Rupert’s Blog

thanks rupert, love the plausible denialability

we could save the plane ride and just walk outside church to be missionaries - or we can go and teach others about caring for creation and make the trip carbon neutral

I think as your post points out - we have a limited understanding of what good news of Jesus is - Jerry is right in that the saving part is important but i agree with you that the saving is more than just eternal destination, it is about living now in harmony with God, afterall the invitaiton of Jesus is not so much say a prayer and go to heaven but rethink your life and enter into the God’s dream for you and this world…

Hi Rupert, didn’t want to clutter up your comments tray but I did respond in my blog:

http://gecko76.livejournal.com/94541.html

cheers

Wow..great post! Totally agree about God renewing creation. The evidence definately points in that direction. Also, our hope is not to be raptured out of this trashed world to a perfect heaven; rather, it is to be caught with/to Jesus who will re-appear to personally sort this world out and renew creation.

However, I have to admit I did not fully agree with the speaker (I was there!). Jesus’ last words to us were not “Go out unto all creation and reduce carbon emissions”. Jesus did not summon 12 apostles in order for them to start an eco-desert community. Our mandate is to make disciples. As part of that disciple-making, by all means teach people about caring for our precious planet. But to rule out disciple-making (or to narrow it down to areas you can walk to only) does seem a bit extreme.

However, the speaker had one, perhaps unintentional point. Mission should begin at home. How many of us fly off on missions trips once a year, yet barely scratch the surface when it comes to mission to our neighbourhood, or mission to our city, or country? Most churches seem to think mission involves spending a grand on air fares and shipping out to some far-off place. Hello! Edinburgh needs Jesus! So yes, lets cut down air travel and love and connect with our own city.

At the end of the day, God will RENEW our planet. But he can’t force people into his Kingdom.

JUDGEMENT SCENE: WHITE THRONE

God: I asked you to bring the gospel to the remote tribe of Blah. Why didn’t you go?

Christian: Uh, I couldn’t get there on foot and I didn’t want to wreck your planet

God: Hello! Don’t you believe I can renew creation?

Christian: Well, yes, but I didn’t want to sin and trash it for everyone else

God: That’s very nice of you. Those folks that lived a nice eco life without climate change are now burning in hell

Christian: Whoops…anything I can, ur, do about it?

God: Not really, bit late now.

Christian: I see. Doh!

Most “good things to do” in life conflict with other things on the same list. I don’t think we can blanket rule flying. Anyway, it only produces 5% of CO2 emissions. Living in a house causes more CO2 emissions (25% of UK emissions?) Perhaps we should all live in tents again?

Am totally happy with getting on a plane to go overseas on mission - if God tells you to, but my question is how many people who go to wherever etc have explicitly been told to get on a plane? How did people do it prior to planes? How did Paul go on ‘mission’? If ‘being obedient’ is seen as a sacrifice then why expect to get there in comfort and convenience at the planet’s expense - rather maybe travel over land and see the ‘journey’ as part of ‘the journey’ and the people met on travel as part of your ‘mission field’? What I object to is the assumption that we have to fly, that we have to ask God for permission to do ‘green stuff’ when he has given us wisdom and intellligence and made us stewards. Rejecting the scientific advice and believing that either ‘God will sort it out’ or ‘God will tell me if I am to do something to help the planet’
is overly naive and feeds into the divorce between science and religion.
Amd my next point is, yes go and make disciples (if you hold to that worldview and interpretation of scripture) but why send missionaries abroad when they are sending them here?
And finally, this is perhaps majoring on minors - how many of us actually are ‘called’ to go abroad on mission? Compare this with the number of leisure flights taken and you’ll see we may be focussing in the wrong place!

Soory, further comment - it also depends on your view re Hell!!

Andrew, are you the one and same Andrew that actually did the talk?

MIght be!

Hi Rupert - you invited me to comment sometime so here I am!

I think what annoys me about the sermon you linked to is the terrible science used. Yes, the Earth experiences warming and cooling trends, always has done, but what almost all scientists are now sure of is that the RATE of warming in the last 50-100 years is just totally unprecedented. Previous trends happened over thousands and hundreds of thousands of years, we are causing it in merely a century. There is no comparison.
I have my cynical hat on here (hey, when do I NOT have my cynical hat on?) but there might just be a link between global-warming denial and a certain government not too far away from here? When peoples political and economic interests are threatened then their theology can be distorted in an effort to maintain their own status quo. People, Christians included, are afraid of change.

