SBC Leaders Coming Around on Global Warming

I grew up SBC and now realize that throught the entire history the SBC has been on the wrong side of almost all important issues and late in seeing they were wrong.:tonofbricks:

Quote from the article: Even before Monday’s statement, religious activism on climate change had broadened beyond just liberal-leaning churches.

Does this mean the SBC is saying the liberals were right on an issue. Gasp, amazing. :BangHead:

 

I'm in the same boat. I have been amazed at some of the lengths that SBC leaders have gone to to try to rationalize their positions. Even if the situation is not as bad as the scientists say, this is an issue of stewardship, and we should err on the side of caution. We should have been leading the charge on global warming. Now it's time to catch up. Let's be quick about it.

Tim Reynolds

 

Global Warming has not been proven to be caused by humans. It's sad that some
SBC leaders have caved into the political correct thing to do. We are already learning of the science used to tell us that plastic bags are so terrible. Now we are finding out it was all a farce. We will soon learn that this global warming non-sense is just leftest propaganda.

 

Which is exactly what they have been doing, erring on the side of caution. It is the conservative option to not change policy rapidly, to be skeptical of new claims, and to hold on to established ways, which in this case, means to doubt and dismiss man-made global climate change.

 

Perhaps I am becoming cynical in my old age. But I feel they not only err on the side of caution, but the also will not take a position, even if they believe it is correct, that will cost the SBC membership and/or contributions to the Cooperative Baptist Program .... i.e. money.

Why is it more profitable to attach other Christians than important social problems?:tonofbricks:

 

You generously assume that those being attacked are Christians to begin with.

 

This is true. However, while I may not agree with them I am very slow to make such a judgement....though at times I may privately wonder.:tonofbricks:

 

Since there is no proof, the SBC can't actually be late for anything, except falling for it.

 

Page is a liberal so this is no surprise. In the end this amounts to nothing. Here is the official stance of the convention:


http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=27583&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed0310

 

What about these men? Are they liberal, too? If so, who is conservative?

Danny Akin, President, SEBTS

David Dockery, President, Union University

Ronnie Floyd, Pastor, FBC Springdale, AR

Jack Graham, Pastor, Prestonwood Baptist Church

Johnny Hunt, Pastor FBC Woodstock, GA

Ed Stetzer, Director of LifeWay Research

Hershael York, Professor, SBTS

http://www.baptistcreationcare.org/node/2

 

No. some of those are quite conservative and there signatures are surprising if not suspect.

 

Good grief, look around at our world. It is so obvious. But then conservatives do not want to be confused by the facts, their minds are already made up. :laugh:

 

Looks like a broad sweepig statement with no evidence to back it up.

 

Not so broad if you look around.

Air quality is not good and getting worse in much of the world.

Water quality is bad and getting worse. Did you see the article about drugs found in the drinking water in many cities?

From the air you can see dark clouds of pollutants hanging over the cities. This cannot be healthy for people.

Regardless whether global warming is caused by humans or not, isn't it just good sense to clean up the air and water?:BangHead:

 

These issues are unrealted to global warming.:BangHead:

 

Translation: I don't have an answer, so I will use this ploy to avoid answering the question.

 

"A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change" [LINK]

I'm certainly no alarmist when it comes to global warming.
Personally I think it's all a lot of hot air....

But this seems like a very reasonable document and could be quite a witness to those who might claim that Christians are anti-enviornmental.

We are afterall, stewards of what God has given us.

We here in the U.S. live very cleanly.
If you think our air is polluted now, just imagine how it was hundreds of years ago when we burned coal, wood and dung for heat.

And things have been worse,
Jesus didn't wash the disciples feet simply because they were dirty.
The disciples walked the same paths where the donkeys and sheep relieved themselves.
Imagine the clouds of dust and filth on a windy day.

If you think the water is overly polluted, can you imagine pulling your water from a community well that was exposed to those elements.

Rob

 

No it means exactly what I said it means. :tonofbricks:

 

I continue to be amazed at some of the opinions that are expressed here. In this case, the conservatives are so worried that they might have to agree with what they perceive to be a "liberal" position that they have turned on their own, the people who have signed the document.

I am willing to allow that scientific findings are sometimes given more weight than they deserve. However, in this case, even if the findings supporting global warming have been overstated, I still think that this is an issue of stewardship of our God-given environment. We are told in Genesis 1.26 to "have dominion over . . . all the earth . . ." I interpret dominion to mean "take proper care of". What we have to decide is how we apply this idea of care to this situation. It is my position that we apply it in the broadest terms possible. We have our children to think of, also our grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. What kind of world are we ging to leave them? I agree with the author and farmer (and Baptist) Wendell Berry that the earth is ours to use but not abuse. We are abusing our planet. We are more worried about what it is going to cost us to clean up our years of abuse than we are about what our abuse is going to do to our descendants.

Tim Reynolds