Busting The Reaganomics Myth

What we have nowadays, rather than a “government”, is actually more of a dualistic system of adversarial fat cats whose primary activities, it would seem, are the acquisition of power, the maintaining of it, exchanging insults and being nasty to one another…

This article, about a former Reagan admin. insider, will challenge all the conventional wisdom about "conservative" vs. "liberal" politics:

"Trickle Down" economics was a "Trojan Horse"

David Stockman

In the 1980’s Ronald Reagan ushered in a new era in American economics as he cut the top tax bracket from 70% down to 50% and then down again to 28%. In order to get support for doing this from the people, and also from politicians, a very crafty set of lies were produced. As David Stockman, then Reagan’s budget director, put it: giving small tax cuts across the board to all brackets was simply a “Trojan Horse” that was used to get approval for the huge top tax bracket cuts. “Trickle-Down” was a term used by Republicans that meant giving tax cuts to the rich. Stockman explains that:

"It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."

"Yes, Stockman conceded, when one stripped away the new rhetoric emphasizing across-the-board cuts, the supply-side theory was really new clothes for the unpopular doctrine of the old Republican orthodoxy."

"…the Reagan coalition prevailed again in the House and Congress passed the tax-cut legislation with a final frenzy of trading and bargaining. Again, Stockman was not exhilarated by the victory. On the contrary, it seemed to leave a bad taste in his mouth, as though the democratic process had finally succeeded in shocking him by its intensity and its greed. Once again, Stockman participated in the trading -- special tax concessions for oil -- lease holders and real-estate tax shelters, and generous loopholes that virtually eliminated the corporate income tax. Stockman sat in the room and saw it happen."

"'Do you realize the greed that came to the forefront?' Stockman asked with wonder. 'The hogs were really feeding. The greed level, the level of opportunism, just got out of control.'"

The Education of David Stockman 1981:

http://www. theatlantic. com/politics/budget/stockman.htm

Reagan's policies did more than simply cut income taxes. A large number of tax loopholes were written into the tax code that catered to special corporate interests. In fact many of the current scandals involving companies such as Enron are rooted in laws that were passed during the Reagan administration that gave these companies more legal legroom to work with and less oversight.

In addition, the small “income-tax cuts” that were given to the middle and lower income tax brackets were countered with new taxes that were directed at middle and low income individuals, as former House Speaker Jim Wright said:

Reagan's tax increases fell mainly on consumers, low- and middle-income people. Sales and excise levies. Reagan didn't call these taxes. They were, in his euphemistic lexicon, "user fees" and "revenue-enhancers."

The most important issue though is that even if you take the Reagan “Trickle-Down” policy at face value it’s still horribly flawed as a policy that will provide economic growth that benefits all Americans.

There is no realistic way for "Trickle-Down" economics to work to increase the income of the working classes of America. In fact I am certain that the developers of the theory of "Trickle-Down" economics were fully aware of this and that "Trickle-Down" has in fact worked as intended. This means that the intent behind implementing "Trickle-Down" was to benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of working class Americans. "Trickle-Down" hasn't failed, as many modern economists have suggested, it has succeeded in its goals, which is the increase of economic inequality and the shift of a greater portion of America's wealth into the hands of the wealthiest Americans.

I'll show you exactly why "Trickle-Down" can never really trickle down, and I'll expose the logic that was used to trick Americans into supporting the idea that freeing up money for the wealthy could somehow benefit the poor and middle class.

I'm going to use a very simplistic example to demonstrate the principles of "Trickle-Down" economics. No, this is not a 100% accurate model of our economic system, and it assumes that "all other aspects of the economy are equal," but the major principles are represented. I will give "Trickle-Down" the benefit of the doubt and assume that it actually does create jobs in my example.

We have a room with 5 people in it. The total value of all the money in the room is $10. 00. The money is apportioned as in the table below.