As far as the mission question - well I have a bit of an issue with (some) short term mission anyway. Hit and run mission is more for the people who go than the people who are ‘missioned’. There is a lot of value in exposing people to different cultures and experiences and many who go abroad on short term mission are changed forever by the experience. Many go back and do longer term work. But there is a lot of that kind of thing which is also just to salve our blunted consciousness and make us feel better that we have ‘done something’ - when we could just as easily, but less glamourously, do something at home. The missionary in us must start at our own back door, not when we get on the plane.

I’d also ask the question in church ‘would you be prepared to give up your short haull weekend to Prague and your summer holiday in Spain in order to do short term mission instead’ - maybe the flights are easier to justify if you cut back on your other flying. As we are flying long haul early next year in order to plan our long term mission, we have chosen to holiday in the UK this year, going no further than Yorkshire to visit an old flatmate of mine. Plus we cant affford it, but even if we did, we wouldnt.

As fot the eschatology, I’ll leave that to those much more intelligent than me ……

Susan

I’m still a little confused about the fuss over flying, especially when it can be used to further missions.

The official statistics for UK CO2 emission for 2005 are found here.

If you add up the total CO2 produced by domestic flights, including take-off, cruise, and landing, we get a grand total of 0.5%.

0.5% of our CO2 emissions are from folks flying to spain on holiday etc.

I’ll say again: UK domestic homes are consuming far more CO2. Why don’t we live in tents rather than moan about aircraft?

Of course, perhaps I am misreading the figures. If I am, please let me know. But at the moment it looks to me that we are worrying about the “gnats” when there are larger beasts to cull here.

Andrew, regarding your comment on hell, yes, it does rather depend on one’s view of hell. However my point remains, I think, unless one is a universalist. Regardless, I will say no more on that topic: I think Rupert will get mad at me if I start banging on about hell on his blog about carbon emissions

Even if I agree with Fallwell, and for the record, I don’t - I whole heartedly agree with Rupert, I would still argue that care for creation actually can be an evangelistic tool. As creation care also helps in the care of people, particularly in poorer countries, it can open the door to spread the gospel.

Then again, I’m not sure if Fallwell (no offense to him, I’ve never been to his church either) would agree with the incarnate missional evangelism, and might just rather hand out a track and fly off to another location leaving the heathen to decide as he emits CO2 into the air via his spent jet fuel.

it amazes me how many people only consider ‘mission’ to invlove an exotic location … if scripture is to be applied relevantly today then read ‘put on your shoes and hike’ or ‘take up your bike and ride’ and perhaps Britain will one day witness the salvation it desperately needs.

Hi one and all … thanks for the comments. I came back yesterday to find a great conversation going on in my absence. thanks.

I will make a fuller comment after the weekend, when i am pretty tied up with other things.

One point that came to my mind in regard to this was the phrase: does the ends justify the means? By which i mean our primary aim is bringing people to know Jesus, but the way we do this does surely matter.
To give an extreme example, would it be justifible to falsify evidence or tell lies to convince people to become Christians? I would certainly hope not!
Therefore, in our approach to evangelism we should keep in mind the same characteristics and approach that Jesus would wish us to use. Should we get on a plane, train, automobile, or donkey, to achieve it? Well, consider it prayerfully.

I guess the sad thing is there is no mention in your blog of REAL scientists that don’t believe their is any human induced GLOBAL warming . Just a caricature of it being a “those wackos like Jerry Falwell” problem.

It is extremely sad that in the attempt to be “missional” and reach out to “post moderns” you ignore people like the scientists in Oregon and (I believe it was…) Delaware who were both removed from their positions because they dared to voice any opinion different than the current eviromental poster “cause”. (I seriously doubt they were Jerry Falwell followers…)

I believe we must be wise stewards of the enviroment and I am actively involved in recycling…I do not believe in the pretrib rapture…

but we have got to stop swallowing the latest media glop hook line and sinker. It really makes for a rough ride since the poster “cause” changes every so many years…

In the book “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton he included many graphs that show there are a lot of places on the earth where the average temperature has fallen over the last century.

But alas, as he states in his book, these spinners of untruth have convinced many people that “global warming” will actually cause temperatures to go down in some places…how can it be global if the temperature goes down ANYWHERE??

As I mentioned, it is truly sad to see you won’t even take the time to say “Is global warming true?”

Looking down your nose at Jerry Falwell may seem like the “politically correct” thing to do for your audience of “emergents”…but I wonder if checking out the entire issue might not be more truly Christian…

sigh…I get so tired of the latest fad…in the church…or non-church…or where ever…

Hi Rupert,

I was at the talk in church that day. It is good someone has been brave enough to tackle this issue particularly given the views that surround this issue in the church.

I was interested in the comments here about mission in the local area.

Yes it does damage the environment flying off to Africa on Mission or for any other reason.

It is easy to have God tell you to get on a plane and fly off to a beautiful hot country where you are likely to be welcomed warmly and feel pretty good about yourself on return. Feels a little romantic.

