I find the whole University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit’s (CRU) recent fiasco very disturbing. Not only did the scientists change facts and figures, they also plotted to ruin the reputations of skeptic scientists and editors of scientific journals. They covered up the fact that their findings actually showed the earth cooling since 1960. Then, conveniently, all the hard copies of all the data has “mysteriously” disappeared.

Much of the primary temperature data for the IPCC report came directly from the data collected by theCRU. How can we put any confidence in a report with data that cannot be confirmed in any way now? That’s called blind faith, not science. I can’t imagine that Darwin would approve!

Didn’t Don call getting bogged down in anything that is not of eternal value “Decorating your Hotel Room” when your treasure is all you learn about God in humble, obedient relatedness to Him and others, guided by the Bible (Paul and Jesus make a big deal about Scripture’s centrality in living faith and growth)?

I often think of a sign I saw on a Jewish faculty member’s door when I was a med student: “AN IDEA IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN IT.” I am not sure why he put the sign up, but I often have to remind myself that what is said & done in the name of Christ or Christianity may not be at all reflective of Christ’s true nature or intentions. People are complex and needy and almost always driven to see things or make others see things through their own particular frame.

But having said that about believers, it is oh-so-true of humans who exhibit a need to deny God’s capacity for infinite creativity, just because it is beyond our puny comprehension.

WHY MUST SO MANY “SMART PEOPLE” INSIST THAT IF THEY CAN’T UNDERSTAND CREATION, THEN PEOPLE LESS ACADEMIC THAN THEMSELVES “CAN’T” EITHER?

TO ME, WORSHIP IS TELLING GOD: “YOU MADE ME / US….
I / WE DID NOT MAKE YOU….
THANK YOU!
PRAISE YOUR NAME!
YOU DO SUCH NICE WORK….
I DON’T GET IT, BUT I WOULD BE GLAD TO TRY… WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO UNDERSTAND?”

I’ll grant that the strange concept / experience of Christ’s divinty does require the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit/ i am in sympathy with people who have not yet met Christ and are totally grossed out by the “blood sacrifice for sin thing”. At least they “get” the seriousness of what it cost Christ. Now if we could only keep it in mind ourselves…. AND manifest the LOVE that Christ has that draws us & would draw them, provided we kept our eyes on the “prize”, as St. Paul so eleoquently describes it (Phil. 3:7 ff)

Have a blessed Advent,
Ellen

PS

WRT heavy-duty documents that teams of experts churn out: if they are useful, fine.
But Solomon cautioned against getting too wrapped up in it all. Or being overly smug about it.
And he was the smartest, most ingenious / productive breeder, botanist, poet, archtiect, etc. ever born…

You only go around once,
Live with gusto.
(These are actually beer slogans, but maybe they are wise in their own ways, too…0

Ellen

‘OF course that doesn’t mean you adopt a view of evolution or climate change such as I have just to reach people. But it does mean you don’t treat skepticism about evolution or climate change as part of the received wisdom of the faith.’

I loved how succintly that is put.

I wonder if it is human nature to add complication to the simple gospel message.

It starts with nothing simpler than the thief on the cross simply asking Jesus to enter His kingdom.

I wonder what is known about this thief. Maybe a study of whatever we know about him may yield the most barrier free method of pursuing God.

All I can see is the thief’s realization of his own sin when he yelled at the other thief, admitting they deserved to be there, but Jesus did not. The belief that Jesus had the keys to heaven, humility to ask Jesus for a ‘pass’.

But noooo we as humans love to add to that simple exchange. My dad always said that legalism is very much a demonic phenomenon, as it keeps people from Jesus, which I suppose is Satan’s greatest accomplishment.

No, I don’t think I’m making the assumption you suggest. I would agree climate change doesn’t touch on the core beliefs of Christianity and I don’t know many people who would argue it does…maybe none. But Ken, you know many evangelicals absolutely believe that evolution touches on core beliefs of Christianity. And all I’m really trying to say is what you pointed out, “that doesn’t mean you adopt a view of evolution or climate change such as [I] have just to reach people.” That’s all I’m saying. They can’t do that. You say they shouldn’t. But much of your writing seems to suggest they should. I’m just saying Christians don’t have to give up their sincerely held beliefs on such matters, especially ones they do believe touch on core beliefs. I’d like to write more on this, but I don’t want to take too much space…

With respect, I answered your question about reading the IPCC summary. But you haven’t answered mine. What do you think of the ‘climate-gate’ story? A non-story to you? If so, why? Suppression of contrary data seems like a big deal to me.