Total Value $10. 00
Jim	$4. 00	40%
Susan	$3. 00	30%
Tom	$2. 00	20%
Amy	$1. 00	10%
Bill	$0. 00	0%

Sam enters the room and says that he has $10. 00 that he wants to give to Jim. This makes everyone else unhappy of course and everyone says that they will beat Jim up if he takes the money. Sam then proposes a solution. He says that if everyone allows him to give Jim $6. 00 he will give $1. 00 to everyone else in the room. This sounds pretty good to everyone so they agree to let Jim receive the money. So, after Jim gets the money and everyone gets a dollar this is what the monetary breakdown of the room looks like:

Total Value $20. 00
Jim	$10. 00	50%
Susan	$4. 00	20%
Tom	$3. 00	15%
Amy	$2. 00	10%
Bill	$1. 00	5%

As you can see, due to inflation most of the other people in the room either lost value or saw no real gain. As you can also see the size of the "economy" did in fact grow as the theory of "Trickle-Down" proposes, but the growth only benefited one person, Jim, and arguably Bill. Even though the economy grew overall most of the people in the room saw a loss of value. This is because the value of money is relative. It's relative to many factors, but one is how much money is in the system. If you have 1 dollar out of 10 then its worth more than 1 dollar out of 1,000. How wealthy you are in terms of dollars is not measured by the number of dollars you have, it is measured by the share of dollars that you have out of the total number of dollars in the system.

Now, your opinion of Sam and Jim can be one of only two options.

1) Jim and Sam were naive and actually thought that they were going to be helping everyone with their actions; the fact that the actions had a negative effect on everyone else was an accident.

2) Jim and Sam knew that taking the $10. 00, keeping $6. 00 of it, and giving $1. 00 to everyone else wasn't going to help anyone but Jim, and they tricked everyone for the purpose of self gain using the $1. 00 "gift" to the under-classes as a "Trojan Horse" to support the action.

As in the example above there are three basic possibilities for economic growth (and many variations in between): Either the growth of the economy can be spread equally among everyone, the growth of the economy can be shifted towards the bottom of the population in which case the poor see a rise in relative value, becoming "less poor," or the growth can be shifted toward the top in which case the rich see a rise in relative value, becoming "more rich. "

The general economic policy of "Trickle-Down" that was put in place by Reagan has gone fundamentally unchanged since it was adopted by the country in the 1980s. The claim of Reagan was that "all boats would rise" by giving huge tax cuts for the wealthy. This did not happen. The majority of boats stayed the same or sank, while only between 5% and 1% of the boats actually rose.

The effects of "Trickle-Down" policy are evident. As would be expected from the policy, the largest beneficiaries of the "Trickle-Down" system have been the wealthy.

Individual earnings inequality as reported by the U. S. Census Bureau was falling or stable from the 1960s through the 1970s, however, beginning in the 1980s, along with the economic reforms of "Trickle-Down" policy, income inequality began to rise and has continued to rise dramatically ever since, as shown in the figure below.

(Data for the graphs below comes from the US Census Bureau)

http://www. census. gov/hhes/income/histinc/histinctb.html

Although there was a huge increase in real income for average Americans between World War II and the 1970s the income of the average American male has gone essentially unchanged since 1970 as the figure below indicates. Income for females though has continued to rise. What is significant about this graph is that between 1980 and present (2003) the incomes of the top 2% of American wage earners has gone up dramatically despite the stagnation of the income of average Americans.

This graph shows both average hourly earnings and the minimum wage together in 2001 dollars. As you can see both the minimum wage and average hourly earnings reached their peak in the 1960s and 1970s. This graph does not go back any farther than 1960, but for all practical purposes the peak shown here in 1973 is the historical peak for hourly earnings in America. See the source data in the link below for details on hourly earnings.

http://w3. access. gpo. gov/usbudget/fy2000/sheets/b047. xls

As we can see below, the percentage of people in poverty who are also working full time has gone up steadily since the 1970s, and it also underscores an important point, as all of these graphs do, which is that the fundamental economic policy of the Reagan administration has gone essentially unchanged, even by President Clinton.

http://www. census. gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov18.html

Today we are still operating under a Supply Side economic model. In fact, even though the average income tax rate paid in America today is roughly the same as it was in 1979, the average income tax rate for the top 1% is less than it was in 1979. The graph below shows the actual percentage of income paid to all (Income, Social Security, Corporate, Capital gains, and Excise) Federal taxes per the various groups. During the Regan era, you can see that total Federal taxes on the lowest income groups actually went up. Clinton continued to maintain the Supply Side model that was established under Reagan. By 2000 the Top 1% still maintained significantly lower taxes compared to the pre-Reagan era, but taxes on "upper middle class" earners had increased and taxes on the middle class have stayed about the same as they were just prior to Reagan's entry into office, which is higher than they ever were prior to the 1970s.

http://www. cbo. gov/showdoc. cfm?index=4514&sequence=3&from=0

As the figures below indicate, the degree of increase in income for the wealthiest Americans has far outpaced the majority of the population, a trend that also started with the Reagan Presidency. A large factor in this increase for the top 2% has been capital gains.

http://www. cbo. gov/showdoc. cfm?index=3089&sequence=11

The two graphs above show similar data, but there are some important differences. Obviously the first graph shows a wider range of data in terms of the years that it covers, but the first graph also shows the data for total household incomes, which have increased among the bottom quintiles in large part because of the increase in two or three worker households, but the bottom graph shows the data adjusted for household size. In addition the bottom graph obviously also shows data for the top 1%, whereas the top graph does not, and, perhaps most significantly, the bottom graph shows after tax income, so it is showing what was taken home after all federal taxes were paid.

