I can't claim to have it over Mr. Vice President - you know, the dude who invented the information super highway - but I've cared about the environment for the longest time. Back in college, I sewed 2 leather patches onto the back of the bottom of each leg of my favorite jeans: "Pollution" "Solution", they declared as I walked about campus. I still unabashedly pick out aluminum cans from the trash at our office to put them into the recycling bins.
I believe that we are environmentally comatose because we lack VISION and IMAGINATION. "Vision" is about the ability to see a little further than right in front of our noses. "It doesn't really FEEL any warmer", we think: "global warming" must be a conspiracy that only baby-killing liberals have dreamed up. We point to the 1% of the dissenting scientists as proof and permission to doubt and carp, but ignore the 99% who believe we've seen enough. We forget that not so long ago (or even now?), tobacco companies dispute the link between smoking and lung cancer. We conveniently put out of our heads what would happen to the future that our children (and theirs) will inherit long after we're gone. We treat our stewardship and responsibility literally as being "inconsequential".
And we lack imagination. We have probably all heard from missionaries, long- and short-term; they return from the field and tell us of the dire circumstances of distant peoples, who live where scarcity of water and/or food is a way of life. These missionaries will tell us how profoundly their outlook and their lives are changed by such an experience. You and I might sit in the congregation, gasp, sigh, perhaps even well up a little. We'll all pray for them but come away basically with our own lives unchanged. So why is it so hard to IMAGINE having taken one such foreign trip? Instead, we'll still casually stuff our fridges with so much food that we'll end up throwing much of it away, just because we can afford to. We'll continue to leave the lights on when we don't need them, let the water run when we shave/brush our teeth. We'll dismiss any suggestions we turn the thermostat up in the summer (down in the winter) as being "uncomfortable".
There's actually another problem: we have TERRIBLE memory. Even when we are moved to tears by the afore-mentioned missionary tales, we soon lapse into the malaise described in Eliot's poem "Journey of the Magi".
As the Bible repeatedly teaches us: change begins with attitude and believe, but it isn't meaningful until we consummate it through a change in ACTION. Let's start small: find 2 or 3 things that we can do consistently that can make a difference. Don't worry about whether it might be too small - if there weren't any tiny drops, oceans won't exist.
I care for creation because it is a means through which God reveals Himself. Through the centuries, godly men and women have drained quantities of blood and sweat to preserve, translate and distribute Scripture--the primary conduit of God's "special revelation" to humanity, as theologians would say. Similarly, should not godly men and women exert blood and sweat to preserve and protect creation--as we have already been instructed to do--so that God's glory may be clearly seen in a culture distracted by the bright lights and loud noises of our own making?
My story, the short version
Willson Stuart McBurney
The year was 1977 when my dad, one Sunday afternoon, said, “We need to find something for you to do to earn some money”. Shortly after that, Willson’s Lawn Care was up and running. To this day I say that I put myself though college, working hard every night after school and during the long hot summers. But I do realize that I was subsidized by my folks with money and lots of prayer.
Another vivid recollection I have was of another Sunday afternoon discussion with my Dad. “What do you think you’d like to study in College?” I am sure he had booklets from Indiana University and Geneva College as well, but the discussion centered on what had become somewhat of an agrarian lifestyle for me. I decided that I would study Agricultural Engineering at Purdue University.
So in the fall of 1983 I started my next career as a student at Purdue in Agricultural Engineering. About halfway through my first semester, I realized that I needed to be good at math to be an agricultural engineer. Who would have known? I’m sure my Mom and Dad did, but they let me sign up anyway. I say anyway because it was my mother who would painstakingly review math flash cards with me all summer long when I was young. The memories of those flash card drills are still a bit painful.
So, after some consultation with my folks and my academic advisor at Purdue, I decided to take a horticulture class in the Horticulture Building on the other side of campus. In the Hort building I was exposed to the profession of Landscape Architecture. I was intrigued by the thought that I could study about dirt and plants and learn how to design and build beautiful places. And not much math was required. Cool.
I’ve been practicing landscape architecture in Central Florida since 1987 and have been a Florida Registered Landscape Architect since 1991. In that same time I have met and married my beautiful wife, been blessed with two adorable and rascally children and have had the opportunity to serve millions of people in this profession.
And now that I have had some time to reflect on the last 30 years, I realize, very clearly now, that God’s hand was guiding me to this profession right from the start, through the wisdom and gentle guidance of my Mom and Dad.
There are countless professions that can claim the charge to love this world and make it a better place. It now seems to me that landscape architects truly have the job to create memorable spaces for all types of people to enjoy and to do it responsibly, being trained to be sensitive to the amazing flora and fauna that God put here for us to enjoy and subdue.
