Re: Jerry Falwell -- global warming is "junk science"

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Fri Feb 17 2006 - 08:21:37 EST

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tjalle T Vandergraaf" <>
To: "'George Murphy'" <>; <>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:30 PM
Subject: RE: Jerry Falwell -- global warming is "junk science"

> Rather than respond to each of George's comments, it seems to me that our
> differences may stem from differences in our traditions.
> I think we can agree that Christians have the duty to comment on all human
> activities and on the created world. Where we differ is on how this
> should
> be done. I favour doing this outside organized denominational structures.
> The danger with linking a denomination with a particular view on
> environmental matters is that this view then becomes intertwined with that
> denomination's theology. Let me give a few examples:
> Some years ago, the United Church in Canada came out in opposition to
> uranium mining in Saskatchewan and to nuclear power in general. This begs
> the question: if I were a member of this denomination, would I have to
> change my view on nuclear energy? Could I still support this denomination
> financially or would any money I donate be used to put my job in jeopardy?
> Would I feel ostracized? Would the pronouncement by the UCC drive an
> unnecessary wedge between proponents and opponents to nuclear industry?
> Some denominations have voiced their opposition to such things as
> genetically modified foods and the killing of seals. Not that I'm all
> that
> keen on killing seals but one has to wonder how a denomination can bring
> the
> Good News to seal hunters whose livelihood depends on this type of
> hunting.
> To me, it's all a matter or priorities. If a denomination runs the risk
> of
> having its message of salvation obscured by a declared stance on an
> environmental topic, what is gained in the process?
> To me, it seems far better if a group of Christians formulated a position
> outside the organized denominational structure.

OK, where we differ is on the practical issue of how Christians can be most
effective in speaking about the implications of their faith in the world.
Denominational statements aren't always very effective. For one who's been
involved in that process, it's frustrating to realize that many members of
one's denomination - let alone those outside it - may not pay any attention
to even a well crafted statement, & copies of it will gather dust in a
storage room somewhere. But statements by groups of Christians without any
official church authority are likely to have even less of an impact. Among
other things, the more ecuimenical a statement is - without being watered
down to avoid conflicts - the more effective it's likely to be. We did that
to a certain extent with the ELCA statement I mentioned: The PCUSA had
already gone through a similar process & we had a member of their task force
on ours so we'd stay in touch with what they'd done.

Received on Fri Feb 17 08:22:03 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 17 2006 - 08:22:03 EST