This next graph shows an even longer range view. This shows after tax income in 2000 dollars going back to 1913 for the top 1% and the average for the remaining bottom 99%.

http://www. aflcio. org/corporateamerica/paywatch/

After World War II significant efforts were made to ensure prosperity for all Americans. These efforts dramatically reduced poverty rates and helped to build the strong middle-class that America has become famous for. However, as the graph below shows, significant changes began with the Reagan presidency.

Between 1965 and 2001 the number of multi-worker households has increased dramatically. In fact the slight increase in income that is shown for the 1^st through 4^th quintiles in the graph titled Average Household Income by Quintile (a quintile represents 1/5^th of the population) is primarily attributed to an increase in the number of households with two or more workers supporting the household. Individual male income for the 1^st through 4^th quintiles has actually gone down or stayed the same since the 1980s when adjusted for inflation.

In 1965 27% of the full time workforce was female, by 2001 that number had risen to 41%. What has allowed the average American household to continue to maintain a good standard of living is an increase in multi-worker households and a decrease in the number of children that families have, as well as a large increase in the trade deficit, with increasing numbers of American goods being made in third world countries.

The issue is that the economic policies of the Reagan administration were designed to primarily benefit wealthy Americans. At the time a lot of smoke and mirrors were used to convince average Americans that these policies would help them as well. A similar set of lies has been used by those, like Steve Forbes, who promote a flat tax system.

What the "Trickle-Down"/Supply Side policies of the Reagan administration were designed to do was to increase the amount of money available to wealthy Americans for investing and developing businesses. This was intended to create an increase in production of products and services and hence and increase in new jobs. The reason that the policy is called Supply Side, is because the supply of goods increases before there is a demand for goods. So, in that case, the supply of goods is intended to then spark demand, resulting in economic growth.

This use of Supply Side policy led to a huge increase in consumerism and the use of credit. An environment of consumerism was created in American society through the media via advertisements, movies, and television shows, etc. that promoted consumerism. Consumers though, did not have the money to fulfill the desires created by society so debt was used to participate in the economy. Restrictions on credit were loosened under the Reagan administration making it easier for individuals to gain credit lines because the use of credit was essential to growing the economy because real wages were not going up for the average American, yet it was essential that the average American increase spending in order to fuel the economy. This situation fueled female entry into the workforce as more households require two workers to maintain their standard of living.

The result of this is that American household debt has been constantly hitting new highs since the 1980s as can be seen in the graph below provided by Michael Hodges.

http://mwhodges. home. att. net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm

The truth is that "Trickle-Down" was never intended to help middle income and poor Americans; it was intended to help the wealthy and Corporate America.

The economic policies of the Reagan era increased the trade deficit and provided easier ways for companies to "hide" money.

1980 the top 1% of tax filers received 8. 45% of American AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) and in 2000 that figure had risen to 20. 81% of the national AGI. Today the over 50% of the national income goes to the wealthiest 20% of Americans. This is the first time since 1935 that such a large portion of the national income has gone to such a small portion of the population. In 1967 the wealthiest 20% only accounted for 43% of the nation's income. The trend began in 1982. Between 1967 and 1982 middle-income households were gaining a larger share of the economy. What this means is that between 1982 and 2001 the bottom 80% of Americans have lost share in the nation's economy. This was the inevitable result of Reaganomics. It was an intended result. Political control and economic control go hand in hand. If the control of the economy is not in the hands of the majority of Americans then neither is political control.

For more on taxation and income in America see:

In Depth Analysis of American Income and Taxation

ANWR, Oil Development and Indigenous People

I don't know why, but I am still constantly amazed at how short sighted, narrow minded, selfish and ethnocentric (or perhaps just uninformed) some people are. For instance, I listened to a long diatribe yesterday from media propagandist Glenn Beck concerning the renewed pressure to drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. His basic and somewhat cartoonish thesis was,

"Screw the caribou and polar bears- let's start drilling now."