Subduing. .. It has been difficult for me to be a part of development teams that will remove every trace of vegetation that has existed for hundreds of years. I feel fortunate to be in the position, however, to help re-create that original sense of place, to put back what used to be there.
The topic of “sustainability” (the latest buzz word in the design profession) is on peoples’ minds theses days. This essentially means that we create spaces that last, with materials and methods that use our resources (God’s resources) wisely. Resources mean many things to many different people but I am constantly reminded that I have the responsibility, in my role as a landscape architect, to help protect and preserve our (God’s) existing, natural resources. I do get to re-create or replace if you will, some resources to a certain degree, but some cannot be created by my hands. Conserved or preserved, yes, but not created.
I know now that God has called me to this profession, very loudly, and that He has put the topic of Creation Care on my heart. I can help others understand our fragile Florida ecosystems and how we can easily change some of our habits to better care for what God has put us in charge of. I can help make God’s earth a better place to live.
I often wonder if my career would be different today if the Fall had never happened. I suppose there would be no need for landscape architects. Perhaps God would have let me become a pilot, my other childhood dream. Probably not, they need math skills too. . .
I’ve always found politics frustrating because it seems so difficult to get to the truth. As a result, I’m sad to admit I haven’t been very involved or even well informed. So, when a friend of mine suggested I get involved with the Creation Care Team with our friend Ray I looked at her with complete disbelief. She knows me better than anyone. How could she ever think this would interest me? She and I had just been discussing the fact that I felt a need to get involved with something of which I felt passion. Creation Care? I didn’t think so. I wouldn’t even fit into that group. Among other reasons, I drive an SUV! That can’t be acceptable in a Creation Care group.
Well, my friend has always been a great friend and spiritual mentor. So, I decided to give it some thought and prayer. I did not want to get involved in something I couldn’t feel passionate about, especially since time is so valuable. I soon remembered a commercial from years ago that impacted me. It was an American Indian standing near beautiful places that had been littered with trash. A tear ran down the Indian’s face. I’m not sure who created the commercial, but I never forgot the meaning. I have always been bothered by the lack of concern of people that litter. God quickly showed me that I do have a passion for caring for the earth.
So, I then talked to my friend Ray who explained the purpose of the group, that is was more about following a biblical mandate than any political agendas. He also assured me that it didn’t matter if I was driving an SUV…..we start where we are.
I feel like God has led me to be involved with this group. It is so funny to me that it didn’t seem likely to me at first, but now it seems so natural. I am now very concerned about how I can help care for God’s creation. I’m certain it pleases Him greatly when we strive to live out his mandates everyday.
Soon after becoming involved in the group I had some car trouble. I started exploring my options and became interested in the Toyota Prius, a hybrid car. Yep, I traded in my SUV and am now driving the Prius and loving it! I get an average of 45-50 miles per gallon. I’m saving money and resources, as well as driving a more environment friendly car. I really love it. I don’t feel that everyone has to do this, but that everyone should help in whatever way they can.
I’m looking forward to finding out other ways I can care for the earth, and draw closer to God.
"God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." - Genisis 1:28
(NIV footnote: "...as God's representative in the creaturely realm, he is steward of God's creatures. He is not to expoit, waste or despoil them, but to care for them and use them in the service of God and man.")
I read that passage and footnote at my first-ever Bible study in 1990. I knew immediatley that God was calling me, as the mother of a small child, to do my part to protect and peserve His creation for future generations.
Our family immediately started recycling -- taking cans, bottles, newspapers to the recycling bins -- and making other changes to use less energy. Simple, daily tasks became another way to honor God .
For years I've been disappointed that Christians have neither worked with environmentalists nor initiated their own faith-based "Preserve & Protect God's Creation" movement.
Perhaps it's easy to ignore Scripture on the subject because the issue
1) has been "politicized" by Big Business as anti-capitalist;
2) linked to liberal Democrats and has been demonized;
3) labeled "too difficult" because it requires some lifestyle changes and/or personal sacrifice.
What will we say when God asks "What did you do with what I gave you?" (*)
This is a faith-based question, not a political one:
it should be as well known as "WWJD?" Pastors everywhere should ask congretations to think about this issue and to start taking small steps to ACT upon it.
The time has come to take the politics out of this issue so that ALL Christians will start to preserve/protect the environment.
The time has come for ALL Christians to become a positive example to friends and neighbors so that "Preserve & Protect" becomes a daily mandate.
Blessings to your parish for leading the way,
Deb Mercer
Arlington, VA
"God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." - Genisis 1:28
(NIV footnote: "...as God's representative in the creaturely realm, he is steward of God's creatures. He is not to expoit, waste or despoil them, but to care for them and use them in the service of God and man.")
