Creation.

Hatushili

Read More......