Environmentalism and Adventist Stewardship

[abelisle]

"It is the belief of the Seventh-day Adventist Church that humankind was created in the image of God, and is thus to represent God as His steward and to manage the natural environment in a faithful and fruitful way. Nature is a gift from God."

This statement is taken from the "Statement on Stewardship of the Environment" which was approved and voted on by the GC in 1996. http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat10.html

My question is this: when was the last time you can remember hearing a sermon on Stewardship that focused on this aspect?

As the new Stewardship Director in my church, I'm planning on delivering a "co-op" sermon with the former Stewardship Director. He will present the usual traditional view centering on finances, tithes and offerings. I will present the care of the environment side.

I'm asking for your ideas, inputs, thoughts and suggestions for this presentation. I'm sure that the collective mindpower on this site should provide me with an abundance of useful help!

Alex

[Dr. Shane]

I watched a program on LLBN about how each of us could be better students by taking care of our environment. It included such things as carpooling, driving smaller cars and using less hot water when we shower.

[Kevin H]

Revelation says that God is going to distroy the distroyers of the earth. Also many texts talk about the scortching sun and how the 144,000 no longer are scorched by the sun and will hunger and thurst any more.

Interesting how the Christians are downplaying global warming and siding with the corporations.

[karl]

Revelation says that God is going to distroy the distroyers of the earth. Also many texts talk about the scortching sun and how the 144,000 no longer are scorched by the sun and will hunger and thurst any more.

Interesting how the Christians are downplaying global warming and siding with the corporations.

Always always always follow the money and the power trail.

Global warming (and cooling) are not man made phenomena. But they are handy excuses for enslaving people in the name of "the common good."

Socialists would have us believe that capitalism rapes the earth, yet government is hugely wasteful and socialism always gives us more government (for those of you who still believe in the tooth fairy and in the goodness of government, socialism is all about the centralization of power which rarely has a benevolent outcome.)

Although there are instances of private owners' disregard for the environment, in general, good environmental stewardship is also good financial stewardship. The idea that government control of property in a country will be more environmentally sound than private control of property is a myth sponsored by those who believe in the benevolence of government and those who want to use these shallow thinkers in order to gain power themselves.

I offer you the socialist disaster of Chernobyl as people's evidence #1. As people's evidence #2, I offer you all the socialist third world countries which are being given a "pass" on environmental controls (because they're already under control of the socialists, so who needs to go after them. The only countries this is really aimed at are the countries where there are still vestiges of freedom remaining.)

Neither governments nor corporations are "caring" entities.

People care.

And the only way you can get the caring of people to be operative is with private (not corporate or government) ownership and control of property.

So, when you are pitting socialism against corporate greed, both of these options are losers for the environment, but, in general, corporations do a better job because they have to make a profit. Government doesn't. It can just make a mess and moth-ball it.

[karl]

ALEX

WELL church members could recycle items like

Newpapers----aluminin cans-----turn down the heat/

airconditioner-----if they have land for a garden

but your scrapes in the garden area----less trash

for the land fill------turn off lights that in

rooms that are not being used------do not speed saving

gasoline-----there might be others but this is all

I can think of at this time.....

dgrimm60

We're already doing this, but we do it because it makes economic sense to turn down the heat to the lowest comfortable level and to turn it off when we leave. We also turn lights off and use scraps for gardening. We drive gas sippers.

This is living economically.

But, check it out: I am more apt to turn down the heat or to turn off an unused light than my wife or daughter. Do you know why? I am the breadwinner. I KNOW how much work it takes to earn a dime and if I can save one by flipping a switch, I do. My wife and daughter are, in a sense, freeloaders on my paycheck the way non-working people are in a socialist system. They are less likely to be conservationist because they are disconnected one level from the work/payoff reality.

Socialism disconnects people from the work/payoff reality. It is not a good thing.

In defense of my wife, let me say that she is more connected on the aesthetic end of things, which is also important. Our surroundings need to be pleasing to the eye, and this is an important aspect of environmentalism. It's not all about conserving energy.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

Revelation says that God is going to distroy the distroyers of the earth. Also many texts talk about the scortching sun and how the 144,000 no longer are scorched by the sun and will hunger and thurst any more.

Interesting how the Christians are downplaying global warming and siding with the corporations.

Always always always follow the money and the power trail.

Global warming (and cooling) are not man made phenomena. But they are handy excuses for enslaving people in the name of "the common good."

Socialists would have us believe that capitalism rapes the earth, yet government is hugely wasteful and socialism always gives us more government (for those of you who still believe in the tooth fairy and in the goodness of government, socialism is all about the centralization of power which rarely has a benevolent outcome.)

