Sun - March 22, 2009
Carl Safina Speaks To Christians At Vineyard
Carl Safina reading from his book, Song For The Blue Ocean
Today at church, our guest speaker was Carl Safina, a scientist whose focus is life in the ocean. Both Carl Safina and our pastor, Ken Wilson, are members of the group Scientists and Evangelicals United To Protect Creation. In this blog entry, I report on this event, as well as topics from a discussion group after the service.
Sunday, March 22,
2009
Carl Safina Speaks to Christians at Vineyard Church of Ann Arbor
Ken Wilson, the senior pastor of the Vineyard Church of Ann Arbor, loves science. How much, you may ask? Well, some time ago, when he got a sabbatical for six weeks, and he used it to read science books the whole time! As a member of the Ann Arbor Vineyard, I get the benefit of often hearing bits and pieces of science that he brings to us when related to points in his sermons.
About two and a half years ago, Ken did a sermon series on Creation vs. Evolution, called Science and Faith at the Crossroads of Creation, which, since Ken holds that evolution is scientifically accurate, made for an interesting sermon series. The focus of his series was to make room for people who don't believe in young earth creationism or hold similar beliefs; he wanted to let people who think the evolutionary model makes scientific sense to feel welcome at our church. The crux of the issue for Ken is that the church has been unnecessarily blocking people from connecting with God and Christians due to a dominant theme in the evangelical church that to believe in the Bible means to not believe in evolution. Ken sees this as making a prerequisite to potential Christians that they be willing to forsake scientific knowledge in order to come into the fold. It is his mission to break down that barrier. Since we live in a town where a major research university practically owns the whole city, this is a major group for this congregation. But this message has significance to many other towns in this country, also.
As part of this effort, Ken and some other evangelical pastors and leaders have joined with some scientists who have seen the need to break down the barriers between scientists and Christians, particularly when it comes to the need of taking care of Earth. From this group, Ken has developed a friendship with the oceanographer Carl Safina, and one result of that friendship has been that Carl Safina came to the Vineyard Church of Ann Arbor to speak.
Ken Wilson, senior pastor of Vineyard Ann Arbor, with Dr. Carl Safina
Now, this is something not likely to happen at many evangelical churches because Dr. Safina is not a Christian. I don't know exactly how he would label himself, but as far as my knowledge of him goes, he does not hold any religious beliefs. But something that our Vineyard church seeks to do in general is to break down the divisions between sacred and secular and view all humans as creations of God, that we're all in the same boat, loved by him and troubled by sin. Breaking down the artificial barriers between Christian vs. non-Christian makes an exchange like this not problematic at all.
We're in the Same Boat
And that was one of the points Dr. Safina made in his presentation. We're all in the same boat together--whatever happens to the Earth, happens to all of us together. He believes that we have common ground, scientists and evangelicals, even if from a slightly different perspective. Scientists of nature have a deep awe of the wonders found in nature; many of them have a nearly religious experience as they discover and take in the complex beauty of nature. From an appreciation of that beauty, they have a desire to not see it trashed by human recklessness. The people of Yahweh were given charge by him in Genesis to take care of the Earth, God's creation. If we are to follow the directive of God, it means doing our part to make sure humans don't trash God's beautiful creation. But even beyond that specific directive, whatever we do not do to help preserve nature, we--or moreso, our children and further descendants--will suffer the consequences of. Dr. Safina, and other members of the Friendship Collaborative, realized that a major group of Americans (evangelicals) have turned a deaf ear to these potential consequences, while at the same time scientists have been building barriers to being heard by showing contempt for religion in general and evangelicals in particular. Meanwhile, the Earth continues to get trashed. So the Friendship Collaborative was set up to break down the barriers and heal the wounds in order to work on caring for the planet.
A slide during Dr. Safina's presentation points out that Christians and scientists are in the same boat--Planet Earth
Dr. Safina grew up loving to fish, but when he got older he realized that the fish were disappearing. This concern drove him to study what was going on and see what he could do to alleviate the problem. During today's talk, he described the destructive methods that are being used for fishing. For example, to get shrimp, they net all kinds of sea creatures, take out the shrimp, and throw out the rest. This is a huge, wasteful killing of creatures, which has an effect on the ecology of the sea. Another example he gave was how some fishing is done to get fish that hide out in coral reefs--they just go to the bottom of the ocean and scrape it all up. He likened it to using a bulldozer to find squirrels.
"We privatize the profit, but socialize the cost."
One significant point of his talk was this: "We privatize profit, but socialize the cost." In the shrimp example, the private shrimp companies get the profit from selling the shrimp, but the government has to clean up the pollution. He gave others examples of this in the fishing arena, where the fish companies get the profit from the fishing, but we all have to pay the cost of cleaning up the damage they do through their methods. He compared that to the current banking crisis, where the greedy lenders got the profit from the reckless borrowers and all the rest of us are left to pay the bill to bail them out.
This point really struck me, because one of the objections to the environmental movement among conservatives is how much money it will cost companies to comply with environmental regulations. It's decried as a way of making it difficult for companies to survive, by forcing the extra costs on them to take care of their polluting effects. But this view ignores that by not making the companies themselves pay for dealing with the pollution, the rest of us have to deal with it through taxpayer funded cleanup. So which method is truly more capitalistic and less socialistic? Under the "privatize profit, socialize cost" model, the people who buy shrimp get it for cheap, but the rest of us subsidize the shrimp diners by paying for the cleanup. Shouldn't the consumers of shrimp be the ones to pay the extra money to make shrimp-catching safe for the sea creatures? By doing so, this will give the shrimp companies incentive to find cheaper ways to catch shrimp in a way that's safe for the environment.
