Posted on 04/12/2005 1:58:39 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Over the past couple of years, evangelicals have taken an increased interest in the environment. You may have read about some of the meetings that have been held recently in Washington. This is a good thing, because evangelicals have often forgotten that we have a stewardship responsibility for all of God’s creation. That means the air we breathe, the water we drink, the wilderness areas we all enjoy. I applaud some of the evangelical leaders who have been pricking our consciences—and some who have been setting good examples by driving fuel-efficient vehicles.
But evangelicals need to remember that we are in a unique position. We’re not a special-interest group. We are not special pleaders for the environment or for industry and economic development. Rather than enter the environmental war on one side or the other, we’re supposed to look at all of these issues even-handedly.
The weakness with much of the environmental movement, in my opinion, is that it has become extreme. Most folks associate it with the tree-huggers, who would just as soon blow up loggers as let them cut down the redwoods—and some have done just that. Evangelicals can take a much more moderated, balanced perspective.
Take the issue of drilling for oil in the Alaskan wildlife refuge. This is environmentalism run amuck. People are unwilling to put clean drilling rigs in an area that is remote from human habitation because it might frighten off some polar bears. At the same time, we could produce enough oil out of the arctic drilling to offset much of our dependence on Middle-Eastern oil. Those rigs could produce the equivalent of what Saudi Arabia exports to us daily. So it’s not enough just to look at the environmental concerns. In this case, national security dictates a greater concern—that is, energy independence and our security against the Middle East .
I just use that illustratively. In our newfound zeal to protect the environment, let’s remember that there are always conflicting interests and that we are the stewards, not just of the environment, but also of the welfare of people. Half the people on earth live on less than three dollars a day. Stifling industrial or economic development doesn’t have a particularly tough effect on us. We’re going to have a prosperous economy no matter what. But it can paralyze and cripple people in the Third World .
My appeal is that we take a balanced approach. Some of the statements that came out of the most recent evangelical caucus here in Washington tended, in my view, to tilt toward the environmentalist side. Well, maybe that’s a healthy corrective at the moment. But for the long run, evangelicals have got to be the ones that mediate, always remembering that we are stewards of all of God’s creation. And the supreme act of His creation is human beings. It will do us little good to keep the Arctic Circle pristine if it’s at the cost of America being driven to her knees by Middle-Eastern oil traders. It does little good to preserve the Brazilian rain forest if the cost is millions of Brazilians living in shacks on sub-standard wages.
We are to take dominion over all of God’s creation, being good stewards of nature, animals, and people.
I'm all for smart enviromentalism. It's the reason oil companies build ice roads on the tundra.
JAFO
It's already there. Enviro-mental, as in mental cases. Trust me, they are mental cases. How do I know? For a short while I was a FLEXCOM-ie.
Means I was on the Florida Executive Committee of Sierra Club. I left when I realized what they were.
Same here.. I'm for clean air and stuff. However, we need common sense environmental policies...
And they are most asuredly not taking their meds, either!
Fossils, Herkimer diamonds, small caves, tons of uncommon wildlife, springs, all with 2.3 miles of intertwining (raked and groomed) walking trails, and even a great view of 3 states.
Let no good deed go unpunished, and they treat me like I'm the Antichrist.
What I don't understand is, if people are concerned about the environment, but want to stay away from the rabid environmentalists, why don't they just call themselves conservationalists? That is a term I grew up with, conservation, on a ranch in NM. After having many conversations with people who claimed themselves as environmentalists, and some die hards, most of them I related to conservation issues rather than off the wall environmentalism.
I tell people that Ive put the conserve back into conservative. The problem with enviromentalists today is the fact that they're really just anti corporate.
If someone was truely interested in reducing environmental pollution, they would want drilling in Alaska over drilling anywhere else. There are no more stringent controls than on the North Slope. A pickup truck cannot be fueled without using a drip pan to catch a possible drop from the nozzle.
In the Middle East, they pour raw crude oil on the roads to control the dust.
I am not a Christian, but will say AMEN to that!
Anyway, we had a REAL EPISCOPALIAN PREACHER here last summer on loan from NY state on some cultural grant. He was really here trying to do good and not take advantage of people what all the other local preachers do.
He was a lib kinda guy but for once a real preacher. The Episcopalians were given this part of alaska way back when they decided to Americanize the natives. Natives are all greenies deep inside but also pro oil development. It didn't surprise me all that much to hear certain church groups coming out against anwr. You know a small percentage of Indians will always be anti-anwr and vocal. They get in with church leadership and you see what happens.
The price of oil determines development anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.