Although there are instances of private owners' disregard for the environment, in general, good environmental stewardship is also good financial stewardship. The idea that government control of property in a country will be more environmentally sound than private control of property is a myth sponsored by those who believe in the benevolence of government and those who want to use these shallow thinkers in order to gain power themselves.

I offer you the socialist disaster of Chernobyl as people's evidence #1. As people's evidence #2, I offer you all the socialist third world countries which are being given a "pass" on environmental controls (because they're already under control of the socialists, so who needs to go after them. The only countries this is really aimed at are the countries where there are still vestiges of freedom remaining.)

Neither governments nor corporations are "caring" entities.

People care.

And the only way you can get the caring of people to be operative is with private (not corporate or government) ownership and control of property.

So, when you are pitting socialism against corporate greed, both of these options are losers for the environment, but, in general, corporations do a better job because they have to make a profit. Government doesn't. It can just make a mess and moth-ball it.

That was right on the money karl. You make me proud to be an American

[karl]

Be sure and check out Patrick Moore - one of the earliest members of Greenpeace and one-time president of that organization. He has some interesting things to say about the environmentalism of today. A lot of it is anti-human because it would result in massive death and disease by denying third-world countries the necessary tools for development into industrialized countries.

Environmentalists have romanticized the medieval period of this world's history and are working to keep third-world countries from achieving industrialization, and to return industrialized countries to the dark ages. This is not beneficial for man or beast.

I highly recommend the documentary, "The Global Warming Swindle." It will shock you just how many big name scientists have spoken out against the bogus "science" of the Chicken Littles amongst us. The real science does not support man-made global warming. Nor does it support that global warming is bad. The earth has been much warmer than this and we did quite well. It has also been colder than this (the Thames river used to freeze solid in winter - Niagra Falls has frozen solid before) and we didn't fare too badly. (But warmer is generally better.) Regardless we, and our planet, are able to thrive in varying degrees of hot and cold.

Man-made CO2 is a very small component of what meteorologists call "greenhouse gases." A much larger greenhouse gas is water vapor. What are we gonna do, drain the oceans?

The facts seem to indicate that CO2 and temperatures seem to move in opposite directions. For instance, when Mt Pinatubo erupted and released massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, there was a cooling that followed. Also, the massive increase of CO2 production during and after WW2 was actually associated with a nearly three decades-long DROP in world temperature.

There are legitimate reasons why the GW scare is being challenged.

[abelisle]

This isn't a thread on the validity of global warming. I'm not going to engage in that argument but rather examine the spiritual underpinnings of God's command to take care of the Garden, which I see as a metaphor for the Earth and I don't think that anyone will agree that we are doing a good job or as well as we could in being stewards of this planet?

The way I see it is that the traditional financial aspects of stewardship as they are presented in sermons couldn't even be available if we destroy and/or use up all of our natural resources.

One can think however they want to as to the validity of GW but we can't avoid acknowledging the poor stewardship being evidenced in regard to the care of God's gift.

Alex

[Kevin H]

Yes, Abelisle, there are other places where we can debate whether Revelation is right or the Republicans, however I'd like to point out to Karl that Captalism has been dead for a long time. In the early 20th century some of the great indulturalists laid plans for it's demise and to replace it with a form of socialism focused on the great industral and banking families. Too much of this anti-socialism is actually support of loosing our freedoms to this industral socialism. Rather than a winning of the cold war there was more of a meeting in the middle to this form of socialism. They prefer the Republican agenda, but can use either Republicans or Democrats. There is talk about the liberal press but in the 1990s the conservative focused Republican corporations bought up the press. What ever liberal ideas the press may have given over the past 15 years have only been what their conservative owners wanted to have out. The days of Walter Cronkite are over.

But again, we can talk about this in other places, here we are looking at what we can do to not be guilty of being distroyers of the earth, and what can we do to at least be even less not involved with the natural global warming.

[Guest]

Revelation or the Republicans??

[abelisle]

I have 2 additional questions: 1) has the Adventist church historically ever had a stance other than finances for stewardship? 2) why hasn't there been an articulation between health reform and stewardship since we are admonished to take care of our bodies since they are "the Temple of the Holy Spirit"?

Alex

[karl]

This isn't a thread on the validity of global warming....

I don't think that anyone will agree that we are doing a good job or as well as we could in being stewards of this planet?

Don't litter. Don't be wasteful. Don't pollute.

Go for some aesthetics in your yard.

What else would you personally like to do for the planet, Alex?

[abelisle]

C'mon karl. You don't have to patronize me. You're way too smart for that.

There are profound spiritual matters here. We (as Christians) have to understand God's ways. We have to represent His character in our actions and beliefs.And yes, your suggestions are good ones but what are your reasons for doing so? Are they purely economic and aesthetic?