One example of how easily this can sometimes be done is the case of the albatross. Albatrosses eat fish, and so they would often follow fishing boats to get what was in the net. Trouble is, they get caught in the net and die. This was happening at such a large rate that the albatross population was dwindling. So how did they figure out to deal with this problem? Simply make a red-corded side net that goes up vertically out of the water, that surrounds the fish net. The birds see the red cords and don't get into the fishing net. This simple, low-cost method has helped keep the albatross population from diminishing further.
The Ocean Is Not That Big
Something else that struck me from Dr. Safina's talk was the fragility of the ocean. He stated that we tend to think that the ocean is so big that we can't really affect it that much. But he showed a graph of the dwindling of species, and those in the ocean were dwindling at the same rate as those on land. There are other factors going on, too. When the water of the ocean is too warm, corals die. They rely on algae staying on them, because through that photosynthesis, the corals get fed. When the water is too warm, the algae leave, and the corals turn white and die. Also, the acidity rate of the ocean changes as it heats up, making it more difficult for animals such as oysters to properly form. Even the fish have more trouble breathing when this happens.
Seeing It All with New Eyes
Although this is not the first time in my life, by any means, to see examples of the effects of pollution (he showed a number of pictures on the screen to illustrate his points), it was like hearing it all for the first time today. I guess it's because always in the past, I heard it through a different framework. I grew up in the 1960s, and the hippies were the ones clamoring to save the environment. There were big drives to save the planet (Earth Day was initiated then, for example), and lots of talk about changing our ways of living. The hippies later became environmentalists, but the hypocrisy of a number of environmental groups has been documented, making them appear to many to just be another political action group seeking to perpetuate their pet cause.
Today, though, in the context being created by the Friendship Collaborative, all of this presentation of the damage pollution is causing has hit a different button in me. God cares for us humans, but he also cares for his other creatures. He created the Earth to be beautiful, and he put us in charge of the creatures who have less intellectual capacity--or to put it in another way, the creatures depend on us, and it's on us to be faithful to God in caring for them. For one thing, the Bible frequently condemns greed, yet it is greed that is the cause of many of these problems in the ocean.
Evangelicals & Environmentalism
After the talk, there was a small discussion group for anyone who wanted to chew on the topics presented. (This group was hosted by Green Vineyard, a group at Vineyard that has a special heart for God's creation.) Dr. Safina's talk focused on how he became interested in the ocean and what he has discovered in the course of his work, particularly in terms of harm to the ocean. The opening question for this group was, so where do we go from here? I was going to attempt to report on the consensus from that, but after trying, it seemed I could mostly only remember the things I had said, so this will be a bit of a skewed reporting of that discussion.
The discussion began by pointing out that Dr. Safina's talk did not really address suggestions on what we should do to deal with these issues. I brought up that for me, what he did today was what I needed--just to see it all first. I took it from there that the main task of green-focused evangelicals is to first open the hearts of other evangelicals to the issue. While different people shared their perspectives on how this can be done, I most clearly remember the ones I brought up, which follow.
What are the barriers to this acceptance of evangelicals caring for the environment?
1) Evangelical critics of the environmental movement charge that this takes Christians' eyes off of the ball, that their core mission is to "save souls," to use an old terminology.
The underlying worldview that produces this mentality is the "ticket to heaven" paradigm. The world is going to be blown up soon, so get as many people as you can to join the club to get on the train out of here before that happens. But I think this mentality is distorted, and actually is a detriment to evangelism. The alternative is the "Kingdom of God" paradigm that sees the present world as part of the future world, not instead of it. Included in this is the breaking down of the saved vs. non-saved mentality that recognizes we're all in this together. When those barriers are brought down, then it's easier to see that by working together with environmentalists, we can learn about their real humanity and they about ours, and the openness to the gospel is more likely because we're not espousing that the Earth doesn't matter. (I talk more about this in my website article, "Identity Crisis Of An Evangelical, Part 3.")
2) At least for older people, there is an association of environmentalism with hippies that still lingers.
For those who are too young to have been alive back then, the hippies were a major force of change in society. They were determined to remake the society on their terms. Environmental concerns were high on their list, but this group also strongly promoted free sexual activity, drugs, and rebellion against authority. Part of this environmental concern was a kind of worship of nature; hippies often talked about Mother Earth. As a result, many older evangelicals have a visceral association of environmental causes with the causes of a group that has caused much harm to society. Top that off with the worship of Mother Nature, and to them environmentalism is the worship of a false god that comes from an immoral people who despise Christians and the one true God. Taking this one level further, there is fear that acceptance of environmental causes in the church will cause the church to be infiltrated with secular thought...first acceptance of environmentalism, then an acceptance of evolution, then a belief that the Bible is not literally true (and, for example, the miracles described in the Bible didn't really happen), and then loss of power of the Christian faith.
3) Many evangelicals are politically conservative, and hold such views in relation to the environment.
Political conservatives come in two basic types--social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. Many evangelicals are both socially and fiscally conservative. Fiscal conservatives deplore taxation beyond the bare minimum needed for things like the armed forces at the national level, and police and fire services at the local level. For them, any call to caring for the environment is seen with $$$, and $$$ make them see red. First of all, they don't usually see much need for environmental laws to begin with, but when such laws are promoted, and the cost is calculated, this is a red flag to them to stop the movement from taking all their money through taxes, or to stop the movement from causing businesses more expense in preserving the environment, because the business will pass on the costs to consumers, or leave the country to do their work where there are no environmental regulations to burden them.
In my view, these are the three largest obstacles to acceptance of a focus on creation care among evangelicals. Until these barriers are sufficiently dealt with, I don't think the green evangelicals can make much progress in getting much of a response from evangelicals.
"Nature, the world, has no value, no interest for Christians. The Christian thinks only of himself and the salvation of his soul."
--Ludwig Feuerbach, 19th century German philosopher & anthropologist
Conclusion / Resources
I made a special effort to make it to church this morning to hear Carl Safina speak. I am glad I made the effort; I found the presentation to be eye-opening and moving.