“Where would that stop? We must accept global warming to reach environmentalists? We must accept evolution to reach Darwinists? The examples could go on, but I think this takes Paul’s approach of becoming all things to all men to save some a bit beyond what was meant.”

Your assumption seems to be (tell me if I’m reading you correctly) that “we Christians” are skeptical about global warming we don’t accept Darwin’s observations about the origin of species as legitimate. I think that is a very common assumption in American Christianity, of the variety that is called evangelical. I do think that the assumption is a problem, and it has the effect of creating church environments that are not effective in reaching people who don’t accept the assumptions. I don’t see these issues (global warming, evolution) as touching on the core beliefs of Christianity. We’re not talking about anything in the Apostle’s Creed. Apostle’s creed Christians (I am one) don’t see a conflict with Darwin’s view of the natural mechanism involved in the origin of the species, or with the inclination to accept the science on global warming as it is presented by the IPCC. So I think it might actually be a perfect application of Paul’s exhortation to be all things to all people. OF course that doesn’t mean you adopt a view of evolution or climate change such as I have just to reach people. But it does mean you don’t treat skepticism about evolution or climate change as part of the received wisdom of the faith.

I had previously perused the summary of the IPCC report. With your question, I have gone back and read much (not all) of the summary. It seems to me the media have been quite thorough in reporting on the IPCC report, as little of the information seemed new.

To be clear, I have never taken a position that warming isn’t happening. I don’t think I know enough to make such a claim. But I am of the view that it isn’t settled. There is a lot of reputable dissent that simply doesn’t get the press it deserves. I also am of the opinion that if it is happening the draconian measures recommended to combat it are misguided. Bjorn Lomborg has an excellent book, “Cool It”, that accepts that warming is happening but demonstrates how misguided the proposed solutions largely are…and suggests ways of dealing with climate change that have a much better benefit for the cost.

Regarding the church I lead-I honestly don’t know what the percentages would be. My guess is that it would be tilted more toward skepticism but my suspicion is that it would not be drastically so. What I do know is that I’m unaware of a single person in our congregation that doesn’t believe Christians should be concerned with caring for God’s creation. The common ground that is available is along the lines of conservation, not using more than you need, etc, etc. If environmentalists come into evangelical churches that can agree with them on that point, then it would seem to me there is enough common ground that they should not feel their passion is an unsympathetic one. It seems unreasonable to me to suggest, as it seems you do, that unless a church can accept the view that global warming is a fact and will result in catastrophic consequences for the planet, that we create obstacles to the gospel.

Where would that stop? We must accept global warming to reach environmentalists? We must accept evolution to reach Darwinists? The examples could go on, but I think this takes Paul’s approach of becoming all things to all men to save some a bit beyond what was meant.

Thanks for the commendation of our meager efforts in the church I lead. While they are meager, I do believe it to be a place where skeptics and believers-on global warming and other topics including faith itself-are welcomed, respected, and loved.

So what do you think about the so-called “climate-gate?” It seems like a significant story to me.

Sorry this is so long.

This obviously is connected because of theological
issues and cultural issues within the evangelical community and distrust of scientific evidence. I believe if you could take a poll you would find that evangelical believers like me who believe that God could have used evolution to create this magnifacent world. These same people would also believe the scientific evidence that global warming is happening and partially caused by man.

As the church corporate, I think we can talk about environmental issues in a way that respects those who feel the human factor of global warming is a major moral issue, as well as those who think it’s a load of bunk (which includes my family and many friends). Regardless of how we feel about carbon emissions and the rest of it, we can appeal to people on the level of preserving the beauty of God’s created earth; of preserving the animals he carefully crafted; of using resources in ways that benefit not only our country, but are used to transform the world and lift others up out of poverty – because it’s the right thing to do.

To Ken’s point, I think it’s important to create a church atmosphere where people who do feel strongly about environmental issues feel welcome. I’ve run in evangelical circles where it’s acceptable to make fun of “those liberals” and “those environmental whacks.” I tend toward being one of “those liberals” and “those whacks,” and it makes me (as a pastor and missionary!) uncomfortable to be in communities where mocking those views is acceptable … so I can’t imagine what it would be like to come in from the outside and feel that same attitude directed toward my views. I probably wouldn’t come back.