| | A Response Regarding Al Mohler's Post
Click the above link to read Mohler's post first. Below is my response sent out in an email, but afterwards I felt like posting it here.
The view of procreation vs. ecological footprint is terrible, but I also believe he is reacting to a radical's idea that may or may not be becoming mainstream or will necessarily be adopted easily or silently. Although I have a great amount of respect for Mohler, I tend to be a little suspect of the Christian Right's culture wars.
I am suspect of the post when those who are concerned of population explosions are dismissed as already failed alarmists and whacos. UK has its own population issues for being a landlocked island. However, regarding population, the western industrialized nations are not growing from reproduction, but from immigration. There are areas of our globe that are and will continue to grow at astounding rates and these are real concerns for the global community regarding the local politic and tribal / racial / religious issues. My hunch is that this report from a commission will be debunked, rejected or ignored. If it actually becomes more of a policy issue they yes, we speak.
I am glad that Mohler is simply pointing out a possible and an attempted shift to see human procreation in mere terms of ecological footprint. This would be a subtle and tragic slip from our biblical anthropology. I also respect how Mohler does not drift into a pro-life, pro-biblical anthropology held in tension against a weak and disinterested ecology.
The Culture of Death most often hides behind carefully measured statements and euphemisms. Every once in a while, the mask drops, and this is one of those cases. In the name of sustainable development this official calls for limiting family size, and compares the value of a human child to that of an oak woodland. In the name of environmentalism, he argues for shifting government financial support from finding the cures for illnesses in the body to funding the killing of babies in the womb. Christians must be reminded that we do bear responsibility as stewards of God's creation. But we cannot be faithful in that stewardship if we adopt the logic of the Culture of Death. Human beings cannot be reduced to any cold economic or ecological value. Each human being is made in God's image, and each can be part of the fulfillment of our stewardship.
Thankfully that is changing, but we are working from the outside in right now and we must change the example of the Religious Right model of defining what we are against, but rather we must lead with what we are for and make proposals that address the fears and possibilities regarding our environment. We can no longer simply dismiss the potential doom and gloom reports as if they are impossible and easily dismissible.
Even if the dooms day story does not occur, the fears and questions of the day do! These fears and concerns need the voice of the church involved, not standing as conservative outsiders betting against the questions and concerns of the day. (And nothing is worse to me than a bunch of pastor types collectively dismissing scientists because they believe their theology stands taller and firmer than the scientists body of knowledge. Just ask Copernicus and Galileo about the church's understanding of science through their theology.)
|
| | Posted 2/5/2009 10:08 AM - 33 Views - 4 eProps - 2 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