We need to articulate all of our belief systems. They cannot remain autonomous or God's plans for us will also be fragmented. For instance, health reform is a form of stewardship because by caring for our bodies which belong to God (Temples of the Holy Spirit) we glorify Him through our beings. Showing a concern for the care of this planet, a gift from God, also reflects our connection with Him as his stewards.

It's not so much what I want to do for the planet as it is what I want to do for God. But by understanding His purpose (and I do realize that sometimes His ways are inscrutable) my purpose in life becomes more clear. As an elder in my church, I care strongly about educating my brothers and sisters because our people "suffer for a lack of knowledge". Besides, as His disciples, we are admonished to love one another.

Can I use the stewardship aspect of environmentalism as a vehicle to reach this goal? I can only find out if I try.

Your brother in Christ

Alex

[karl]

And yes, your suggestions are good ones but what are your reasons for doing so? Are they purely economic and aesthetic?

We need to articulate all of our belief systems. They cannot remain autonomous or God's plans for us will also be fragmented. For instance, health reform is a form of stewardship because by caring for our bodies which belong to God (Temples of the Holy Spirit) we glorify Him through our beings. Showing a concern for the care of this planet, a gift from God, also reflects our connection with Him as his stewards.

I'm glad you brought up the stewardship of the body, because this has such far reaching environmental impact. Sick people are often enormous consumers of this planet's resources. It behooves us on many different levels to take care of our bodies.

I'm all for the planetary upkeep which isn't a political power grab. I collect the litter on my stretch of highway. I minimize my carbon footprint (except for those two stinkin' little mutts of mine.) I take short showers (for energy conservation.) I turn off lights. I drive a puddle jumper.

I drive the little car for economic reasons and also because it affects my witness. I don't want people thinking I'm "putting on the dog" with my ride. I could afford a much more expensive car, but not only do luxurious cars drink more gas, they don't get you there any faster and it takes a lot of resources to make and buy them. And they depreciate faster.

Yes, I am frugal, maybe even cheap, but not with things that matter, like supporting the work of our church.

I believe that conspicuous consumption is deleterious to our mission.

[teresaq]

ylt: Gen 2:15 And Jehovah God taketh the man, and causeth him to rest in the garden of Eden, to serve it, and to keep it.

Exo 23:10 And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof:

Exo 23:11 But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard.

Lev 25:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the LORD.

Lev 25:3 Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof;

Lev 25:4 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.

Lev 25:5 That which groweth of its own accord of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, neither gather the grapes of thy vine undressed: for it is a year of rest unto the land.

Lev 26:33 ...and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste. 34 Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies' land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths. 35 As long as it lieth desolate it shall rest; because it did not rest in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it.

Jer 25:11 And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.

Dan 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

Rev 11:18...and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

[abelisle]

Thank you for these quotes. Looks like even the Earth (land) kept the Sabbath and the one I found especially powerful was what the 24 elders said as they sat before the throne of God: ". . . and for destroying those who destroy the earth." Rev. 11:18

Wow!

Alex

[SivartM]

It's interesting how people will turn a nice discussion on the environment into how global warming is wrong. Some people I know use that whole thing as an excuse to try not to care about how they are negatively affecting the environment. :\

I believe in being as sustainable as possible... this means sustaining the whole environment, including people (important part of the ecosystem). It hurts me when people say things like environmentalists want to save trees and kill children. Uh, why can't we try to have both? Or are you just too lazy to care? We DO need plenty of trees. I think one of the worst things we ever did was destroying the rainforests. Before too long they'll be gone... and who knows, that may play a part in setting off environmental disasters at the end of the world.

We don't live in a vacuum. What we do to the environment ultimately comes back to us... either in "blessing or cursing".

[Kountzer]

The scenario has been mentioned by others whereby environmental concerns, gas rationing, etc, coupled with other issues like having a 'family day', etc, would be used to legislate a weekly civic day off. That day most likely would be Sunday.

[abelisle]

It's interesting how people will turn a nice discussion on the environment into how global warming is wrong. Some people I know use that whole thing as an excuse to try not to care about how they are negatively affecting the environment. :\

I believe in being as sustainable as possible... this means sustaining the whole environment, including people (important part of the ecosystem). It hurts me when people say things like environmentalists want to save trees and kill children. Uh, why can't we try to have both? Or are you just too lazy to care? We DO need plenty of trees. I think one of the worst things we ever did was destroying the rainforests. Before too long they'll be gone... and who knows, that may play a part in setting off environmental disasters at the end of the world.

We don't live in a vacuum. What we do to the environment ultimately comes back to us... either in "blessing or cursing".