I recommend that you read the document below, Faith, Science, Earth by Carl Safina. This tells the story of how he became interested in getting involved in dialogue with evangelicals regarding care for the Earth. I found it to be interesting, so I wanted to make it easy for you to read this.
Carl Safina - Faith, Science, Earth.doc
Faith, Science, Earth by Carl Safina
(If this doesn't work for you, you can find it by going to http://www.friendshipcollaborative.org/resources/ [it's listed near the bottom])
In the above article, Dr. Safina quotes Glenn Scherer's observation that of the 130 Congressional members who earned approval ratings of 80-100% from Christian Right groups all got flunking scores from the League of Conservation Voters. See more on this in his article, "The Godly Must Be Crazy." In this article, he ponders why Christians hate the environment so much.
Finally, I'd like to include a link to Dr. Safina's own organization, the Blue Ocean Institute. Included there is a resource called the Lenten Seafood Packet, which lists for Christians observing Lent by eating seafood instead of meat the kinds of fish that are the most environmentally friendly to consume. The fact that there is even anything here directed toward Christians is the result of Carl Safina's involvement in the Friendship Collaborative. Ken Wilson contributed to this document.
http://blueocean.org
Carl Safina plays the drums! That's him back there pounding away during one of the songs in the church service.
About Carl Safina
Dr. Carl Safina is co-founder and President of Blue Ocean Institute. Seeking to inspire a closer relationship with the sea, he is author of three books: Song for the Blue Ocean, Eye of the Albatross, and Voyage of the Turtle. Dr. Safina grew up loving the ocean and its creatures. He now works to highlight, explain, and solve problems facing the oceans' wildlife. He is a recipient of the Pew Scholar's Award in Conservation and the Environment, a World Wildlife Fund Senior Fellowship, a Lannan Literary Award for nonfiction, the John Burroughs Writer's Medal, and a MacArthur Prize. He was also awarded the 2007 Planet Defender Award by the organization Rock The Earth.
J Lee Harshbarger gets a photo op with Carl Safina.
Currently listening to:
Dreams & Visions
by Mary-Kathryn
I listened to this album today on the way home from church, and realized one of the songs was perfect for today's theme! It was her beautiful almost ambient version of the hymn "This Is My Father's World." Click the link below to listen to this song.
05 My Father's World.m4a
Carl Safina Speaks to Christians at Vineyard Church of Ann Arbor
Ken Wilson, the senior pastor of the Vineyard Church of Ann Arbor, loves science. How much, you may ask? Well, some time ago, when he got a sabbatical for six weeks, and he used it to read science books the whole time! As a member of the Ann Arbor Vineyard, I get the benefit of often hearing bits and pieces of science that he brings to us when related to points in his sermons.
About two and a half years ago, Ken did a sermon series on Creation vs. Evolution, called Science and Faith at the Crossroads of Creation, which, since Ken holds that evolution is scientifically accurate, made for an interesting sermon series. The focus of his series was to make room for people who don't believe in young earth creationism or hold similar beliefs; he wanted to let people who think the evolutionary model makes scientific sense to feel welcome at our church. The crux of the issue for Ken is that the church has been unnecessarily blocking people from connecting with God and Christians due to a dominant theme in the evangelical church that to believe in the Bible means to not believe in evolution. Ken sees this as making a prerequisite to potential Christians that they be willing to forsake scientific knowledge in order to come into the fold. It is his mission to break down that barrier. Since we live in a town where a major research university practically owns the whole city, this is a major group for this congregation. But this message has significance to many other towns in this country, also.
As part of this effort, Ken and some other evangelical pastors and leaders have joined with some scientists who have seen the need to break down the barriers between scientists and Christians, particularly when it comes to the need of taking care of Earth. From this group, Ken has developed a friendship with the oceanographer Carl Safina, and one result of that friendship has been that Carl Safina came to the Vineyard Church of Ann Arbor to speak.
Ken Wilson, senior pastor of Vineyard Ann Arbor, with Dr. Carl Safina
Now, this is something not likely to happen at many evangelical churches because Dr. Safina is not a Christian. I don't know exactly how he would label himself, but as far as my knowledge of him goes, he does not hold any religious beliefs. But something that our Vineyard church seeks to do in general is to break down the divisions between sacred and secular and view all humans as creations of God, that we're all in the same boat, loved by him and troubled by sin. Breaking down the artificial barriers between Christian vs. non-Christian makes an exchange like this not problematic at all.
We're in the Same Boat
And that was one of the points Dr. Safina made in his presentation. We're all in the same boat together--whatever happens to the Earth, happens to all of us together. He believes that we have common ground, scientists and evangelicals, even if from a slightly different perspective. Scientists of nature have a deep awe of the wonders found in nature; many of them have a nearly religious experience as they discover and take in the complex beauty of nature. From an appreciation of that beauty, they have a desire to not see it trashed by human recklessness. The people of Yahweh were given charge by him in Genesis to take care of the Earth, God's creation. If we are to follow the directive of God, it means doing our part to make sure humans don't trash God's beautiful creation. But even beyond that specific directive, whatever we do not do to help preserve nature, we--or moreso, our children and further descendants--will suffer the consequences of. Dr. Safina, and other members of the Friendship Collaborative, realized that a major group of Americans (evangelicals) have turned a deaf ear to these potential consequences, while at the same time scientists have been building barriers to being heard by showing contempt for religion in general and evangelicals in particular. Meanwhile, the Earth continues to get trashed. So the Friendship Collaborative was set up to break down the barriers and heal the wounds in order to work on caring for the planet.
A slide during Dr. Safina's presentation points out that Christians and scientists are in the same boat--Planet Earth
Dr. Safina grew up loving to fish, but when he got older he realized that the fish were disappearing. This concern drove him to study what was going on and see what he could do to alleviate the problem. During today's talk, he described the destructive methods that are being used for fishing. For example, to get shrimp, they net all kinds of sea creatures, take out the shrimp, and throw out the rest. This is a huge, wasteful killing of creatures, which has an effect on the ecology of the sea. Another example he gave was how some fishing is done to get fish that hide out in coral reefs--they just go to the bottom of the ocean and scrape it all up. He likened it to using a bulldozer to find squirrels.
