The Christian, The Environment, And Discernment - Part Two

Unfortunately, the recent California wildfires have born out what I wrote in the first column as debris in these woods have helped to worsen the fire situation in California today. But, now for practical steps on how Christians can steward the environment.

1. Recycling helps a little bit. Do not fall for the line that you are saving the planet by doing this, but there is no reason why we can't do some recycling. I have been sometimes bad at this in the past but believe we can do better in this area. This is a small thing that's pretty easy to do.

2. Steward any land that you own. Mow the grass, remove dead tree limbs, clean up any trash disposed on your land. If you own a large enough piece of it, you can set aside apart of it for animal stewardship such as establishing a watering hole.

3. Controlled hunting. Read this carefully: hunting is absolutely necessary for stewardship of the land. You may think that your kind by banning hunting, but if you do not allow hunting, over-population of a species will cause massive starvation when there are food shortages. It is actually cruel to the animals to let them over-populate and die this way. The people of the late 1800's were wrong to hunt buffalo indiscriminately without harvesting the animals. But letting buffalo overpopulate is just as wrong. Therefore, hunt your bag limit guilt free. Attend the rattlesnake roundup with happiness. Mount that trophy on the wall with satisfaction.

4. Plant trees. They produce oxygen, so if you can do it, then do it.

5. Balance free enterprise with wilderness needs. You can't log every mountain. But some mountains need to be logged. If you do log your mountainside, then plant new trees for the future. Log only what is needed. Not in excess. The same is true for setting aside National Parks and wilderness preserves. Obviously the Grand Canyon is a national treasure that needs to be saved. But not every single canyon in the world needs to be preserved this way. Balance is the key. Do not be a libertarian recklessly exploiting the land but do not be a liberal imposing excessively absurd governmental regulation either.

6. Study the Scriptures in regard to the environment. This should be obvious (and I probably should have listed it first). A great place to study are the regulations the people of Israel were given in the law of Moses regarding the land (an example is Sabbath year rests for pieces of land). There are others to study as well.

These are some practical pieces of advice about the environment. In the words of the great theologian Forrest Gump: "That's all I got to say about that".

The Christian, The Environment, And Discernment - Part One

One of the frequent reader's of this blog has suggested that the blogger's she reads should comment on Christian's and the environment, and I thought it would be a good idea to blog on that, so here goes.

1. Christians are responsible to be good stewards of the earth. This command given to Adam for all mankind has not been altered. Therefore, we must be good overseers of the planet. This means that we must properly manage the environment. We cannot control some things like the weather, but we can properly manage our own private property and give guidance to government entities on how to manage theirs.

2. The modern environmental movement is largely pagan. A strong statement to be sure but a large part of today's environmental movement is pagan at it's core. They worship the earth, or some nature god, or (if they are atheist) they are huge advocates of massive government control of the environment. This is nothing new. The Old Testament records the worship of the god Baal, which was fertility god related to agricultural production. Many of the false gods of history have had some sort of environmental connnection.

3. The modern environmental movement is based in political liberalism which traces all solutions back to government controls and regulations. Most legislation related to the environment involves taking away the liberty of some private entity. For instance, in some parts of the country, people cannot cut trees on their own private property because of environmental regulations (i.e. spotted owls live in the trees is one example given). This is an improper infringement on freedom that has no biblical basis whatsoever but is based in the false religion of political liberalism.

4. Many disasters have been made worse by political environmental regulation. Many of our western forest fires have been far more devestating that necessary because lands have not been cleared of natural debris thus making those forest fires far more likely and disastrous because this regulation has not allowed man to be a good steward of the environment in those areas, where that debris needed to be cleaned out. If lands are left in a "totally pristine state" without any management whatsoever, it is not good stewardship. The National Park service sets controlled fires in parts of their lands to help manage the environment there, so why can't Californians do the same on their property?

5. A common myth: Republicans don't care about the environment while Democrats do care about it. This has come about as the Democrats have embraced the political agenda of the pagan environmental movement and Republicans have been defensive about it. Yet, it was a Republican president - Theodore Roosevelt - who vigorously defended responsible environmental management at a time in history when many libertarian big businessmen were recklessly destroying the environment (though not all big businessmen of the time did so). Another Republican, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. (the son of the oil billionaire) bought much private land to create or add on to some of our National parks. And yet another conservative businessman, Walt Disney, had great concern for environmental management (Walt's political party ID is something of a mystery, though we know he backed Ronald Reagan for governor of California in 1966 and held to politically conservative beliefs). In truth, what has happened lately, is that many Republicans have been trying to stop excessive governmental controls backed by most Democrats in this area.

