“Global Warming” – Followup

Thanks for the dialogue, fellow bloggers (or wordcasters).

The Mont-ster responded with some extra commentary you might have missed, and I’m taking the liberty to put below:

Ideas have consequences. At stake here are huge economic issues that effect multiple nations. Radical environmentalism lionizes the peasant life because it has a minimal “carbon footprint.” So they seek to degrade or hamstring the economy of the industrial West and halt economic development in third-world nations — all in the name of saving the planet. As I mentioned in my own post on global warming, this kind of thinking actually causes further suffering in developing nations NOW…

This comment helps me understand the justification for the outcry from fellow conservatives. Obviously we all want to stand up for the truth, and I had figured many are concerned primarily about popularizing information that may have little evidence for it (other than subjectively correlated data, backed by unanimous Hollywood support, the american media / celebrity machine, and plain old peer pressure).

However I need to hear more than a reaction against something, which is what my recent experience of the overall buzz is about. This buzz had nothing to do with the fine bloggers I linked to in the previous post, but much more to do with hearing various tired rantings from radio, news, and pulpits. This triggers all sorts of stereotypes from my experience and can lead to a hastily written blog.

I appreciate the Mont-ster for zooming out of the culture war part of the controversy and showing how a potentially false assumption can lead to unintended further suffering of innocent people.

I would like to clarify that I do have respect and appreciation for those who have researched and bucked the peer pressure on this issue, to give us their concerns about this.  Unfortunately for me, I sometimes succumb to the dis-service of droning all the technical sounding stuff out after awhile.  And I wonder what the other lost people out there are thinking with all this passionate and sometimes terse debating going on. So that led to my rather unorthodox theory about leveraging all this apocalyptic talk toward evangelistic purposes.

I think there is room for both approaches, even by the same person. I suspect that perhaps 1 in 4 people possess the intellectual fortitude plus the love for civil debate on this issue, and I’m not including myself in this number! An open debate about “Global Warming” is similar to debating apologetics or other rhetorical topics. We absolutely need to be able to give sound reasons for what and why we believe things. If somebody isn’t up for another global warming debate, we switch hats and ask them why it’s so important to them and what they plan to do about it. Then if we have any rapport with them, we can find out what they plan to do regarding their own mortality.

Assuming my subjective estimate above is close to accurate, 3 of the 4 are going to tune out of the debate if they are not interested or able to keep up with it, or have already made up their mind, or perhaps were “out-debated” the last time and have a wound from it. For the people out there that can’t figure out why certain people wouldn’t do something do save the earth, I’m suggesting we draw the parallels about figuring out why people won’t do something to try to save their souls. Perhaps this way our “net” will engage more of the “fish” out there.

The fellow bloggers were extremely gracious to me, and I owe Dave and Brent an apology for the originally callous tone of my post, and arbitrarily linking their blogs to it. I’m slowly growing in my Online Emotional Intelligence and empathy for the feelings of other bloggers. Pinging other blogs can have the effect of alarming the ping-ee especially if the blog doing the pinging is not careful to properly justify the pinging in a balanced light. These blogs really can end up maligning, misrepresenting, or undermining others’ work through a sloppy ping. And for a more established blogger, pinging is often an annoyance rather than a compliment if the ping is not well thought out.

So anyhow, Earth Day is coming up April 22. I found out something we can all be excited about  – a rumor of FREE ICE CREAM at Ben & Jerry’s. I just checked and there IS free B&J scoops given out 5 days previous, April 17. It is Ben & Jerry’s anniversary… er, the anniversary of the founding of the company called “Ben & Jerry’s”.

I’m Still Praying for Ted

While looking up the right hyperlink for yesterday’s post on Global Warming, I found this article written 4 years ago by Ted Haggard, the recently deposed past president of the NAE.  I confess I need to pray more for this guy than I have been, but reading this article was pretty amazing. He got the picture, and it’s amazing how much of an indictment it is against the politicized American church, as well as his own scandal a few months ago. I’m amazed that he had the guts to be so blunt about the state of things.

His article is called, “Maybe We’re Not Christians”. It definitely describes “Christians Behaving Badly” and offers some ways to change this! Here’s an excerpt:

…our words fall short when our marriages don’t work, our children are wild and disobedient, and we refine the art of giving and receiving money to the point that we could qualify as the experts in greed that Peter warns about in his second letter (see 2 Pet. 2:14).

We have a credibility problem. We have some wonderful churches, but increasingly, people do not seek to be connected.

We have some outstanding para-church leaders, but others are seen as self-satisfied right-wing crusaders who wouldn’t hesitate to banish the Supreme Court, establish a Christian theocracy, and use the power of the state to force the non-compliant into godly living.

While I’ll admit I’m currently more on the “right” than I ever have allowed myself to be, I appreciate his words here. We need to take out the beam in our eye, then we can present the truth of God with the heart of God. Gotta have both for it to work.

My Obnoxious Thoughts on Global Warming

OK, I can’t stand it anymore, all this blogging about global warming!

[See the following fine blogs for some additional perspectives:
Mont-ster Report, Steeno, Sliker ]

Cutting through all of the political stuff from both sides inside and outside the church, here is my take on it:

It is a unique opportunity for… Evangelism.

Huh!?! I hear a Scooby Doo noise in the background somewhere…

Here’s what I mean –

Global Warming is a rare topic for westerners whose lives are generally consumed with the here and now, or future plans and ambitions. In the age of Bono, Jolie, and USA for Africa (OK, wrong decade for that), I will also add good-natured humanistic endeavors to this list. The Global Warming topic is special because it gets people thinking about DEATH and MORTALITY.

1. mortality of the environment
2. mortality of themselves
3. the need to do something about it
4. the salvation of the earth

I don’t care to join the debate on either side. I’m sick of missing an enormous opportunity to steer the rare fixation of human mortality into a logical segway into our spiritual condition.

Example:
1. When the earth is allegedly destroyed and our cities turn into Atlantis, what will happen to your soul?

2. If someone had a provable, foolproof solution to our environmental issues, would you be willing to consider it, even if you had to admit you were wrong in your beliefs and change your behavior?

3. Even if we solved the earth’s problems but you died instead, what would happen to your soul?

4. If someone had a way for you to be released from the consequences of your mistakes and moral regrets, would you be willing to consider it, even if you had to admit you were wrong and change your behavior?

I would suggest that instead of ranting about the Global Warming hoax, that we put on our thespian cap and pretend that it is a viable option, for the sake of maintaining some sort of bridge for the Gospel. If people see Christians trying to steward the earth wisely, perhaps they might be more inclined to consider the infinitely more important issue of their own mortality, which Jesus died to do something about. Perhaps this is one reason why the NAE has been emphasizing their controversial “Creation Care” practices. To me it is well worth it to give a little for the sake of building a bridge for a much more important conversation… about one’s soul.

But you say, “the truth must prevail. We will not compromise on the truth.” And you’re probably right on this. Keep fighting your battles on the public arena, but I suggest we use the opportunity to talk about what really matters – eternity.