"We privatize the profit, but socialize the cost."
One significant point of his talk was this: "We privatize profit, but socialize the cost." In the shrimp example, the private shrimp companies get the profit from selling the shrimp, but the government has to clean up the pollution. He gave others examples of this in the fishing arena, where the fish companies get the profit from the fishing, but we all have to pay the cost of cleaning up the damage they do through their methods. He compared that to the current banking crisis, where the greedy lenders got the profit from the reckless borrowers and all the rest of us are left to pay the bill to bail them out.
This point really struck me, because one of the objections to the environmental movement among conservatives is how much money it will cost companies to comply with environmental regulations. It's decried as a way of making it difficult for companies to survive, by forcing the extra costs on them to take care of their polluting effects. But this view ignores that by not making the companies themselves pay for dealing with the pollution, the rest of us have to deal with it through taxpayer funded cleanup. So which method is truly more capitalistic and less socialistic? Under the "privatize profit, socialize cost" model, the people who buy shrimp get it for cheap, but the rest of us subsidize the shrimp diners by paying for the cleanup. Shouldn't the consumers of shrimp be the ones to pay the extra money to make shrimp-catching safe for the sea creatures? By doing so, this will give the shrimp companies incentive to find cheaper ways to catch shrimp in a way that's safe for the environment.
One example of how easily this can sometimes be done is the case of the albatross. Albatrosses eat fish, and so they would often follow fishing boats to get what was in the net. Trouble is, they get caught in the net and die. This was happening at such a large rate that the albatross population was dwindling. So how did they figure out to deal with this problem? Simply make a red-corded side net that goes up vertically out of the water, that surrounds the fish net. The birds see the red cords and don't get into the fishing net. This simple, low-cost method has helped keep the albatross population from diminishing further.
The Ocean Is Not That Big
Something else that struck me from Dr. Safina's talk was the fragility of the ocean. He stated that we tend to think that the ocean is so big that we can't really affect it that much. But he showed a graph of the dwindling of species, and those in the ocean were dwindling at the same rate as those on land. There are other factors going on, too. When the water of the ocean is too warm, corals die. They rely on algae staying on them, because through that photosynthesis, the corals get fed. When the water is too warm, the algae leave, and the corals turn white and die. Also, the acidity rate of the ocean changes as it heats up, making it more difficult for animals such as oysters to properly form. Even the fish have more trouble breathing when this happens.
Seeing It All with New Eyes
Although this is not the first time in my life, by any means, to see examples of the effects of pollution (he showed a number of pictures on the screen to illustrate his points), it was like hearing it all for the first time today. I guess it's because always in the past, I heard it through a different framework. I grew up in the 1960s, and the hippies were the ones clamoring to save the environment. There were big drives to save the planet (Earth Day was initiated then, for example), and lots of talk about changing our ways of living. The hippies later became environmentalists, but the hypocrisy of a number of environmental groups has been documented, making them appear to many to just be another political action group seeking to perpetuate their pet cause.
Today, though, in the context being created by the Friendship Collaborative, all of this presentation of the damage pollution is causing has hit a different button in me. God cares for us humans, but he also cares for his other creatures. He created the Earth to be beautiful, and he put us in charge of the creatures who have less intellectual capacity--or to put it in another way, the creatures depend on us, and it's on us to be faithful to God in caring for them. For one thing, the Bible frequently condemns greed, yet it is greed that is the cause of many of these problems in the ocean.
Evangelicals & Environmentalism
After the talk, there was a small discussion group for anyone who wanted to chew on the topics presented. (This group was hosted by Green Vineyard, a group at Vineyard that has a special heart for God's creation.) Dr. Safina's talk focused on how he became interested in the ocean and what he has discovered in the course of his work, particularly in terms of harm to the ocean. The opening question for this group was, so where do we go from here? I was going to attempt to report on the consensus from that, but after trying, it seemed I could mostly only remember the things I had said, so this will be a bit of a skewed reporting of that discussion.
The discussion began by pointing out that Dr. Safina's talk did not really address suggestions on what we should do to deal with these issues. I brought up that for me, what he did today was what I needed--just to see it all first. I took it from there that the main task of green-focused evangelicals is to first open the hearts of other evangelicals to the issue. While different people shared their perspectives on how this can be done, I most clearly remember the ones I brought up, which follow.
What are the barriers to this acceptance of evangelicals caring for the environment?
1) Evangelical critics of the environmental movement charge that this takes Christians' eyes off of the ball, that their core mission is to "save souls," to use an old terminology.
The underlying worldview that produces this mentality is the "ticket to heaven" paradigm. The world is going to be blown up soon, so get as many people as you can to join the club to get on the train out of here before that happens. But I think this mentality is distorted, and actually is a detriment to evangelism. The alternative is the "Kingdom of God" paradigm that sees the present world as part of the future world, not instead of it. Included in this is the breaking down of the saved vs. non-saved mentality that recognizes we're all in this together. When those barriers are brought down, then it's easier to see that by working together with environmentalists, we can learn about their real humanity and they about ours, and the openness to the gospel is more likely because we're not espousing that the Earth doesn't matter. (I talk more about this in my website article, "Identity Crisis Of An Evangelical, Part 3.")
2) At least for older people, there is an association of environmentalism with hippies that still lingers.