6. Another common myth: man is responsible for global warming. All you have to do is exercise common sense and realize that man could not possibly warm the earth up this way even if he wanted to. Also, a study of history will reveal that there have been warming and cooling cycles throughout history. When I was a kid in the 1970's, most environmental types were worrying about global cooling. I imagine that global cooling will be back by the time I am a senior citizen.

7. Unfortunately, many evangelical leaders have failed one way or the other in dealing with the environment. Some have totally ignored our responsibility to it, while others have foolishly bought all the propoganda about man-made global warming and demonstrate an extreme naivete about the pagan nature of the modern environmental movement (this one really grieves me because some Christian leaders I greatly admire have demonstrated a real lack of discernment on this subject). I think most of these leaders on both sides have just been intellectually lazy in this area and have just run with a superficial prediposition in this area.

In Part Two, I will discuss practical ways for Christians to steward the environment.

What Would I Like To See In A Presidential Nominee in 2008

Someone who posted a comment on my last blog asked me the question on who I would like to see be the GOP nominee in 2008. As of this time, I have not settled on a name. Unlike the poster, I absolutely do not want to see Chuck Hagel be the nominee. We don't need a moderate Republican as a nominee because we do not want someone who bases their opinions on what they think is popular or on what the media likes or on what will make them popular with liberal Democrats (which is what I feel Hagel does).

What I would like to see in a nominee is someone who has Biblical values and Biblical character to match. I believe that what we call a political conservative best fits that bill. That means they will:

Be Faithful to their wife.

Be Pro-life on abortion.

Protect the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.

Understand that social ministry is to be done by the church and private organizations and not by government programs designed to make people dependent and servile.

Defend the USA through appropriate military means whenever necessary (as an aside, Pacifism by a government is unbiblical when you consider all of Scripture in its proper context and you don't pick and choose verses that you think support Pacifism).

Understand the true nature of terrorist groups and not try to coddle, ignore, or deal weakly with them.

Be opposed to big government and high taxes.

Actually cut taxes.

Appoint judges and cabinet members of similar beliefs as these.

Stand up to the so-called mainstream media and the liberals in congress in a loving, firm manner.

Articulate effectively the above agenda.

I don't know at this time who (of the potential candidates) best fits this agenda but I sure hope we get them.

Who Will Be The Nominees in 2008

Turning to politics, I will give you a brief prediction on who I think will be the nominees of each party for President in 2008. And they are:

Democrats: I Have No Clue

Republicans: I Have No Idea

Now I realize that these predictions are extremely bold, daring, and demonstrate a complete willingness to open myself up to laughs and insults from all the naysayers. OK, maybe they aren't courageous at all. But the deal is, its December 2006, with a lot of time left until November 2008, and anything can happen. But having said that, here are some people that are talked about as nominees that I think will not win their party's nomination for President.

Democrats: Senator Evan Bayh (INDIANA); Senator John Kerry (MASSACHUSETTS); and former Senator John Edwards (NORTH CAROLINA).

Republicans: Former mayor Rudy Guliani (NYC); Senator Chuck Hagel (NEBRASKA).

For Bayh, he is not radically liberal enough for the MoveOn.Org people; Kerry is now unpopular because of his verbal gaffes and is not the first preference of anyone; Edwards is too much of a has been whose "Two Americas" message would be more comfortable in 1908. For Guliani, he is too liberal on abortion, homosexuality, and other moral issues; Hagel is just disliked by the party's conservative base for his grandstanding and opposition to President Bush on many issues (Hagel seems too much like John McCain without the deep love of the DNC loving media following him).

We'll see if we are right or not. Two names in each party to look out for as potential dark horse candidates that could win their party's nomination should they chose to run:

Democrats: New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson

Republicans: Soon-to-be-former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee

Both have some baggage (Richardson too close to Bill Clinton for the MoveOn.org types; Huckabee signed a tax increase into law a few years ago) but it could happen.

Greedy Geezers???