I am sure that African culture could teach us a thing or two about caring for what God has given us, Respect for the land that feeds them and for the animals we eat – at least they know where it comes from.

There must be plenty of African Christians these days who could mission in their country just like we could Mission in ours. We could still help fund this from our country.

We are guilty, I think, of judging people in less well off situations in our own area and nation. We either categorise them as lazy,
Beyond redemption, not decent, poor by their own actions. Perhaps this is why we mission in far off hot beautiful hot places. We see
These people as unfortunate and poor by the west’s actions and
Non Christians because of there tribal/pagan history its not their fault.

I ask. Can we truly answer that it is any more a mans fault to be born into a community in Edinburgh that has very little employment, is poor by national and indeed european standards, has had little by way of educational opportunities, sees violence regularly, sees little love from childhood to adulthood. Does this man need or deserve to hear the good news less?

If very recent article in Yesterdays Guardian is anything to go by we would do well to start buying more locally and seeing manufacturing reborn in our country. Shipping uses far more fuel and produces far greater CO2 emissions than flying and is set to soar as the west’s desire for consumer goods from the china and other far off economies. Furthermore, the nations producing the consumer goods of today are using fossil fuel like it was going out of fashion. It’s not their fault. They are reacting to demand; Our demand. It is convenient for us as it also makes the north and west look shinier and more green having all our manufacturing done abroad. Of course there is the other positive. It’s more profitable!

As Christians don’t we also have a mission to recognise that the things we buy have the ability to hurt our world and the people involved in there manufacture. In many of the manufacturing nations the regulations for toxic ingredients and working practises are far less tight than in the west.

I have to disagree with Eric - I find it offensive that you use the term REAL scientists to describe deniers of climate change. As Science teacher I would like to think I have a modicum of ability in interpreting scientific evidence (and if secondary science is not REAL enough, I also have a degree in Vet medicine) Deniers of climate change are by and large in the minority these days and are generally seen as having ulterior motives. The science stands up and surely the fact that climate change is now no lobger just in the realms of the green movement (as evidenced by the publication of the Stern report - an economist no less) and with the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report last month where hundreds of internationally renowned scientists from all over the world examined the evidence and concluded that climate change was our fault! AND - lets be real, its not technically referred to as globasl warming anymore, but climate change for the reasons you have mentioned. So, yes GLOBAL warming may not be a reality but climate change sure as hell is. Just look at the plight of the Polar bear - soon to be officially listed as endangered in US, recognition of the cause by the US administration!!!

What a great discussion. Feel i have to get in on the whole mission/caring for the planet thing too.
In picturing the throne room conversation as one with weighing up souls saved versus having a small carbon footprint the answer seems simple-save the souls.
However I think this seems somewhat simplistic. What we have to realise is that every choice we make has an affect that ripples out from us around the planet.
If I fly repeated through my life on mission I will have a vast carbon footprint. This is not just a number to quote and compare but is a measure of out impact on others.
I wonder how many tonnes my footprint has to be before a child dies of cholera after their village has been flooded, or a child dies because there is no food to eat after a drought.
Suddenly I can see myself shifting from foot to foot in the throne room trying to explain to God that with one hand I “saved many souls” but with my other hand I indirectly took the life of others through my flight use.
I agree with others that if someone is truly called on mission by God then they should go. However the vast majority of mission should happen on our doorstep and is probably vastly more effective.
I think mission has almost become a Gap year activity with people combing a nice holiday with “doing good” returning with great stories and a nice photo album.
We need to truly hear God on not only our missionary efforts but every descision we make for they are impacting others in this planet which can be life or death, so who are we saving?

Dear Andrew,
I am sorry that I didn’t make my self clearer…
first I am not denying climate change.

It is obvious that SOME places in the world have gotten warmer. All I am saying is 1)it is NOT a global phenomenon (as witnessed by the many places that have gotten colder).
2) there is a record of waves of warming and cooling in the earths history…
3) there is still debate among scientists about the cause…is it really caused by CO2 levels all over the earth or is it localized due to some other factors?

Michael Crichton gives the examples of Albany NY and New York City. Albany is a short drive from New York City but it has cooled even though New York is warming. Their CO2 levels are the same. The point is how can 2 places so close together experience the opposite change if this is a truly GLOBAL warming caused by CO2…the answer is they cannot. (This is only one example…there are others.)

(Let me say right here the I started reading the book “State of Fear” not knowing what it was about. The story is not really that good. BUT the charts and other information are priceless,as well as exposing the false “reasoning” of the environmental wacko faction.)