For those who are too young to have been alive back then, the hippies were a major force of change in society. They were determined to remake the society on their terms. Environmental concerns were high on their list, but this group also strongly promoted free sexual activity, drugs, and rebellion against authority. Part of this environmental concern was a kind of worship of nature; hippies often talked about Mother Earth. As a result, many older evangelicals have a visceral association of environmental causes with the causes of a group that has caused much harm to society. Top that off with the worship of Mother Nature, and to them environmentalism is the worship of a false god that comes from an immoral people who despise Christians and the one true God. Taking this one level further, there is fear that acceptance of environmental causes in the church will cause the church to be infiltrated with secular thought...first acceptance of environmentalism, then an acceptance of evolution, then a belief that the Bible is not literally true (and, for example, the miracles described in the Bible didn't really happen), and then loss of power of the Christian faith.
3) Many evangelicals are politically conservative, and hold such views in relation to the environment.
Political conservatives come in two basic types--social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. Many evangelicals are both socially and fiscally conservative. Fiscal conservatives deplore taxation beyond the bare minimum needed for things like the armed forces at the national level, and police and fire services at the local level. For them, any call to caring for the environment is seen with $$$, and $$$ make them see red. First of all, they don't usually see much need for environmental laws to begin with, but when such laws are promoted, and the cost is calculated, this is a red flag to them to stop the movement from taking all their money through taxes, or to stop the movement from causing businesses more expense in preserving the environment, because the business will pass on the costs to consumers, or leave the country to do their work where there are no environmental regulations to burden them.
In my view, these are the three largest obstacles to acceptance of a focus on creation care among evangelicals. Until these barriers are sufficiently dealt with, I don't think the green evangelicals can make much progress in getting much of a response from evangelicals.
"Nature, the world, has no value, no interest for Christians. The Christian thinks only of himself and the salvation of his soul."
--Ludwig Feuerbach, 19th century German philosopher & anthropologist
Conclusion / Resources
I made a special effort to make it to church this morning to hear Carl Safina speak. I am glad I made the effort; I found the presentation to be eye-opening and moving.
I recommend that you read the document below, Faith, Science, Earth by Carl Safina. This tells the story of how he became interested in getting involved in dialogue with evangelicals regarding care for the Earth. I found it to be interesting, so I wanted to make it easy for you to read this.
Carl Safina - Faith, Science, Earth.doc
Faith, Science, Earth by Carl Safina
(If this doesn't work for you, you can find it by going to http://www.friendshipcollaborative.org/resources/ [it's listed near the bottom])
In the above article, Dr. Safina quotes Glenn Scherer's observation that of the 130 Congressional members who earned approval ratings of 80-100% from Christian Right groups all got flunking scores from the League of Conservation Voters. See more on this in his article, "The Godly Must Be Crazy." In this article, he ponders why Christians hate the environment so much.
Finally, I'd like to include a link to Dr. Safina's own organization, the Blue Ocean Institute. Included there is a resource called the Lenten Seafood Packet, which lists for Christians observing Lent by eating seafood instead of meat the kinds of fish that are the most environmentally friendly to consume. The fact that there is even anything here directed toward Christians is the result of Carl Safina's involvement in the Friendship Collaborative. Ken Wilson contributed to this document.
http://blueocean.org
Carl Safina plays the drums! That's him back there pounding away during one of the songs in the church service.
About Carl Safina
Dr. Carl Safina is co-founder and President of Blue Ocean Institute. Seeking to inspire a closer relationship with the sea, he is author of three books: Song for the Blue Ocean, Eye of the Albatross, and Voyage of the Turtle. Dr. Safina grew up loving the ocean and its creatures. He now works to highlight, explain, and solve problems facing the oceans' wildlife. He is a recipient of the Pew Scholar's Award in Conservation and the Environment, a World Wildlife Fund Senior Fellowship, a Lannan Literary Award for nonfiction, the John Burroughs Writer's Medal, and a MacArthur Prize. He was also awarded the 2007 Planet Defender Award by the organization Rock The Earth.
J Lee Harshbarger gets a photo op with Carl Safina.
Currently listening to:
Dreams & Visions
by Mary-Kathryn
I listened to this album today on the way home from church, and realized one of the songs was perfect for today's theme! It was her beautiful almost ambient version of the hymn "This Is My Father's World." Click the link below to listen to this song.
05 My Father's World.m4a
Posted at 04:02 PM
Wed - February 7, 2007
Ted Haggard Declares He Is Heterosexual
Former pastor and head of the National Association of Evangelicals, outed last year by his male prostitute, is now saying that he realizes from his therapy that he is heterosexual. In this posting, I react to the responses I've seen in the media and on the web to this news, as well as a bit about the deeper issue involved in this debate.
February 7,
2007
Currently Listening To:
Parallel Lines
by Blondie
TED HAGGARD DECLARES HE IS HETEROSEXUAL
Last night I was watching the Anderson Cooper news program on CNN, which was doing a long segment inspired by the news that Ted Haggard, the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals who was discovered to have been engaging in sexual liaisons with a man, claimed after counseling that he was completely heterosexual. (This first appeared in the Denver Post ; also here's CNN's version .) Media pundits and guests were basically laughing at him, at such a ludicrous idea that someone could be cured of homosexuality after three weeks of counseling.
I would agree that it is ludicrous that a gay person could be changed from homosexual to heterosexual in three weeks. All the testimonies I've heard from former homosexuals is that the process took years, like 5 to 15 years. Three weeks would be impossible.
But as I recall the situation, it's not clear to me that Haggard is gay. The San Francisco Chronicle's coverage of this quotes a psychiatrist who explains orientation cannot be changed, but again, what if that was never his orientation, but just some side thing he got into? There are many people who have had same sex sexual encounters but are not gay. Apparently high school or college guys sometimes masturbate together, which does not involve contact but is still a type of sexual experience shared with other guys, but those guys would not consider themselves gay. Some guys may have actual sexual encounters, and girls as well, with others guys or girls, but as an experimental thing or something just for a thrill. There are people who enjoy bisexual encounters, but I don't know that many would consider themselves inherently, unchangeably bisexual.