I read that passage and footnote at my first-ever Bible study in 1990. I knew immediatley that God was calling me, as the mother of a small child, to do my part to protect and peserve His creation for future generations.
Our family immediately started recycling -- taking cans, bottles, newspapers to the recycling bins -- and making other changes to use less energy. Simple, daily tasks became another way to honor God .
For years I've been disappointed that Christians have neither worked with environmentalists nor initiated their own faith-based "Preserve & Protect God's Creation" movement.
Perhaps it's easy to ignore Scripture on the subject because the issue
1) has been "politicized" by Big Business as anti-capitalist;
2) linked to liberal Democrats and has been demonized;
3) labeled "too difficult" because it requires some lifestyle changes and/or personal sacrifice.
What will we say when God asks "What did you do with what I gave you?" (*)
This is a faith-based question, not a political one:
it should be as well known as "WWJD?" Pastors everywhere should ask congretations to think about this issue and to start taking small steps to ACT upon it.
The time has come to take the politics out of this issue so that ALL Christians will start to preserve/protect the environment.
The time has come for ALL Christians to become a positive example to friends and neighbors so that "Preserve & Protect" becomes a daily mandate.
Blessings to your parish for leading the way,
Deb Mercer
Arlington, VA
Why not? I care because this is a place created by God for me and in taking care of it I show my love to Him.
When we visit friends we clean up after ourselves for the next person
Taking care of the world is being Mature and Reaponsible it is not a Political Issue. Good manners and Habits should always be growing in a Mature person.
We are a new Creation in Christ and we are always growing.
Thanks for making me accountable. I now stop and think more along saving then wasting.
it is a great habit to develop and I appreciate anyone who makes me think outside myself thanks again, Grace.
I feel peoples sorrows joys and desires so when others are happy i am happy and when they are sad or angry so am i believe it i always enjoy sacraficing for the glory and honour of others
In his commentary entitled, "Confessions of Closet Environmentalist”, Raymond Randall said, in part, "I watched The Great Warming at Northland..in September 2006. I decided to attend mostly because I have great respect for my pastor, and he has become passionate about this issue. (I clearly wouldn’t have seen Al Gore’s movie for fear of being identified as an imposter for someone who really cared.) ...Why would our commitment and desire to obey His word depend on science, trends, political platforms or celebrity endorsements? ...Creation Care is not an option, or something for fanaticsit is a responsibility for all Christians."
Mr. Randall is exactly right. When I visited Orlando last Spring, I attended Northland with family members and was quite impressed with the balance shown by Joel Hunter on this issue when he said toward the end of his sermon on 04/06/08, "You can't save the environment, but you can turn out a light bulb. (Change yourself; you can't change the world.)"
God's people were being warned about cynical opportunists / sheep in wolves clothing who have set out to exploit well-meaning Christians by leading them to believe that they can "save the planet" if they just agree to certain political solutions by the taxing authorities.
The proof:
The court case brought against Al Gore and his global warming propaganda film in Great Britian, was by Stuart Dimmock - a father of two sons at state school and a school governor. The "ruling" had to do with Al and his friends' attempt to "politically indoctrinate" little children in school - which is illegal in the UK.
The "scientific errors" they discovered in Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" (AIT), are a side issue, and were not the basis for the case brought against the propagandist, Al Gore.
The judge found, among other things, that in Al Gore's movie, AIT, "science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ..." [See details below]
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
Case No: CO/3615/2007 Hearing dates: 27, 28 September, 1, 2 October 2007 Before: MR JUSTICE BURTON
Stuart Dimmock - Claimant -- Mr Paul Downes and Miss Emily Saunderson (instructed by Malletts) for the Claimant
-vs-
Sec. State for Education and Skills - Defendant -- Mr Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendant
[Judge] Burton:
Stuart Dimmock is a father of two sons at state school and a school governor. He has brought an application to declare unlawful a decision by the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills to distribute to every state secondary school in the United Kingdom a copy of former US Vice-President Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth ("AIT"), ..... I have had very considerable assistance from both the very able Counsel, Paul Downes for the Claimant and Martin Chamberlain for the Defendant, and their respective teams.
The context and nub of the dispute are the statutory provisions described in their side headings as respectively relating to "political indoctrination" and to the "duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues" in schools, now contained in ss406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, which derive from the identical provisions in ss44 and 45 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986. ...
I viewed the film at the parties' request..... It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – ... – but that it is a political film.. . Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming,... but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out.
Paul Downes... has established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies, which he illustrates ...:
(i) Fiscal policy and the way that a whole variety of activities aretaxed, including fuel consumption, travel and manufacturing …
(ii) Investment policy and the way that governments encourage directly and indirectly various forms of activity.
(iii) Energy policy and the fuels (in particular nuclear) employed for the future.