I am NOT implying that REAL scientists don’t believe in climate change. I AM implying that REAL scientists CAN DISAGREE about the cause. I BELIEVE that both sides should be able to speak out and their arguements weighed…

The saddest thing to me is that there cannot be debate. The P.C. crowd determines reality and no one is allowed to disagree. IF you disagree you are forced into submission. (Sadly enough, it is the exact caricature this crowd gives of the “fundamentalists”… like Mr. Falwell.)

Consider the 2 “state” climitalogists I mentioned.Here’s how it works, if you want to keep your “job”, you have to toe the “party line.” THEN they say “See, no one disagrees.” (they have done the same in the Darwin vs. ID debate…) Contrary to popular opinion, there as many liberal “fundamentalists” as conservative ones.

Why are we debating on human knowledge what Jesus has already commanded…Go…to Jerusalem, Samaria and the ends of the earth…

Here is how to solve the problem for you …go as a long term missionary…
(THAT was definitely NOT PC…)

sigh…again…

Dear Andrew…
What I meant about “real” scientists was there ARE REAL TRUE scientists that disagree with the global warming/greenhouse scenario…I only meant don’t make it seem like Jerry Falwell and his fundi disciples are the only ones that don’t believe…

Sorry I never clearly answered that question…

Eric
P.S. For anyone that is wondering,
I am a long term missionary…
18 years in Japan…

Eric - it also, as previously mentioned, depends on your view of scripture! Personally, I have no inclination to go on mission - short term or for life!

lou, thanks for your comment on my throne room scene. I take on board your comments…you are right, and believe me I am really behind the green/eco/low carbon cause. I am just trying to emphasis that mission must come first.

Others…
I also agree with the folks that pointed out that mission begins in your own backyard. I agree 100%!

However I don’t think we should be so hostile to short-term missions. My wife went on a 4 week mission to a dump of place (not postcard holiday) in Romania. She impacted and changed the lives of the girls she worked with forever. That to me is worth the price of the small carbon footprint of the plane journey. I can’t see a bunch of old diesel buses doing a better job of environment impact to be honest (as an alternative transport method).

I am still waiting for someone to take up the point about flights only contributing to a TINY percentage of CO2 emissions. Its power stations and ground/sea transport that are the main culprits. Using a bunch of cars, staying in overnight in a load of hotels, taking a ship, using another old bus, could add up to more energy used, and more pollutions, than simply hopping onto a flight. So I remain unconvinced about the “journey” method of travel. Where are the hard facts?

AndrewDo you believe that not everyone is called on “mission” in terms of the wider sense of being an ambassador of God wherever you go?

Re aviation - see http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/events/past_events/slides/1

The Tyndall centre says:
If the aviation industry is allowed to grow at rates even lower than those being experienced today, the EU could see aviation accounting for between 39% and 79% of its total carbon budget by 2050, depending on the stabilisation level chosen. For the UK, the respective figures are between 50% and 100%.

Yes we need to be hugely tackling dometic emissions but we need to take action on all fronts! I cannot believe this present government is serious re its Kyoto targets etc when it is so pro airport and road expansion.

Re mission - Alistair - absolutely, BUT am hugely unconvinced re the need for us all to be going abroad and ‘colonialising’ other countries! Sorry, am being deliberately controversial and it is hard to elucidate via electronic means!

And as said earlier - think we are majoring on a minor bothe in terms of missional flights ve leisure, and as you have pointed out in flights vs domestic emissions

For more on aviation see:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/12/19/preparing-for-take-off/#more-1036

Seems like there is some confusion over aviation CO2 output.

According to the UK Gov (Environment Statistics and Indicators Division), UK Civil aviation produced 2.3 million tonnes (0.4% of UK total CO2 output)

But according to the Tyndall webpage,

“In 2004 the UK aviation industry emitted an estimated 9.8 million tonnes of carbon”

How can the figures vary so wildly? I won’t be making any lifestyle changing regarding aviation until I can get to the bottom of the facts!

Just how much can aviation output rise? I mean, there are only so many holidays the average Joe can take a year! If I take 3 holidays a year now, are people claiming I will be taking 15 holidays a year in 30 years time? Or is most of the aviation increase expected to be business traffic?

Interesting point Alastair - there is obviously a discrepancy here. how to reolve it? Is it that Tyndall are using amended figures which include long haul flights which (I don’t think ) the government does. Also the gov estimate % occupancy of flights in and out of UK as 50% UK citizens but it is more accurately 69%. Would that explain it?

Thanks Andrew for your suggestions. I have discovered, following reading one of your suggested links above, that the reported aviation emissions are domestic only. Therefore a “holiday flight to Spain” does not appear to be included. The report I looked at, upon further analysis, has memo items at the bottom. Under the heading “International bunkers - Aviation (Cruise)” we see that for 2004 30.7 million tonnes of CO2 was released. I am not totally sure what this figure includes but it does highlight that the original figures are quite narrow in their definition.