My point is, in all the sex talk from secular progressives to teens and young adults, there is frequent mention of how it's okay to experiment, that you don't have to stick to the opposite sex, but try experiences with the same sex too for sexual adventure. For example, Puberty 101 says, "Believe it or not, the majority of people are not strictly 100% heterosexual -- that is, it's not an easy 'black and white' distinction. " The article Targeting Children from the AFA Journal gives examples of where students are encouraged to experiment with same sex encounters. An article in The San Francisco Chronicle covers a phenomenon known as "down low": "Being on the down low describes men who have sex with other men but appear straight, have relationships with women, and don't acknowledge being gay or even bisexual." Later in the article it says, "There have always been men who were having relationships with men and women and are clandestine about it. The down low isn't new." Now the news comes out that Ted Haggard paid a male prostitute for sexual services for three years, and suddenly the media are claiming he's clearly gay, and any claims to the contrary have to be bogus.
Yes, if Haggard has truly struggled with homosexual attraction his whole life, I would not find it the least bit believable that he can claim that he is certified heterosexual after counseling. However, I have not seen any indication of this in any news reports. Yet, he's getting scorned from all over the place for claiming he's "cured" of homosexuality, despite no reports (at least that I'm aware of) that he has admitted to struggling with same sex attraction. In his resignation to his church , he stated, ""There is part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life." However, he does not state exactly what that dark side is. Is it same sex attraction? Or is it something more general, an attraction to varieties of sexual activity that are not Biblically sanctioned? It is possible that his 3-year prostitute habit was only one expression of a number of sexual desires he had, others which were heterosexual in nature. The Denver Post article states that his counselors are recommending that he enter a 12-step program for sexual addiction, so it could very well be wide in nature. Given the circumstances--the only revelation is of encounters with a male prostitute--it is possible that his struggle centers on same sex attraction. However, it is not necessarily the case, so in my view, the ridicule scorned on him for declaring himself heterosexual seems presumptuous.
On various news and blog sites I have seen where reader comments are allowed, the comments have been utterly vitriolic. Part of that stems from the hypocrisy Haggard had carried on. But most of it is based on the assumption that someone who is gay is always gay. As I've already stated, I don't even think it's clear that Haggard is gay. What I'm turning to now is this larger issue, the debate on the nature of homosexuality. One commenter said scornfully, "Oh yeah, and after three weeks of therapy I can declare I'm no longer African-American."
This was the bulk of last night's news story on Anderson Cooper: covering this debate of the immutability of homosexuality. The portion of this coverage that I was able to see in full and with full attention featured a representative from each side of this debate (the talking heads, a staple of cable news). On the mainstream side was a representative from the Human Rights Campaign. On the opposing side was a man who says he had homosexual feelings as young as he can remember, but now after years of therapy, he is now happily heterosexual. Of the two guests, the former gay man was definitely the more polite and more reasonable. The guy from the Human Rights Campaign was worked up, rattling off the PC line that therapy to change one's sexual orientation is harmful, thus groups that participate in such programs should be stopped. The other guest calmly stated that he was not happy before and is happy now; he expressed support for programs that make it possible for someone to pursue the path they choose. But the Human Rights Campaign guy became agitated about that idea, citing that "research shows repeatedly that such programs are harmful." (When someone starts spouting, "Research shows...", the red flags always go up for me. Have they actually read the research reports? Who sponsored the research? For what purpose?)
In the abortion debate, the pro-lifers oppose abortion because an innocent life is being taken; a defenseless baby is killed. The opposing side demands "a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body." But when it comes to the issue of therapy to change to heterosexual orientation, the left does not like the idea of the choice of someone deciding to do what they want with their own body. When Exodus or another group of ex-gays wants to hold events, the lefties try to prevent the events from occurring, and failing that, they protest or even cause a ruckus at such events. In articles and on news shows, they repeatedly say, "It's wrong! These groups must be stopped!" They are trying to prevent individuals from making their own choice on how they want to deal with their sexual orientation...the same people who get angry at pro-lifers for wanting to protect babies, bellowing that a woman "has a right to CHOOSE what she wants to do with her own body." Apparently this doesn't apply to women who want to change their sexual orientation. Oh wait, that doesn't change her body, it changes her mind, so that doesn't count. No freedom of choice allowed for the mind. Now that's consistent with the left--not allowed to think for yourself! You must think the way the secular progressives declare is the right way to think!
Currently Listening To:
Parallel Lines
by Blondie
TED HAGGARD DECLARES HE IS HETEROSEXUAL
Last night I was watching the Anderson Cooper news program on CNN, which was doing a long segment inspired by the news that Ted Haggard, the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals who was discovered to have been engaging in sexual liaisons with a man, claimed after counseling that he was completely heterosexual. (This first appeared in the Denver Post ; also here's CNN's version .) Media pundits and guests were basically laughing at him, at such a ludicrous idea that someone could be cured of homosexuality after three weeks of counseling.
I would agree that it is ludicrous that a gay person could be changed from homosexual to heterosexual in three weeks. All the testimonies I've heard from former homosexuals is that the process took years, like 5 to 15 years. Three weeks would be impossible.
But as I recall the situation, it's not clear to me that Haggard is gay. The San Francisco Chronicle's coverage of this quotes a psychiatrist who explains orientation cannot be changed, but again, what if that was never his orientation, but just some side thing he got into? There are many people who have had same sex sexual encounters but are not gay. Apparently high school or college guys sometimes masturbate together, which does not involve contact but is still a type of sexual experience shared with other guys, but those guys would not consider themselves gay. Some guys may have actual sexual encounters, and girls as well, with others guys or girls, but as an experimental thing or something just for a thrill. There are people who enjoy bisexual encounters, but I don't know that many would consider themselves inherently, unchangeably bisexual.
