Here’s some old news:
NPR Debate
FOS Catastrophe Cancelled
Convenient Fiction 1, & 2

GWPolitics

There’s so much more.

It is time to go back to Calvin and read his analysis of the use of the present life (Institutes, III.10). I quote only one of his principles below:

Let it be the aim of all who have any unfeigned desire for piety to learn, after the example of the Apostle, “both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need,” (Phil. 4:12). Scripture, moreover, has a third rule for modifying the use of earthly blessings. We have already adverted to it when considering the offices of charity. For it declares that they have all been given us by the kindness of God, and appointed for our use under the condition of being regarded as trusts, of which we must one day give account. We must, therefore, administer them as if we constantly heard the words sounding in our ears, “Give an account of your stewardship.” At the same time, let us remember by whom the account is to be taken—viz. by him who, while he so highly commends abstinence, sobriety, frugality, and moderation, abominates luxury, pride, ostentation, and vanity; who approves of no administration but that which is combined with charity, who with his own lips has already condemned all those pleasures which withdraw the heart from chastity and purity, or darken the intellect.

Thanks for the comment. I am in fundamental agreement. If I were in a place to make suggestions, I would have suggested leading with Humphrey’s big picture piece and followed with two articles, one making the case for global warming and one against. The way it stood created the impression of unbalance.

Of course, I also remember the global cooling argument from when I was a small child. I am no scientist. I may be giving the impressing that I am a global warming advocate. The truth is that I am also a sceptic.

Still, I want to be a realist and not an ideologue. IF global warming is being significantly influenced by our behavior, the Christian and conservative response would be to take it seriously. I sometimes wonder how Christians so fully adopt the premises of libertarian economics to the detriment of their own interests. Is global warming a case in point? I do not know but I do want to keep an open mind and not simply pass it off as some kind of warmed over Marxist attack on America.

I fear that we look at environmentalists the way the left looks at pro-lifers. We have a prejudiced view toward the whole based on the actions of the kooky fringe. Not a healthy impression or conducive to edifying dialogue.

BTW I hope you do not take my comments as criticism of your role as editor or criticism of the good work of Dr. Humphrey. To the contrary, I wish every issue of the Witness was as engaging. Keep up the good work.

And I, too, am interested further in what Mr. Humphreys has to say on the details. It would be valuable information, for certain.

However, he would not want readers to focus on the details and miss his main point. His objective, at least as I saw it, was to answer the question, “If I had just one message to give you to help you address global warming and other issues like it, and had just one opportunity to make a lifelong impact on nonscientific readers, what would I say in a two-page article?”

He sticks to one central message, but that is exactly what he set out to do. And the fact that he is a scientist with some expertise in fields related to global warming lends credibility to his focus. That is different from a theologian reviewing Schaeffer and saying the same things.

Nearly 30 years ago I read a long interview with Stephen Hawking, the renowned physicist who some have said has the greatest mind in the world. He was having a frank discussion with the interviewer about the origin of the universe, particularly the Big Bang Theory. Near the end of the article, the interviewer pressed Hawking to go beyond the science and theory he had been expounding and to tell what he thought happened prior to the Big Bang. “In the beginning, God,” he replied.

Hawking has also been quoted as saying he “believes in a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired.” I sure don’t want to get into a debate about Hawking’s spiritual beliefs (or his science), but I bring up the example to make a point. I had heard many theologians say “In the beginning, God,” and it certainly had significance, knowing they were reflecting a basic fact about the God of our universe. But to hear Stephen Hawking say it also had a tremendous impact. It was a rare glimpse of a great mind who is revered by atheistic scientists saying something utterly theological, and acknowledging that there were limits to human understanding.

When Mr. Humphreys, as a Christian agroecologist, tell us to keep our eyes on the big picture, that says something. Some of you are too young to remember a similar fearmongering; but when I was growing up, scientists were warning that we were headed toward an ice age. I was taught that in school.

If someone has but one message to give, it seems to me that Mr. Humphreys’ message is the right one. Christian, be a steward of the earth. Don’t do it because you’re afraid, because others are pressuring you, because it’s the issue du jour, or because you don’t yet understand the science and so have to accept what others are saying. Be a good steward of the earth as a grateful servant of God, and do not fear. God’s promises remain.

–Drew

One of your Elders suggested that global warming advocates are driven by Marxist politics. Well, there is truth to the old joke- why are environmentalists like watermelons? A. They are both green on the outside and pink in the middle. Still, I am uneasy with the way folks toss around the label “marxist” as a devil word. Label the opposition as Marxist and you have won the battle. Although I am sure that there are plenty of Marxists who are banging the environmental drum, should this make us callous to the problem?

It is interesting to me that Caleb Stegall was once called a Marxist by Jonah Goldbergfrom National Review. I suspect that more than one “conservative” weaned on Rush Limbaugh has suggested that Wendell Berry and the old Agrarian are/were “marxists.” The label is the thing.

Still, I cannot help but remember that Russell Kirk taught us that nothing was more conservative than conservation. Free markets are not a panacea. Sometimes markets destroy what we hold most dear. Conservatives and Christians have spent the last 100 years seeing global markets destroy our traditional communities (including the RPCNA) should we be suspicious of the claim that they might destroy our environment?

Thanks for the clarification. I’ll poke Micah to maybe send something to post on DRC so far as his take on the science goes.

Last night at our college meeting, one of our elders spoke on this issue, really pressing us to see the Marxist politics behind the most ardent of the global warming advocates, and how such politics ultimately will harm the poor most.