Of course, there are other greenhouse gases to be concerned about, but I don’t really know much about that, save that the agricultural industry seem to be one of the main culprits.

Thats right Alastair - CO2 isn’t the only greenhouse gas - water vapour is a potent one (and one emitted by planes, yet not covered in emissions figures!) and methane from agricultur (cows burp and fart huge volumes - I mentioned in my talk that 1kg of beef is responsible for 16kg CO2 equivalent!) and it also comes from landfill, and is currently stored under the sea but if temperatures rise as predicted a huge methane burp will occur and further compound the additional greenhouse effect!

Hey everyone,
thanks for all your comments. Some great comments. Having been tied up all weekend, i now find that i can’t really respond to each one of your comments … sorry.

#1 Paul … i think you are absolutely right about our limited understanding of the gospel / good news. I might write a post on this sometime! There is definately a part of our coming to God / salvation, but i agree it is so much more that what we often talk.

#2 Justin - thanks for visiting …

Alastair and Andrew and others: good discussion on the place of mission. I think we need to find a way of us all being missionaries whereever we are, rather than lauding those who go overseas. So come on wherever we are: lets go and make a difference!

I think i probably want to keep a very broad definition of mission. Again i might write a post on this at point, but mission for me is being a blessing / good news to all people and the whole cosmos (Gen 12). I think in that we are, in our actions, words, love, attitudes etc witness to the transforming power of Jesus. So i actually really don’t see the difference between evangelism and social justice and environmental work …

Susan - thanks for bringing your science to the party … and i think you make so very good points on flying.

James D - good point - thanks.

Erik - thanks for visiting, but i think you are maybe confusing the US scene with the UK scene. I am not a scientist, but in the UK there is really no more debate now about climate change, as others have posted. It is not the “polically correct” crowd that talk or argue for these things here (i guess that might be different in the US?) - so please be careful in the labels you fling around.

In the UK Christian world, Emergents, Anglicans, evangelicals, liberals, catholics and just about every group agree that we have a responsibility to the environment. So don’t box anybody who happens to read this blog as my “audience of emergents”. That might be true in the US (i wouldn’t like to comment) but it certainly isn’t true in the UK.

BUT you actually miss the point of my post. I wasn’t posting about global warming, or climate change. i was actually posting about our responsibilty to the environment as part of our understanding of the gospel … the good news.

I one sense, i couldn’t care less, if the earth is warming or not, and if man has caused it (which i do happen to think it is, and yes we did). What is clear, we are not looking after this wonderful world we have been called to care for and tend … and for that we are not living as good news.

Duncan - good points - thanks for contributing to the discussion … you too Lou.

And andrew and alastiar - thanks for bashinig that out re airplanes. It is good to have a bit more info as we consider how best to live in light of what we are learning.

Dear Rupert,
I used the “e” word because I saw the Brian McLaren book…I was not gracious in that, I apologize for that.(BTW, I have read a couple of his books…)

I have to be honest I guess I felt like the way that Jerry Falwell (who is no particular friend of mine) was used in the original post was a similar “throwing around of” ,at least, catagories.

I am not trying to be obnoxious… honest… but I do think that the original post most definitely is affected by whether or not the CO2 levels are responsible for the climate change.

That is the one question that was addressed… should we travel to do evangelism IF the CO2 destroys the earth.

IF the climate affect of CO2 is not true, the whole question is moot.( As mentioned before, I believe and take part in recycling and other enviromental things, etc…)

I’m sorry I just can’t agree that it is a US only issue. Just today this bit of news fell into my hands…one of France’s leading scientists, a once vocal global warming advocate, has changed his mind about the CO2 issue. He believes, as a growing number of scientists do, that the politics outstripped the science. Please read this 11 part series here: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/
news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

As I said before…I believe in responsible use of the environment.
I have promoted deposits for beverage cans and bottles etc in the past. I promise.

But as mentioned before, I can’t stand to see the church succumb to another fad…while questioning scripture to do it…

sigh…sigh..sigh…
I shall post no more…

Watch this - sobering !!
This is why I do it, this is why Lou and I are looking seriously at our lifestyles. I do not want it to be one of my 2 kids filming this in 10 years time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY7875_rv1s

I lied…I have to post…
Andrew, I watched the video…
I pray that you will read the articles that I linked…

I find it very compelling that one of the original proponents has come out and said “I was wrong”…

All I can say is…an ounce of propaganda is worth a pound of scientific research…
sigh…x4

Eric I am all for healthy debate, that is good science! The link you posted doesn’t work by the way.
My point is that the majority of Scientists are unanimous that climate change is man made and CO2 driven - there will always be doubters and distracters but my money is on the majority. I would hate to buy in to the opposition and be wrong!! At least making lifestyle adjustments in line with the majority recommendation is at the least not harmful (except maybe to US economy and in my opinion thats no bad thing!) and at best may actually be beneficial to the planet. The converse scenario of doing nothing and being wrong is too scray to contempplate!