Throughout this last week of sifting through various election data in print, on radio, and so forth, my attention was captured by a conversation Rush Limbaugh was having with a man from Connecticut on his show yesterday. They were discussing the results and the subject of the views of senior citizens and their voting came up. Particularly they discussed what happened to Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

This caught my attention because, quite frankly, I cannot understand why the voters of Pennsylvania would throw Senator Santorum out of office. Santorum is a visionary man who holds Biblical values on most issues (his absolutely stunning speech opposing the brutal practice of partial-birth abortion several years ago is still memorable in my mind). Senator Santorum is deemed by most observers to be a fundamentally decent man and if he were my Senator I would be proud to have him. Top this off with the fact that his opponent, Bob Casey, Jr., has been described in various ways as not as qualified for this post (Casey is a mixed bag on issues; he is pro-life on abortion - though this does not automatically mean he will support pro-life Supreme Court nominees ala Harry Reid - but apparantly supports gay marriage via his opposition to the Constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage). Ultimately, this result makes no sense at all!

However, Rush pointed out that Pennsylvania has the second highest percentage of senior citizens as residents and the vast majority of them get their main news coverage from "mainstream media" sources such as ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN (I will add they are the largest readers of newspapers as well). These sources are all left-wing and pro-Democratic party to the point of practically working for the Democratic National Committee (yet they masquerade as objective, non-biased reporters). Thus, the senior citizens of Pennsylvania were largely getting the picture that Santorum was this evil person who didn't care about them and their concerns (i.e. the next Social Security check and other government payouts to them personally). Rush added that his experience was that many of these senior citizens cared only about their immediate world and don't have much interest in making the world a better place for their children and grandchildren (thus Santorum's visionary views held no appeal to them).

Which brings me to the point of this essay. If we assume that this is somewhat true (which to me is a logical conclusion though who knows the exact percentages of the Senior population we are talking about) then we have to ask ourselves why do so many Senior Citizens only care about themselves and not their children and grandchildren. It has been my personal experience with Senior Citizens that they fall into two opposite camps: 1) many have been wonderful people who cared deeply about the world they would leave to their descendents and some of them have been heros to me; 2) the other group were very selfish people who cared only about themselves and made life miserable for those around them.

What it boils down too is this: Senior Citizens are just like everyone else in the world! They are either greedy self-centered people or they are Christ-like in their view of the world and those around them. I am sure some of those who voted for Mr. Casey in Pennsylvania were not the greedy group but honestly thought they were doing the right thing for those around them and that some of the greedy, selfish ones voted for Mr. Santorum, so my point here is not to stereotype people.

But I do want to ask you what you are like. Do you vote on the basis of "what's in it for me?" or do you vote on the basis of "how would Jesus vote in this election if he were in the voting booth with me?"? I honestly don't know who Jesus would have voted for in Pennsylvania for he would be privy to information that I don't have (the total and complete character of each candidate as well as foreknowledge of the ultimate result of the election - for years on end). But I wonder how many voters on election day across the country considered him in their choices. I myself messed up by not requesting an absentee ballot from my home state before the election deadline so I missed my citizenship responsibility this time so I am not perfect either. But why would you throw someone out of office who definitely did not deserve it - that is a commentary on the type of person you are and not on the person you voted for or against.

Presidential Names

Looking over a recent list of Presidential hopefuls for 2008 I did not find many that had something in common with Presidents (and opponents and Vice Presidents) from the past: a truly comical first name. Now if you are actually named the names below, please understand I am not laughing at you; I'm laughing with you (in some cases, I'll be laughing for you) but I find these names comically wonderful (remember, this is all in good fun).

Who can forget these great Presidential names:

Millard Fillmore, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover.

Or these guys that ran for President and didn't win or were Vice-President:
Elbridge Gerry, Winfield Scott, Horatio Seymour, Schuyler Colfax, Horace Greeley, Alton Parker, two different Adlai Stevensons (one a Veep and the other a losing candidate), Alben Barkeley (hailing from western Kentucky like yours truly), Strom Thurmond, Spiro Agnew, and Hubert Humphrey (not forgetting losing Veep candidate Sargent Shriver).

There's nothing wrong with these names of course. But you have to admit they are much more interesting than the names of potential 2008 candidates: John, Bill, George, Hillary, Al, Evan, Rudy, and Tom. However, there is hope on the horizon: rumor has it one potential candidate is named Mitt.

Of course no American President has a name quite like some great names from medieval and ancient history: Charlamagne, Ghengis, Atilla, Ethelred, Canute, Otto, Theodosius, and Alleric are just the beginning of a long list of political/military leaders with great comical names (did I mention just about every Roman Caesar). Maybe one day America will catch up.