20 November, 2007

The Sovereignty of Global Warming

We at TBNN are big readers of great books such as A. W. Pink's The Sovereignty of God. We are Reformed, and thus believe that God is in literal control of all things - including salvation (click here to read a bit of Pink's classic work).

All within the Christian community are not convinced that God is sovereign. Most mainline denominations are at least leaning towards Arminianism if not openly embracing it. Some denominations with Reformed history and traditions (such as Southern Baptists) now by and large reject Reformed theology. Increasing numbers of many types of different churches are accepting open theism as truth.

TBNN has discovered that there are even a few churches who believe something else is truly sovereign over all things: global warming.

Now that the United Nations has released a "definitive report" on global warming, some groups of believers are bowing to the ultimate control of the environment. Pastor Nancy Franklin of Portland (OR) Church of Christ informed us, "We see more and more examples of the control of the environment over our lives. Just look at our world today. The tsunami of 2004 may have been the first sign. Then there was Hurricane Katrina. This year alone we have had the wildfires in California, drought in the Southeast, and now this terrible cyclone hitting Bangladesh. The worst tragedy of all was the recent oil spill in San Francisco Bay. Some locations in our world are getting snow, others are getting no snow. Some places are getting rain, while others are not. Some places are windy, and others are calm. It all comes straight from global warming."

In light of the control that global warming now appears to be exerting over all facets of life, several different groups have joined together in writing a new set of commandments to live by. These groups include the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Episcopal Church, the Unitarian-Universalists, Greenpeace, and the San Francisco City Council. They insist on a literal interpretation of these commandments.

The Global Warming 10 Commandments are as follows (environment speaking):

1. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make an image out of any piece of wood.
3. You shall not speak out against environmental causes.
4. Rest weekly from your use of the environment.
5. Honor your Father Sky and Mother Earth.
6. You shall not murder any tree.
7. You shall not burn any fires with passion.
8. You shall not take resources such as trees or water.
9. You shall not say anything falsely against the defenders of Mother Earth.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's SUV.

The above groups reportedly hope to appease "Mother Nature" enough to quiet her recent wrath.

Pastor Franklin summed up their cause, "We now realize that the environment really is sovereign over all we do. If we will just deny ourselves, and submit to her Lordship, then we will be saved from the coming judgment."


Brother Slawson said...

Very rich!

Stefan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stefan said...


Cheeky but very prescient of you to suggest that theologically liberal groups would paradoxically insist on a "fundamentalist" approach to "saving" the environment.

Job 38:22-30, 34-38

jamesr said...

Would the First (Environmentalist) Commandment be better listed as

"You shall have no other causes (that is, political concerns or protests) before me." ?

So what about #7? Can I burn a fire without passion - i.e. out of necessity or just because I want to have one in my fireplace? After all, it's not a "burning passion", just a "warm fondness"!

About #10. Why would I want to covet my neighbor's SUV anyway? With the price of fuel these days, I don't envy the neighbor and his SUV fuel bill one bit! I don't even begrudge him the income he has to afford the thing and it's motion lotion.

I suppose there might be *something* to the Global Warming theory. Didn't the Apostle Peter write about the end of the world coming with intense heat?

Jim Pemberton said...

I would say that there must be a difference between burning forests out of passion and PETA burning laboratories out of passion. Would this be a hermeneutical issue or a ecclesiological one?

jamesr said...

I think the "burning forests out of passion" is a matter of intent.

If the passion to burn the forest is driven by the passion to encourage new growth, that's one thing.

If the passion to burn the forest is otherwise, it's criminal, just like PETA's laboratory-burning passion.

Whether hermeneutical or ecclesiastical, I don't know.

Darrin said...

There is no Mother but Earth, and Al Gore is her prophet.