Eric’s link is to this article: Allegre’s second thoughts.

I have not read the article and cannot comment either way.

Hi Erik,
thanks for posting back. I apologise too if my comments were less than kind about Jerry Falwell. I am very happy for debate and disagreement, but personally try not to make that a personal against someone. I do profoundly disagree with Falwell on all kinds of issues (his view of the environment, the gospel, end times) and was trying to make the point that how we view these things does change our practice.

I was trying to contrast Falwell and what we were looking at church that sunday. I was trying to capture something of the debate about mission being seen as saving souls vs. mission being something far more holistic. And i was trying to do that without slagging off Falwell, but was trying to clear i disagreed with him. Having just re-read my post, i don’t think i did too bad a job at that … but if that wasn’t what i conveyed to you, i do apologise.

And i think you are right, i was asking a question about CO2 levels and mission.

My points (which only Alastair has picked up) on God renewing the earth rather than destroying this one, and creating a new one would still stand (global warming or not) and would still for me mean we have a mission from God to be involved in that restoration work for all creation (world, structures, organisations, people, etc).

The science of global warming is not my forte, and i will look at your articles when i get a chance. What has convinced me so far is a very prominent naturist called David Attenborough in the UK who did a film on global warming. He is an older chap, not known for his hype and has been ruthlessly rigorous in his scientific research on wildlife … and if he was now saying it was happening, i trusted him. I am of course always open to being shown otherwise (like a good emergent!!!) but at present this is the ground i stand on.

Please do come back and comment; your contribution has fueled this discussion and has been appreciated. Thanks.

Alastair and Andrew - thank you for your comments. Andrew i particularly agree with you about your stance on climate change. If we are wrong, we lose very little. That would certainly be where i would be at present.

Poor Eric!

Is it not strange that we seem more relaxed about christian heresy than about scientific “heresy”. What does that say about what we really believe is real deep down. I resonate with Eric’s disappointment that Neo-dox christians feel the need to put down more “traditional” christians (though I admit the characters Rupert has dredged up recently for us are quite breathtaking ).

There are serious scientists who doubt climate-change is primarily man-made, and there are still more who doubt that it is one of our more significant challenges, esp many economists.
Anyone who had spent time in the company of scientists or been involved in scientific research or has read the history of science will be wise enough to hold all scientific knowledge lightly.
If you are wrong you do lose; you lose credibility in the eyes of the world. In Galileo’s day, the church held on to a wrong idea because it was popular with academia at the time, not because of biblical doctrine. Beware.

The juxtaposition of mission work and carbon-emissions makes me think about globalisation. Think about this: on balance does Satan want us to have a global christian network, or separated insular cultures.

And to be honest, I see much more “caring for the land” in the West than I saw in Africa, esp the Sahel. We are heirs and stewards of creation and we need to bless our global neighbours with that knowledge too. Modern science, which grew out of the reformation’s systematic, careful search for truth will help us do that, but we must avoid the temptation to naturalism - nowadays we are all but blind to the high-tech that is organic life - because it doesnt fit into the “scientific” worldview.

And we should ask the Lord to heal our lands. I have no doubt that he will do much of it through changed hearts, but I believe God loves working miracles for those he loves. There is always hope.

Sorry if this is too strong.

Andrew

First, Alastair, thanks for posting that link for me. I truly appreciate it…

Secondly, thank you Rupert for your kind comments…I appreciate them too.

JFYI, I have gone back and forth on the warming issue. I could never find one book or report that could push me totally over to one side or the other. ( Although I never heard David Attenborough’s program I have seen his animal programs…I love the voice…)

Then I happened upon the book, mentioned before,”State of Fear” by Michael Crichton (once again, fairly badly written…but one of the few English books in my local library). But the real graphs and real information he included, plus the author’s message, 2 appendices and bibliography, got me really thinking. Reading those bits is very worth while.

Then I found more information as I dug…one person here and another there who said the same thing, “This is mainly politically motivated, without much hard evidence.”