(iv) Foreign policy and the relationship held with nations that consume and/or produce carbon-based fuels."
... the Defendant, does not challenge that the film promotes political views. ................."
In the DEFRA [the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] leaflet ... there was this one sentence summary:
"Mr Johnson said that influencing the opinions of children was crucial to developing a long term view on the environment among the public."
After the pre-action correspondence from the Claimant, and on the very day the Judicial Review Claim Form was issued, a somewhat differently worded news release was issued by the Defendant dated 2 May 2007:
"....This pack will help to give young people information and inspiration to understand and debate the issues around climate change..."
The explanation for the distribution to all schools is now given in these proceedings in the witness statement of Ms Julie Bramman of the DES:
"8. …I should say at once that it was recognised from the start that __parts of the Film contained views about public policy__ and __how we should respond__ to climate change. The aim of distributing the film was not to promote those views, but rather to present the science of climate change in an engaging way and to promote and encourage debate on the political issues raised by that science."
...the meaning of partisan, as in partisan political views: ...
Partisan
... Mr Downes pointed to dictionary definitions suggesting the relevance of commitment, or adherence to a cause. In my judgment, the best simile for it might be "one sided". Mr Downes, in paragraph 27 of his skeleton argument, helpfully suggested that there were factors that could be considered by a court in determining whether the expression or promotion of a particular view could evidence or indicate partisan promotion of those views:
"(i) A superficial treatment of the subject matter typified by portraying factual or philosophical premises as being self-evident or trite with insufficient explanation or justification and without any indication that they may be the subject of legitimate controversy; the misleading use of scientific data; misrepresentations and half-truths; and one-sidedness.
(ii) The deployment of material in such a way as to prevent pupils meaningfully testing the veracity of the material and forming an independent understanding as to how reliable it is.
(iii) The exaltation of protagonists and their motives coupled with the demonisation of opponents and their motives.
(iv)The derivation of a moral expedient from assumed consequences requiring the viewer to adopt a particular view and course of action in order to do "right" as opposed to "wrong."
This is clearly a useful analysis.
"....What is forbidden by the statute is, as the side heading makes clear, "political indoctrination". If a teacher uses the platform of a classroom to promote partisan political views in the teaching of any subject, then that would offend against the statute.
[...]
The Film
I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
i)"... science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ..."
The Errors [38 found - only 9 focused on for brevity - are snipped here]
The Guidance
"... in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to "influence the opinions of children" (paragraph 7 above) but so as to "stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes" (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website.....
...it is noteworthy that in the (unamended) Guidance Note there is no or no adequate discussion at all, either by way of description or by way of raising relevant questions for discussion, in relation to any of the above 9 'errors', the first two of which are at any rate apparently based on non-existent or misunderstood evidence, and the balance of which are or may be based upon lack of knowledge or appreciation of the scientific position, and all of which are significant planks in Mr Gores's 'political' argumentation. ..."
"...One particular change in the section on "Citizenship: Planning a whole day event on climate change" is of some significance:
"..... Invite in a guest speaker to go over the issues raised across the day and discuss solutions … But please remember that teaching staff must not promote any particular political response to climate change and, when such potential responses are brought to the attention of pupils, must try to ensure that pupils are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views."
The _amended_ Guidance Note contains in its introduction a new and significant passage:
"[Schools] must bear in mind the following points
* An Inconvenient Truth promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one sided views about political issues)
* teaching staff must be careful to ensure that they do not themselves promote those views;
* in order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply
I see my post was cut off at the end (probably because of length :)- so I'm copying the rest of it below. I also want to correct my comment to say, "wolves in sheep's clothing" (rather than the other way around.)
To finish my previous post:
* in order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gore's view may be inaccurate ...
* where the film suggests that views should take particular action at the political level (e.g. to lobby their democratic representatives to vote for measures to cut carbon emissions), teaching staff must be careful to offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views and not to promote either the view expressed in the film or any other particular view.
"...I am satisfied that, with the Guidance Note, as amended, the Defendant is setting the film into a context in which it can be shown by teachers, and not so that the Defendant itself or the schools are promoting partisan views contained in the film, and is putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views can and will be offered. There is no call for the Defendant to support the more extreme views of Mr Gore – ..."
I can't claim to have it over Mr. Vice President - you know, the dude who invented the information super highway - but I've cared about the environment for the longest time. Back in college, I sewed 2 leather patches onto the back of the bottom of each leg of my favorite jeans: "Pollution" "Solution", they declared as I walked about campus. I still unabashedly pick out aluminum cans from the trash at our office to put them into the recycling bins.