My point is, in all the sex talk from secular progressives to teens and young adults, there is frequent mention of how it's okay to experiment, that you don't have to stick to the opposite sex, but try experiences with the same sex too for sexual adventure. For example, Puberty 101 says, "Believe it or not, the majority of people are not strictly 100% heterosexual -- that is, it's not an easy 'black and white' distinction. " The article Targeting Children from the AFA Journal gives examples of where students are encouraged to experiment with same sex encounters. An article in The San Francisco Chronicle covers a phenomenon known as "down low": "Being on the down low describes men who have sex with other men but appear straight, have relationships with women, and don't acknowledge being gay or even bisexual." Later in the article it says, "There have always been men who were having relationships with men and women and are clandestine about it. The down low isn't new." Now the news comes out that Ted Haggard paid a male prostitute for sexual services for three years, and suddenly the media are claiming he's clearly gay, and any claims to the contrary have to be bogus.
Yes, if Haggard has truly struggled with homosexual attraction his whole life, I would not find it the least bit believable that he can claim that he is certified heterosexual after counseling. However, I have not seen any indication of this in any news reports. Yet, he's getting scorned from all over the place for claiming he's "cured" of homosexuality, despite no reports (at least that I'm aware of) that he has admitted to struggling with same sex attraction. In his resignation to his church , he stated, ""There is part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life." However, he does not state exactly what that dark side is. Is it same sex attraction? Or is it something more general, an attraction to varieties of sexual activity that are not Biblically sanctioned? It is possible that his 3-year prostitute habit was only one expression of a number of sexual desires he had, others which were heterosexual in nature. The Denver Post article states that his counselors are recommending that he enter a 12-step program for sexual addiction, so it could very well be wide in nature. Given the circumstances--the only revelation is of encounters with a male prostitute--it is possible that his struggle centers on same sex attraction. However, it is not necessarily the case, so in my view, the ridicule scorned on him for declaring himself heterosexual seems presumptuous.
On various news and blog sites I have seen where reader comments are allowed, the comments have been utterly vitriolic. Part of that stems from the hypocrisy Haggard had carried on. But most of it is based on the assumption that someone who is gay is always gay. As I've already stated, I don't even think it's clear that Haggard is gay. What I'm turning to now is this larger issue, the debate on the nature of homosexuality. One commenter said scornfully, "Oh yeah, and after three weeks of therapy I can declare I'm no longer African-American."
This was the bulk of last night's news story on Anderson Cooper: covering this debate of the immutability of homosexuality. The portion of this coverage that I was able to see in full and with full attention featured a representative from each side of this debate (the talking heads, a staple of cable news). On the mainstream side was a representative from the Human Rights Campaign. On the opposing side was a man who says he had homosexual feelings as young as he can remember, but now after years of therapy, he is now happily heterosexual. Of the two guests, the former gay man was definitely the more polite and more reasonable. The guy from the Human Rights Campaign was worked up, rattling off the PC line that therapy to change one's sexual orientation is harmful, thus groups that participate in such programs should be stopped. The other guest calmly stated that he was not happy before and is happy now; he expressed support for programs that make it possible for someone to pursue the path they choose. But the Human Rights Campaign guy became agitated about that idea, citing that "research shows repeatedly that such programs are harmful." (When someone starts spouting, "Research shows...", the red flags always go up for me. Have they actually read the research reports? Who sponsored the research? For what purpose?)
In the abortion debate, the pro-lifers oppose abortion because an innocent life is being taken; a defenseless baby is killed. The opposing side demands "a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body." But when it comes to the issue of therapy to change to heterosexual orientation, the left does not like the idea of the choice of someone deciding to do what they want with their own body. When Exodus or another group of ex-gays wants to hold events, the lefties try to prevent the events from occurring, and failing that, they protest or even cause a ruckus at such events. In articles and on news shows, they repeatedly say, "It's wrong! These groups must be stopped!" They are trying to prevent individuals from making their own choice on how they want to deal with their sexual orientation...the same people who get angry at pro-lifers for wanting to protect babies, bellowing that a woman "has a right to CHOOSE what she wants to do with her own body." Apparently this doesn't apply to women who want to change their sexual orientation. Oh wait, that doesn't change her body, it changes her mind, so that doesn't count. No freedom of choice allowed for the mind. Now that's consistent with the left--not allowed to think for yourself! You must think the way the secular progressives declare is the right way to think!
Posted at 01:31 AM
Wed - September 20, 2006
Denial From The Left
This is a pure "J Lee's Soapbox" rant about the claim the left wingers keep making that only the right wing wants to impose its views on others.
Wednesday, September 20,
2006
Currently Reading:
Wait! Don't Move to Canada: 10 Steps to a Liberal America
By Bill Scher
Denial From The Left
Here's a quote from the book pictured above:
"Conservatives like war so much, they promote one here at home: a culture war, where they portray themselves as heroic defenders of faith and family doing battle against an army of godless homosexual baby-killing hybrid-car-driving liberals. Of course, only one side believes that an elite group should dictate morality for the entire nation, and it ain't us liberals." (page 70)
I get tired of this hypocrisy from the Left. They repeatedly claim that the Religious Right is trying to "impose their values on everybody," as if the Left is not!! Somebody's values have to prevail in society; the cultural war is about whose values will prevail. But the Left keeps trying to say that only the Right wants to impose their values on everyone, while the Left does not. That's such nonsense.
Let me start with an uncontroversial topic: murder. In this country, murder is considered a crime. This is a moral judgment: Murder is wrong; therefore, perpetrators of murder should be punished. (Exactly how they should be punished is another debate.) Someone's values rule the culture, determining what is right and wrong.
Other values are not considered crimes as such, but are still considered morally repugnant. Take racism, for example. You can't be put in jail just for having racist attitudes, but it is generally accepted throughout the culture that it is morally wrong to judge people's worthiness and abilities from their race. (Some people are trying to make your attitude a crime, though, by trying to pass Hate Crimes legislation, which says that the person who kills because of racist attitude should be punished more than the person who kills someone, say, just for cruel fun.)