When the 2 climatologists were “fired” for daring to voice an opposite opinion, we really saw that come into play…

The articles that I mentioned before at the Canada National Post Site make this point from several different angles. The article about hurricane expert was pretty sad… the French scientist changing his opinion due to the new data he found says a lot…

I still believe we as followers of Christ need to make wise use of creation.The large SUVs that are so popular in the US are just wrong. Even if there is no green house effect, it wastes a non-renewable resource. Recycling should be “encouraged” for more materials…

And yet, preaching the Good News was Jesus’ last command…But Alastair’s comment on 3/02 already nailed that one down in my opinion.

Andrew mentioned “colonising”…
not everything done by missionaries has been good. I confess that. But neither has it all been bad.

It must be acknowledged, there is a lot of work that cannot be done where there are very few or no followers of Christ. Like in many areas of Japan.

Cases where missionaries and the Good News of Christ made burning widows at their husbands funerals unacceptable (William Carey) or selling unwanted daughters as temple prostitutes unacceptable(Amy Carmichael) or abandoning unwanted children or old people to die in the weather (many places in the world including Japan). Or establishing hospitals, bringing modern medical or hygiene practices and on and on.

In my opinion, a lot of the freedom and good in the world today is directly traceable to the Good News of Christ. It is very important to start at your Jerusalem (has anyone seen the new movie about William Wilberforce…) but it is also important to take the Good News into all the earth.

Blessings on the journey…where ever it may lead…

In Christ,
Eric Kurfman

Anon / Andrew … thanks for the comment. Neo-dox is a new word on me, and certainly can’t find it anywhere online (except as a chemical name) but i can guess what it means.

In my opinion, if you look at 2000 years of christian history, you could argue that many that you call traditional, are in fact new in thier view of faith, and those you call neo-dox may actually be more traditional and consistent with the whole realm of ancient faith. Once i got out of my evangelical bubble, i found there were a lot more believing people alive now, and throughout history than i first thought (while still appreciating some things that i have learnt from evangelicalism).

The point of this post is that i feel passionate about the way we have narrow the gospel to salvation of souls that i think is unbiblical. So i get bothered by “heresy”.

Back to topic, you are right we could lose by aligning ourselves with the environmental movement, if it is wrong. However the opposite is also true … and you only have to look at the church opposing much science throughout history on the basis of the “biblical” understanding to realise that we have walk humbly with our convictions as we see them.

Erik - thanks for a further comment. Glad you came back!

I totally agree with the end of your post. And that is exactly what i am arguing for: that we see the gospel much wider than people getting saved. I think the evangelical church in the last 80 years or so has narrowed it down to that, and in reaction to the liberals, we moved away from some of the things you mention. Lets do more of those things, and if some people that we do good to, come back to Jesus to find eternal life, then that is to be hugely celebrated.

BTW Erik, my sister in law married a Japanise man, and they lived for many years as “missionaries” in Japan (in Nagoya), before moving back to the UK for a few years of their children’s education. I have never been, but my wife has been there 3 times, and we do keep a bit on eye out for news etc. What are you doing there?

Eric: you bring up a good point, namely that at Christians we should rightly question everything the world claims to be true, even if its claims are backed up by well-known scientists. Personally I believe they are generally right (without regard to specific details) when it comes to climate change and ecological damage. But you rightly caution us to by wary of accepting their claims wholesale, without analysis etc.

Here’s another (off topic) example. Evolution. The majority of scientists (95%?) believe that evolution and some unknown method of abiogenesis created the human race, “from goo to you” as they say. Most Christians would disagree with this, whilst varying in their particular creation beliefs. So we can’t always trust the scientists (unless you believe everything Dawkins claims!).

Interesting debate. I can’t pretend to understand the detailed science, so I’m not going to try. However, from my perspective, it seems that even in my lifetime our climate is changing. The evidence is seen through my own eyes, and not necessarily via a detailed understanding of the “lies, damned lies and statistics” going around.

The more interesting question is the one Rupert is trying to get to, and one I’ve had to consider myself. When the question about air travel and mission came up the Sunday before last, I knew I was going to end up passionately disagreeing with someone! Part of my problem is that too many people will immediately equate “mission” in this context with going to some foreign land to win souls for Christ.

That is far far too limiting. Ultimately, that is the aim, but Christians going overseas on “mission” can also be looking to support and encourage the local church in those far flung places. This can be via theological training/teaching, but also via education/support for sustainable development.

It’s not as simple as saying we should be looking after the lost souls on our own doorsteps first. That should be part of our everyday life (though I can’t claim to be very good at it), so taking two weeks in every year to go on “mission” abroad can and should be something additional anyway.

At the end of the day, some of us are called by God to serve Him overseas and to use our resources for this purpose. This is what I have felt was right for me for nearly 10 years now, and I am happy to reconcile this with my concerns regarding climate change. As I said, I can’t claim to be particularly good at evangelising my friends, family, neighbours, colleagues, people I see on the bus etc, but I don’t sit on my hands the 50-odd weeks I’m in Edinburgh.