I believe that we are environmentally comatose because we lack VISION and IMAGINATION. "Vision" is about the ability to see a little further than right in front of our noses. "It doesn't really FEEL any warmer", we think: "global warming" must be a conspiracy that only baby-killing liberals have dreamed up. We point to the 1% of the dissenting scientists as proof and permission to doubt and carp, but ignore the 99% who believe we've seen enough. We forget that not so long ago (or even now?), tobacco companies dispute the link between smoking and lung cancer. We conveniently put out of our heads what would happen to the future that our children (and theirs) will inherit long after we're gone. We treat our stewardship and responsibility literally as being "inconsequential".
And we lack imagination. We have probably all heard from missionaries, long- and short-term; they return from the field and tell us of the dire circumstances of distant peoples, who live where scarcity of water and/or food is a way of life. These missionaries will tell us how profoundly their outlook and their lives are changed by such an experience. You and I might sit in the congregation, gasp, sigh, perhaps even well up a little. We'll all pray for them but come away basically with our own lives unchanged. So why is it so hard to IMAGINE having taken one such foreign trip? Instead, we'll still casually stuff our fridges with so much food that we'll end up throwing much of it away, just because we can afford to. We'll continue to leave the lights on when we don't need them, let the water run when we shave/brush our teeth. We'll dismiss any suggestions we turn the thermostat up in the summer (down in the winter) as being "uncomfortable".
There's actually another problem: we have TERRIBLE memory. Even when we are moved to tears by the afore-mentioned missionary tales, we soon lapse into the malaise described in Eliot's poem "Journey of the Magi".
As the Bible repeatedly teaches us: change begins with attitude and believe, but it isn't meaningful until we consummate it through a change in ACTION. Let's start small: find 2 or 3 things that we can do consistently that can make a difference. Don't worry about whether it might be too small - if there weren't any tiny drops, oceans won't exist.
Posted by: Paul Lai | June 02, 2007 at 02:03 PM
I care for creation because it is a means through which God reveals Himself. Through the centuries, godly men and women have drained quantities of blood and sweat to preserve, translate and distribute Scripture--the primary conduit of God's "special revelation" to humanity, as theologians would say. Similarly, should not godly men and women exert blood and sweat to preserve and protect creation--as we have already been instructed to do--so that God's glory may be clearly seen in a culture distracted by the bright lights and loud noises of our own making?
Posted by: Matt G. | June 04, 2007 at 01:06 PM
My story, the short version
Willson Stuart McBurney
The year was 1977 when my dad, one Sunday afternoon, said, “We need to find something for you to do to earn some money”. Shortly after that, Willson’s Lawn Care was up and running. To this day I say that I put myself though college, working hard every night after school and during the long hot summers. But I do realize that I was subsidized by my folks with money and lots of prayer.
Another vivid recollection I have was of another Sunday afternoon discussion with my Dad. “What do you think you’d like to study in College?” I am sure he had booklets from Indiana University and Geneva College as well, but the discussion centered on what had become somewhat of an agrarian lifestyle for me. I decided that I would study Agricultural Engineering at Purdue University.
So in the fall of 1983 I started my next career as a student at Purdue in Agricultural Engineering. About halfway through my first semester, I realized that I needed to be good at math to be an agricultural engineer. Who would have known? I’m sure my Mom and Dad did, but they let me sign up anyway. I say anyway because it was my mother who would painstakingly review math flash cards with me all summer long when I was young. The memories of those flash card drills are still a bit painful.
So, after some consultation with my folks and my academic advisor at Purdue, I decided to take a horticulture class in the Horticulture Building on the other side of campus. In the Hort building I was exposed to the profession of Landscape Architecture. I was intrigued by the thought that I could study about dirt and plants and learn how to design and build beautiful places. And not much math was required. Cool.
I’ve been practicing landscape architecture in Central Florida since 1987 and have been a Florida Registered Landscape Architect since 1991. In that same time I have met and married my beautiful wife, been blessed with two adorable and rascally children and have had the opportunity to serve millions of people in this profession.
And now that I have had some time to reflect on the last 30 years, I realize, very clearly now, that God’s hand was guiding me to this profession right from the start, through the wisdom and gentle guidance of my Mom and Dad.
There are countless professions that can claim the charge to love this world and make it a better place. It now seems to me that landscape architects truly have the job to create memorable spaces for all types of people to enjoy and to do it responsibly, being trained to be sensitive to the amazing flora and fauna that God put here for us to enjoy and subdue.
Subduing. .. It has been difficult for me to be a part of development teams that will remove every trace of vegetation that has existed for hundreds of years. I feel fortunate to be in the position, however, to help re-create that original sense of place, to put back what used to be there.