One of the big issues in the cultural war is homosexuality. The Left claims that the Right wants to "impose their views on everyone," while the Left claims that it only wants to allow freedom. First of all, to pass laws that recognize homosexual relationships as valid--such as gay marriage laws--makes a moral statement; it is not truthful to claim that this is not so. It imposes upon everyone the acceptance of homosexual marriage as a valid and morally acceptable union. This is no different than the Right wanting to keep the current laws intact, which does not recognize gay marriage as morally acceptable. They are two different views on what is morally acceptable; it is not true that one imposes its views upon society while the other does not.
However, I can hear a Leftie responding to this by claiming that their law allows each person to make their own choice, while their opponents limit choice. I think that still goes into the argument above, but rather than drawing that out further, let me take a turn here, with the idea of, as the quote says above, "dictating morality."
When I first moved to this area, a local city was having a big dispute because a printing company refused to print a particular flyer because it promoted a homosexual event. This infuriated those who wanted their flyer printed, and it erupted into a citywide discussion about passing "civil rights legislation." This is only one example of many similar cases I have read about throughout the country.
Now if the city passes a law that forces the printer to print the materials, then they are imposing their morals on the printers. Lefties term this "civil rights," but the printers are losing their First Amendment rights with such a law. The whole idea of the First Amendment -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assocation -- has the idea that you can't be forced to say things you don't want to or associate with people you don't want to. Yet Lefties call such forced speech and associations "civil liberties." They are perhaps civil rights for one group but not another.
Any laws that are passed assume someone's morality. The permission of abortion says it's okay to kill a baby in the womb because the assumption is that the baby has no rights while in the womb; the life of the baby belongs to the mother. This is a moral judgement, and it infuriates me when the Lefties claim their preferences are not imposing their views on others. They are certainly imposing their views on the babies in this case, who get no legal rights because the Lefites, who support the court-invented law, do not deem them worthy of rights.
So to the Left I say, stop your bogus claims that only your opponents want to impose their views on everyone. (Of course I know you won't because it sounds so much more noble to say "We support freedom, while they want to control you.") Somebody's values are imposed on society. It's just a matter of whose values.
Currently Reading:
Wait! Don't Move to Canada: 10 Steps to a Liberal America
By Bill Scher
Denial From The Left
Here's a quote from the book pictured above:
"Conservatives like war so much, they promote one here at home: a culture war, where they portray themselves as heroic defenders of faith and family doing battle against an army of godless homosexual baby-killing hybrid-car-driving liberals. Of course, only one side believes that an elite group should dictate morality for the entire nation, and it ain't us liberals." (page 70)
I get tired of this hypocrisy from the Left. They repeatedly claim that the Religious Right is trying to "impose their values on everybody," as if the Left is not!! Somebody's values have to prevail in society; the cultural war is about whose values will prevail. But the Left keeps trying to say that only the Right wants to impose their values on everyone, while the Left does not. That's such nonsense.
Let me start with an uncontroversial topic: murder. In this country, murder is considered a crime. This is a moral judgment: Murder is wrong; therefore, perpetrators of murder should be punished. (Exactly how they should be punished is another debate.) Someone's values rule the culture, determining what is right and wrong.
Other values are not considered crimes as such, but are still considered morally repugnant. Take racism, for example. You can't be put in jail just for having racist attitudes, but it is generally accepted throughout the culture that it is morally wrong to judge people's worthiness and abilities from their race. (Some people are trying to make your attitude a crime, though, by trying to pass Hate Crimes legislation, which says that the person who kills because of racist attitude should be punished more than the person who kills someone, say, just for cruel fun.)
One of the big issues in the cultural war is homosexuality. The Left claims that the Right wants to "impose their views on everyone," while the Left claims that it only wants to allow freedom. First of all, to pass laws that recognize homosexual relationships as valid--such as gay marriage laws--makes a moral statement; it is not truthful to claim that this is not so. It imposes upon everyone the acceptance of homosexual marriage as a valid and morally acceptable union. This is no different than the Right wanting to keep the current laws intact, which does not recognize gay marriage as morally acceptable. They are two different views on what is morally acceptable; it is not true that one imposes its views upon society while the other does not.
However, I can hear a Leftie responding to this by claiming that their law allows each person to make their own choice, while their opponents limit choice. I think that still goes into the argument above, but rather than drawing that out further, let me take a turn here, with the idea of, as the quote says above, "dictating morality."
When I first moved to this area, a local city was having a big dispute because a printing company refused to print a particular flyer because it promoted a homosexual event. This infuriated those who wanted their flyer printed, and it erupted into a citywide discussion about passing "civil rights legislation." This is only one example of many similar cases I have read about throughout the country.
Now if the city passes a law that forces the printer to print the materials, then they are imposing their morals on the printers. Lefties term this "civil rights," but the printers are losing their First Amendment rights with such a law. The whole idea of the First Amendment -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assocation -- has the idea that you can't be forced to say things you don't want to or associate with people you don't want to. Yet Lefties call such forced speech and associations "civil liberties." They are perhaps civil rights for one group but not another.
Any laws that are passed assume someone's morality. The permission of abortion says it's okay to kill a baby in the womb because the assumption is that the baby has no rights while in the womb; the life of the baby belongs to the mother. This is a moral judgement, and it infuriates me when the Lefties claim their preferences are not imposing their views on others. They are certainly imposing their views on the babies in this case, who get no legal rights because the Lefites, who support the court-invented law, do not deem them worthy of rights.
So to the Left I say, stop your bogus claims that only your opponents want to impose their views on everyone. (Of course I know you won't because it sounds so much more noble to say "We support freedom, while they want to control you.") Somebody's values are imposed on society. It's just a matter of whose values.
Posted at 12:06 AM
Quick Links
Quick Links
Categories
Archives
Click and I get paid
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Search Here, Give Me Money
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Mar 23, 2009 05:28 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Mar 23, 2009 05:28 PM