Alastair, Evolution vs Creationism/ID is my ACTUAL field of extreme passion and real semi-research…I am focusing more on the ID issue right now because in my neck of the woods, they don’t even know WHAT Genesis is…
included a blurb in one post and started to include more in the others but decided it might get the discussion completely off the rails…Watch the “Dawkins Delusion” on YouTube…sorry no URL…

Rupert, can’t find an email address so will answer your question here.
Actually my wife and I came here to city of 47,000 that had NOT ONE church to “plant a church” in January 1989. We came under another man’s vision and worked with that as we felt the Lord lead…

I made lots of mistakes, did a few things right,..and learned a lot in the process…another language for one.

I have always said “the church is not the building”, yada,yada, yada, but somewhere in it all I got away from the original vision…we just finished a year of lay back and do very little because we were seriously burned out…we baptized 3 people…

We also do pro-life/adoption work.
Keep foster babies etc. Have a 14 year old foster child right now.

The second most common form of birth control in Japan for ALL women is abortion. Guess that is why I get kind of passionate about “missions”. In lots of places there just ain’t no one around to show them a different way. Half the US population but about the same ACTUAL number of abortions per year !!That needs to be changed…

Our blog is: http://kami-no-ai.blogspot.com/
Don’t laugh…

Who is your sister in law if I might be so bold to ask? her husband? It is a pretty small world over here…

We are about 2 1/2 hours from Nagoya. In Nara Ken, near Osaka (the 2nd biggest city).

Here is my personal mail address if you would like to continue this discussion on a less “public” venue. ericknac@yahoo.co.jp…

If not that is A-OK with me…
Pray the Lord’s grace on you and yours…
Eric

Matthew - thanks for the comment. I think we have to balance the good we do when we go overseas, with the potential damage we do in flying. I know the amazing things that you and others have done in Africa, to alleviate poverty, encourage the church, reach out to non-believers, to help the sick, to start business. That for me is the gospel in action, and we can’t say that is not a good thing to do. Lets also try to do that in Edinburgh (or whereever we live for most of the year)!!! I think part of the debate is the very limited understanding of hte gospel that we often have …

Erik - thanks - i have emailed you offline.

Okay, I’m going to wade in on this one.

Mission trips to Africa
I’ve been to Africa on a capacity-building trip rather than mission. I felt it was necessary, but wouldn’t want to go every year, even though I’m on the board of a charity that supports development in Africa.

We have to find the right balance of stewardship and action. I want to make sure that I steward the resources that God has given me and that includes my skills as well as my time and money.

Going to Africa again will need to satisfy some strong criteria:

1. Do I have to go?
2. Can the people there get the same help locally?
3. What will God build in me by going or staying?

I know that in the short term I don’t need to go back and yes people there can get the same help. I wouldn’t get much more out of going back now as I did the first time, but perhaps in another year that may change.

In terms of CO2 from plane travel, I would like to see us putting resources in place (money, advocacy within the church and the community) to off-set our travel. Contributing to the solution while also being part of the problem can balance things out. It’s not ideal, but it is worth doing.

State of Fear and anti-global warming science
I found the book an interesting challenge for us not just to accept everything that we’re told, but to investigate it for ourselves. I did start questioning the widely held truths about climate change, but in re-examining much of the evidence, I drew my own conclusion (and I may be wrong) that it is happening and I need to do something about it.

Part of that is being responsible in what I do here in Edinburgh and what I do when I travel. Alison and I are going to Paris in April, but choosing to go by train and Eurostar. So , does this make us feel better? Yes it does - it also happens that it was cheaper and allows us to avoid the rush at airports. I’m not advocating this for everyone, but it’s a personal choice.

Role of the Church
I’d like to see the church more active in encouraging stewardship - in choosing environmentally sound suppliers and building methods (which I’m sure we’ll be doing for the new church building work at CCE).

I’d also like to see more creative thinking among Christians about what it means to be responsible citizens. I’m sure that we’re more likely to win more people in our communities to God if we are showing that we care for our community and the environment.

I’ll leave it there, but I do think that we need to take up the command that we should love one another as we love ourselves. Being gung-ho about the consequences of any of our actions is not an option.

Hi Dan - thanks for posting. That is a relly helpful summary of our discussions here! It is also a good way forward for individuals and churches to respond in this area.
Thanks.

[...] have blogged on this before. You can read a great paper about by Michael Goheen here … about 10 pages on what is called [...]

[...] blogged a bit about this and engaged in some discussion about this on a couple of posts on my blog: New Earth and Carbon Emissions and What is missional church? – Part [...]

Hi

I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but shrug. I just don’t have anything to say recently.

G’night