The topic of “sustainability” (the latest buzz word in the design profession) is on peoples’ minds theses days. This essentially means that we create spaces that last, with materials and methods that use our resources (God’s resources) wisely. Resources mean many things to many different people but I am constantly reminded that I have the responsibility, in my role as a landscape architect, to help protect and preserve our (God’s) existing, natural resources. I do get to re-create or replace if you will, some resources to a certain degree, but some cannot be created by my hands. Conserved or preserved, yes, but not created.
I know now that God has called me to this profession, very loudly, and that He has put the topic of Creation Care on my heart. I can help others understand our fragile Florida ecosystems and how we can easily change some of our habits to better care for what God has put us in charge of. I can help make God’s earth a better place to live.
I often wonder if my career would be different today if the Fall had never happened. I suppose there would be no need for landscape architects. Perhaps God would have let me become a pilot, my other childhood dream. Probably not, they need math skills too. . .
End.
Posted by: Willson Stuart McBurney | June 12, 2007 at 02:09 PM
I’ve always found politics frustrating because it seems so difficult to get to the truth. As a result, I’m sad to admit I haven’t been very involved or even well informed. So, when a friend of mine suggested I get involved with the Creation Care Team with our friend Ray I looked at her with complete disbelief. She knows me better than anyone. How could she ever think this would interest me? She and I had just been discussing the fact that I felt a need to get involved with something of which I felt passion. Creation Care? I didn’t think so. I wouldn’t even fit into that group. Among other reasons, I drive an SUV! That can’t be acceptable in a Creation Care group.
Well, my friend has always been a great friend and spiritual mentor. So, I decided to give it some thought and prayer. I did not want to get involved in something I couldn’t feel passionate about, especially since time is so valuable. I soon remembered a commercial from years ago that impacted me. It was an American Indian standing near beautiful places that had been littered with trash. A tear ran down the Indian’s face. I’m not sure who created the commercial, but I never forgot the meaning. I have always been bothered by the lack of concern of people that litter. God quickly showed me that I do have a passion for caring for the earth.
So, I then talked to my friend Ray who explained the purpose of the group, that is was more about following a biblical mandate than any political agendas. He also assured me that it didn’t matter if I was driving an SUV…..we start where we are.
I feel like God has led me to be involved with this group. It is so funny to me that it didn’t seem likely to me at first, but now it seems so natural. I am now very concerned about how I can help care for God’s creation. I’m certain it pleases Him greatly when we strive to live out his mandates everyday.
Soon after becoming involved in the group I had some car trouble. I started exploring my options and became interested in the Toyota Prius, a hybrid car. Yep, I traded in my SUV and am now driving the Prius and loving it! I get an average of 45-50 miles per gallon. I’m saving money and resources, as well as driving a more environment friendly car. I really love it. I don’t feel that everyone has to do this, but that everyone should help in whatever way they can.
I’m looking forward to finding out other ways I can care for the earth, and draw closer to God.
Denise Kirsop
Realtor®
Realty Executives Orlando
Posted by: Denise Kirsop | June 12, 2007 at 02:11 PM
"God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." - Genisis 1:28
(NIV footnote: "...as God's representative in the creaturely realm, he is steward of God's creatures. He is not to expoit, waste or despoil them, but to care for them and use them in the service of God and man.")
I read that passage and footnote at my first-ever Bible study in 1990. I knew immediatley that God was calling me, as the mother of a small child, to do my part to protect and peserve His creation for future generations.
Our family immediately started recycling -- taking cans, bottles, newspapers to the recycling bins -- and making other changes to use less energy. Simple, daily tasks became another way to honor God .
For years I've been disappointed that Christians have neither worked with environmentalists nor initiated their own faith-based "Preserve & Protect God's Creation" movement.
Perhaps it's easy to ignore Scripture on the subject because the issue
1) has been "politicized" by Big Business as anti-capitalist;
2) linked to liberal Democrats and has been demonized;
3) labeled "too difficult" because it requires some lifestyle changes and/or personal sacrifice.
What will we say when God asks "What did you do with what I gave you?" (*)
This is a faith-based question, not a political one:
it should be as well known as "WWJD?" Pastors everywhere should ask congretations to think about this issue and to start taking small steps to ACT upon it.
The time has come to take the politics out of this issue so that ALL Christians will start to preserve/protect the environment.
The time has come for ALL Christians to become a positive example to friends and neighbors so that "Preserve & Protect" becomes a daily mandate.
Blessings to your parish for leading the way,
Deb Mercer
Arlington, VA
(*) Richard Cizik, The Washingotn Post, August 8
Posted by: Deborah Mercer | August 09, 2007 at 12:45 PM
"God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." - Genisis 1:28
(NIV footnote: "...as God's representative in the creaturely realm, he is steward of God's creatures. He is not to expoit, waste or despoil them, but to care for them and use them in the service of God and man.")