I hear you loud and clear! I think quite a few Adventists believe that terrible "natural" calamities will be the catalyst to initiate a national Sunday law? Sounds plausible to me!

Alex

P.S. I like your mention of "sustainability" issues. It's a very key element in modern urban planning.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

C'mon karl. You don't have to patronize me. You're way too smart for that.

There are profound spiritual matters here. We (as Christians) have to understand God's ways. We have to represent His character in our actions and beliefs.And yes, your suggestions are good ones but what are your reasons for doing so? Are they purely economic and aesthetic?

We need to articulate all of our belief systems. They cannot remain autonomous or God's plans for us will also be fragmented. For instance, health reform is a form of stewardship because by caring for our bodies which belong to God (Temples of the Holy Spirit) we glorify Him through our beings. Showing a concern for the care of this planet, a gift from God, also reflects our connection with Him as his stewards.

It's not so much what I want to do for the planet as it is what I want to do for God. But by understanding His purpose (and I do realize that sometimes His ways are inscrutable) my purpose in life becomes more clear. As an elder in my church, I care strongly about educating my brothers and sisters because our people "suffer for a lack of knowledge". Besides, as His disciples, we are admonished to love one another.

Can I use the stewardship aspect of environmentalism as a vehicle to reach this goal? I can only find out if I try.

Your brother in Christ

Alex

Stop using toilet paper. It will save trees. Use a bidet. It will keep you clean...

[karl]

YEAR TOTAL U.S. FOREST ACREAGE

1952 664 million acres

1987 731 million acres

The raping of tropical rainforests is a myth. Deforestation is grossly overestimated by environmentalists.

Even the usually panic-stricken Worldwatch Institute reported in 1992 that "with nearly 90 percent of its groves still standing, by national or international standards, the Brazilian Amazon is relatively untouched." (Eco-Sanity, p.89)

Because of a relatively low percentage of forest clearing and the remarkable capacity of the forest to recover its structure...the threat of turning the Amazon into a wasteland is exaggerated.

Two U.N. studies and even ecologist Norman Myers agree closely in their estimates of the Brazilian deforestation rate -- between 0.0025 and 0.004 percent per year. And this is expected to drop as population growth tapers off (and will soon become negative.)

I think we should all panic, don't you?

[Kountzer]

ONe sabbath last year a young lady gave a 5 to 10 minute talk on stewardship from an environmental perspective. IMO the response was cordial from the congregation.

My thing is do what you can for the environment in terms of stewardship. Beware though that there are myriad problems facing this planet: political upheaval, terrorism, starvation, plagues, wars, rumors of wars, earthquakes, calamities (plane with 90 souls onboard fell into the sea this morning). In short, this world is swirling down the drain. The only real hope is Jesus' soon return. Do what you can for the environment, but don't let it become a stumbling block.

[karl]

Still on that 'horse'? Question to difficult to understand? The question was not about debate issues, but stewardship! sheesh!!

[karl]

I live in Arkansas. I used to live in SoCal. In both places I have been involved in what rabid environmentalists would panic over. In SoCal we lived in a desert. We planted an orchard. We sodded and carefully nurtured a lawn. We grew poplars around the perimeter of our 2 acres. We lived in opposition to the natural tendency of the desert, which was barren earth with sparse scrub. If you've ever been to Palm Springs, you can see this dynamic vividly. You can drive down a street with sand and scrub on one side and lush lawns and palm trees on the other.

In Arkansas, the natural tendency of nature is woods, ferns, briars and vines in proliferation. If you don't keep this lush verdure tamed, it will take over your place. Whereas in California, it took great effort to keep the plants on my place alive, in Arkansas, it takes great effort to keep plants on my place knocked back.

I wonder why God told Adam to dress and keep the Garden of Eden, if the environmentalists are correct that nature naturally does what is best. They don't want anybody messing with it.

I've been messing with it. Call out the guards.

[SivartM]

YEAR TOTAL U.S. FOREST ACREAGE

1952 664 million acres

1987 731 million acres

The raping of tropical rainforests is a myth. Deforestation is grossly overestimated by environmentalists.

Even the usually panic-stricken Worldwatch Institute reported in 1992 that "with nearly 90 percent of its groves still standing, by national or international standards, the Brazilian Amazon is relatively untouched." (Eco-Sanity, p.89)

Because of a relatively low percentage of forest clearing and the remarkable capacity of the forest to recover its structure...the threat of turning the Amazon into a wasteland is exaggerated.

Two U.N. studies and even ecologist Norman Myers agree closely in their estimates of the Brazilian deforestation rate -- between 0.0025 and 0.004 percent per year. And this is expected to drop as population growth tapers off (and will soon become negative.)

I think we should all panic, don't you?