I read that passage and footnote at my first-ever Bible study in 1990. I knew immediatley that God was calling me, as the mother of a small child, to do my part to protect and peserve His creation for future generations.
Our family immediately started recycling -- taking cans, bottles, newspapers to the recycling bins -- and making other changes to use less energy. Simple, daily tasks became another way to honor God .
For years I've been disappointed that Christians have neither worked with environmentalists nor initiated their own faith-based "Preserve & Protect God's Creation" movement.
Perhaps it's easy to ignore Scripture on the subject because the issue
1) has been "politicized" by Big Business as anti-capitalist;
2) linked to liberal Democrats and has been demonized;
3) labeled "too difficult" because it requires some lifestyle changes and/or personal sacrifice.
What will we say when God asks "What did you do with what I gave you?" (*)
This is a faith-based question, not a political one:
it should be as well known as "WWJD?" Pastors everywhere should ask congretations to think about this issue and to start taking small steps to ACT upon it.
The time has come to take the politics out of this issue so that ALL Christians will start to preserve/protect the environment.
The time has come for ALL Christians to become a positive example to friends and neighbors so that "Preserve & Protect" becomes a daily mandate.
Blessings to your parish for leading the way,
Deb Mercer
Arlington, VA
(*) Richard Cizik, The Washingotn Post, August 8
Posted by: Deborah Mercer | August 09, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Why not? I care because this is a place created by God for me and in taking care of it I show my love to Him.
When we visit friends we clean up after ourselves for the next person
Taking care of the world is being Mature and Reaponsible it is not a Political Issue. Good manners and Habits should always be growing in a Mature person.
We are a new Creation in Christ and we are always growing.
Thanks for making me accountable. I now stop and think more along saving then wasting.
it is a great habit to develop and I appreciate anyone who makes me think outside myself thanks again, Grace.
Posted by: Grace Sarvotham | September 21, 2007 at 08:41 AM
Posted by: | October 18, 2007 at 03:44 AM
I feel peoples sorrows joys and desires so when others are happy i am happy and when they are sad or angry so am i believe it i always enjoy sacraficing for the glory and honour of others
Posted by: mark B eamer sr | June 09, 2008 at 07:08 PM
In his commentary entitled, "Confessions of Closet Environmentalist”, Raymond Randall said, in part, "I watched The Great Warming at Northland..in September 2006. I decided to attend mostly because I have great respect for my pastor, and he has become passionate about this issue. (I clearly wouldn’t have seen Al Gore’s movie for fear of being identified as an imposter for someone who really cared.) ...Why would our commitment and desire to obey His word depend on science, trends, political platforms or celebrity endorsements? ...Creation Care is not an option, or something for fanaticsit is a responsibility for all Christians."
Mr. Randall is exactly right. When I visited Orlando last Spring, I attended Northland with family members and was quite impressed with the balance shown by Joel Hunter on this issue when he said toward the end of his sermon on 04/06/08, "You can't save the environment, but you can turn out a light bulb. (Change yourself; you can't change the world.)"
God's people were being warned about cynical opportunists / sheep in wolves clothing who have set out to exploit well-meaning Christians by leading them to believe that they can "save the planet" if they just agree to certain political solutions by the taxing authorities.
The proof:
The court case brought against Al Gore and his global warming propaganda film in Great Britian, was by Stuart Dimmock - a father of two sons at state school and a school governor. The "ruling" had to do with Al and his friends' attempt to "politically indoctrinate" little children in school - which is illegal in the UK.
The "scientific errors" they discovered in Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" (AIT), are a side issue, and were not the basis for the case brought against the propagandist, Al Gore.
The judge found, among other things, that in Al Gore's movie, AIT, "science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ..." [See details below]
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
Case No: CO/3615/2007 Hearing dates: 27, 28 September, 1, 2 October 2007 Before: MR JUSTICE BURTON
Stuart Dimmock - Claimant -- Mr Paul Downes and Miss Emily Saunderson (instructed by Malletts) for the Claimant
-vs-
Sec. State for Education and Skills - Defendant -- Mr Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendant
[Judge] Burton:
Stuart Dimmock is a father of two sons at state school and a school governor. He has brought an application to declare unlawful a decision by the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills to distribute to every state secondary school in the United Kingdom a copy of former US Vice-President Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth ("AIT"), ..... I have had very considerable assistance from both the very able Counsel, Paul Downes for the Claimant and Martin Chamberlain for the Defendant, and their respective teams.
The context and nub of the dispute are the statutory provisions described in their side headings as respectively relating to "political indoctrination" and to the "duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues" in schools, now contained in ss406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, which derive from the identical provisions in ss44 and 45 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986. ...
I viewed the film at the parties' request..... It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – ... – but that it is a political film.. . Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming,... but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out.
Paul Downes... has established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies, which he illustrates ...:
(i) Fiscal policy and the way that a whole variety of activities aretaxed, including fuel consumption, travel and manufacturing …
(ii) Investment policy and the way that governments encourage directly and indirectly various forms of activity.
(iii) Energy policy and the fuels (in particular nuclear) employed for the future.
(iv) Foreign policy and the relationship held with nations that consume and/or produce carbon-based fuels."
... the Defendant, does not challenge that the film promotes political views. ................."
In the DEFRA [the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] leaflet ... there was this one sentence summary:
"Mr Johnson said that influencing the opinions of children was crucial to developing a long term view on the environment among the public."
After the pre-action correspondence from the Claimant, and on the very day the Judicial Review Claim Form was issued, a somewhat differently worded news release was issued by the Defendant dated 2 May 2007:
"....This pack will help to give young people information and inspiration to understand and debate the issues around climate change..."
The explanation for the distribution to all schools is now given in these proceedings in the witness statement of Ms Julie Bramman of the DES:
"8. …I should say at once that it was recognised from the start that __parts of the Film contained views about public policy__ and __how we should respond__ to climate change. The aim of distributing the film was not to promote those views, but rather to present the science of climate change in an engaging way and to promote and encourage debate on the political issues raised by that science."
...the meaning of partisan, as in partisan political views: ...
Partisan
... Mr Downes pointed to dictionary definitions suggesting the relevance of commitment, or adherence to a cause. In my judgment, the best simile for it might be "one sided". Mr Downes, in paragraph 27 of his skeleton argument, helpfully suggested that there were factors that could be considered by a court in determining whether the expression or promotion of a particular view could evidence or indicate partisan promotion of those views:
"(i) A superficial treatment of the subject matter typified by portraying factual or philosophical premises as being self-evident or trite with insufficient explanation or justification and without any indication that they may be the subject of legitimate controversy; the misleading use of scientific data; misrepresentations and half-truths; and one-sidedness.
(ii) The deployment of material in such a way as to prevent pupils meaningfully testing the veracity of the material and forming an independent understanding as to how reliable it is.
(iii) The exaltation of protagonists and their motives coupled with the demonisation of opponents and their motives.
(iv)The derivation of a moral expedient from assumed consequences requiring the viewer to adopt a particular view and course of action in order to do "right" as opposed to "wrong."
This is clearly a useful analysis.
"....What is forbidden by the statute is, as the side heading makes clear, "political indoctrination". If a teacher uses the platform of a classroom to promote partisan political views in the teaching of any subject, then that would offend against the statute.
[...]
The Film
I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
i)"... science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ..."
The Errors [38 found - only 9 focused on for brevity - are snipped here]
The Guidance
"... in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to "influence the opinions of children" (paragraph 7 above) but so as to "stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes" (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website.....
...it is noteworthy that in the (unamended) Guidance Note there is no or no adequate discussion at all, either by way of description or by way of raising relevant questions for discussion, in relation to any of the above 9 'errors', the first two of which are at any rate apparently based on non-existent or misunderstood evidence, and the balance of which are or may be based upon lack of knowledge or appreciation of the scientific position, and all of which are significant planks in Mr Gores's 'political' argumentation. ..."
"...One particular change in the section on "Citizenship: Planning a whole day event on climate change" is of some significance:
"..... Invite in a guest speaker to go over the issues raised across the day and discuss solutions … But please remember that teaching staff must not promote any particular political response to climate change and, when such potential responses are brought to the attention of pupils, must try to ensure that pupils are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views."
The _amended_ Guidance Note contains in its introduction a new and significant passage:
"[Schools] must bear in mind the following points
* An Inconvenient Truth promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one sided views about political issues)
* teaching staff must be careful to ensure that they do not themselves promote those views;
* in order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply
Posted by: Lynn Walker | July 20, 2008 at 01:35 PM
I see my post was cut off at the end (probably because of length :)- so I'm copying the rest of it below. I also want to correct my comment to say, "wolves in sheep's clothing" (rather than the other way around.)
To finish my previous post:
* in order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gore's view may be inaccurate ...
* where the film suggests that views should take particular action at the political level (e.g. to lobby their democratic representatives to vote for measures to cut carbon emissions), teaching staff must be careful to offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views and not to promote either the view expressed in the film or any other particular view.
"...I am satisfied that, with the Guidance Note, as amended, the Defendant is setting the film into a context in which it can be shown by teachers, and not so that the Defendant itself or the schools are promoting partisan views contained in the film, and is putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views can and will be offered. There is no call for the Defendant to support the more extreme views of Mr Gore – ..."
Posted by: | July 20, 2008 at 01:46 PM