The thing is- there are several things, including the PEOPLE that live near these areas, that do not seem to be a part of public debate or consciousness on this topic at all. I believe that by any standard of spirituality or ethics this is WRONG- especially if one wears the name Christian. Christ instructed us to "love our neighbors as ourselves". Considering that, consider this:

Summary:

ANWR and Indigenous People While oil development in ANWR would provide valuable revenue for some Native Americans, such as the Inupiat, it would have potentially disastrous impacts on other Native Americans, in particular the members of the Gwich'in Nation who live near ANWR. As they have for thousands of years, the Gwich'in depend on the Porcupine caribou herd for food, clothing, and tools. The caribou are central to their spiritual life. Oil development in the 1002 area of ANWR, the calving grounds of the Porcupine herd, would likely reduce the size of the herd and alter its annual migration patterns. This would, in turn, threaten the very survival of the Gwich'in culture.
Please pray that our neighbors and Native brothers will not be forgotten and run over in the name of "progress". May God's hand be upon them and protect and keep them and may "our people" be true and just representatives of our Lord in our dealings with them.

Indigenous People

The Gwich'in of northern Canada and Alaska have lived in their Arctic homeland
since the last ice age. The Gwich'in are caribou people. There is direct archaeological
evidence that the Gwich'in have depended upon the Porcupine Caribou Herd for at
least 12,000 years. They still depend upon the caribou for their subsistence needs as
well as their cultural survival. They are firmly opposed to oil exploration or
development in the herd's calving grounds on the coastal plain of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. The Gwich'in have fought for permanent protection of the calving
grounds for more than a decade.
The calving grounds are a sacred place for the Gwich'in
"The calving grounds are on lands in Alaska, but it is our children who will
be affected by what happens there."
- Liz Hansen, Gwich'in elder from Old Crow, Yukon
"If the oil companies go into the calving grounds, it would be like drilling in
a hospital nursery. That's how we feel about it. We will do everything that
we can, everything in our power to prevent that, because it means our life."
- Norma Kassi, Gwich'in spokeswoman from Old Crow
"Our right to continue to live our traditions and to depend on the caribou
like we do is our constitutional right as Americans, it is our inherent right
as indigenous people, and our essential human right to our own means of
subsistence."
- Faith Gimmell, Gwich'in spokeswoman from Arctic Village, Alaska.

The Porcupine Caribou Herd

The 130,000-member Porcupine Caribou Herd has used the coastal plain of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as its core calving area for tens of thousands of
years. Each year the female caribou travel to the coastal plan to give birth. 40,000
calves are born each year during a two-week period at the beginning of June. A
healthy calf-survival rate is critical to the continued survival of the herd. Biologists
say that the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is a "critical habitat:"


The coastal plain contains the nutritious plants that the caribou need after a
long winter during the vulnerable first few weeks of a calf's life, the coastal
plain has fewer predators than do the mountains to the south
on the coastal plain the caribou find areas to get relief from insects -
mosquitoes suck up to a quart of blood a week from a single caribou and
disrupt feeding patterns
Oil Development and Caribou
Caribou biologists tell us that caribou during the calving and post-calving periods do
not become acclimatized to the activity associated with oil development. If oil
development is allowed in the calving grounds, the pregnant females would be
forced to give birth in the mountains to the south where calf survival rates would
likely plummet. Oil wells and pipelines would also restrict caribou migration.
In summary, state-of-the-art technology has not prevented displacement of
calving from even the newer oilfields on the North Slope, and no proven
technology exists that would ensure unrestricted passage through an
oilfield of the large mid-summer aggregations of Porcupine Caribou.
Considering the high degree of uncertainty regarding mitigation of oilfield
impacts on caribou, ensuring the integrity of the calving grounds and early
summer range of the Porcupine Caribou Herd is a compelling reason for
applying the most precautionary management to the Arctic Refuge coastal
plain. The Porcupine Herd is an international resource too important to
risk.
- excerpt from a letter from 13 caribou biologists from Alaska and Canada
"America's Serengeti"
The wildlife spectacle of the Arctic Refuge is much more than caribou. Polar bears,
grizzlies, wolverines, musk oxen and wolves are just a few of the 200 animal species
that use the coastal plain. It is also nesting and staging habitat for millions of
migratory birds. Some 125 bird species migrate to the coastal plain from four
continents, every province in Canada and every state in the US. In the offshore
waters, endangered bowhead whales, belugas and three species of seal rear their
young.
Moreover, the Arctic Refuge's coastal plain is a rare example of an
ecosystem where ecological and cultural processes continue to interact
much as they have for thousands of years . . . Five decades of biological
study and scientific research have confirmed that the coastal plain of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge forms a vital component of the biological
diversity of the Refuge and merits the same kind of permanent safeguards
and precautionary management as the rest of this original conservation
unit . . .
- excerpt from a letter from an international group of more than 240
scientists
What the oil companies don't say
development means hundreds of miles of roads and pipelines and dozens of oil
fields
caribou, musk oxen, polar bears, migratory birds and other wildlife would be
harmed by oil development
there would be chronic oil and chemical spills (there are an average of more
than 400 spills per year in the Alaskan Arctic oil fields already under
development)
oil development in the Refuge would accelerate the negative impacts of climate
change
95% of Alaska's Arctic coastal plain is already open for oil development
Geological Survey scientists predict less than a 6-month supply of oil for the US
increasing the fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks by 2-3 mpg would save
more oil than could ever be found under the calving grounds
oil development would destroy the coastal plains' wilderness value forever
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, Here is a reply I got, I want to share it and my response to it mostly to clarify my meanings and their source of inspiration:

Subject: RE: ANWR, Oil Development and Indigenous People
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008

Scott,

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/caribou_con_in_search_of_anwr_truth.htm

http://www.justaverageamerican.com/the-truth-about-anwr/

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06142008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/a_fine_place_to_drill_115429.htm

This in about 2 minutes of research. I’m sure you’ve spent much more time than that on this topic. I’m also sure you could provide hundreds of links to blogs denouncing domestic oil exploration as: unethical, greedy, heartless, un-Christian, and more…

If there is a grain of truth to the first link above, which there appears to be, then should this “tribe” be renamed as hypocrites? Before you pray Scott…maybe you should remember that we are not tribes within a tribe. We are Americans. If there is a tribe, that should be the only one. If some of the articles above are correct, most of the Gwich’in tribe would be Canadien.

I had a very long reply typed out Scott…I deleted it all. For one reason: “I believe that by any standard of spirituality or ethics this is WRONG- especially if one wears the name Christian” What gives Scott Starr the right to judge others? Why is it un-Christian to have a belief that is opposite of yours?

Gotta go

My Reply:

Subject: RE: ANWR, Oil Development and Indigenous People
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008

Before I look at all the links- the quote, including a releveant part you excluded, you supplied was "...including the PEOPLE that live near these areas, that do not seem to be a part of public debate or consciousness on this topic at all. I believe that by any standard of spirituality or ethics this is WRONG- especially if one wears the name Christian."

The meaning was that the exclusion of the fact that there are people that live there who will pay the price for the equlibrium of their area being upset from the public consciousness and debate on the topic, or excluding elements of the issue- especially when it is done willfully and not out of ignorance is wrongful.

I did not condemn or judge anyone including Mr. Beck, who NEVER mentioned the fact that there are ANY people up there who are part of the issue. I made a moral statement. What is different about saying something like that from saying, "Homosexuality and same sex marriage are wrong"?

I don't need a "right to judge" on this- because I am not judging- I made a statement, from discernment, about morality and/or ethical standards that is not only biblical but nearly universal- at least among the sections of humanity that have any conscience remaining. I see it as no more judgmental than saying people should not abuse their children or use drugs. I believe that people should not abuse their children or use drugs- some people evidently believe that these things are ok... so am I really judging somebody for believing something opposite of what I believe? I think not. If one cannot make a statement about principles or practices that they discern as wrong being wrong- then there's a lot of people in politics and in the news commentary business and that have opinions that are in deep trouble- And we'd better strike the word hypocrites from our discourse and vocabulary- because its use means one is judging- and in fact may be applying to others a standard that is not being applied to themselves- which is ironically and maybe paradoxically (especially paradoxically or self contradictory the way you used it) what the word means .

The only other thing in your reply that is a concern to me is this; We are Americans. If there is a tribe, that should be the only one. If some of the articles above are correct, most of the Gwich’in tribe would be Canadien."

I am not sure what you are implying- but it seems that you're saying Americans are the only people worth our consideration on moral or ethical questions like this? Since they are Canadians- should we disregard them along with the caribou and the bears? Well, if there is a tribe- Human should be that tribe. That's biblical and I would certainly challenge you to come up with any of Christ's teachings that would dispute that- considering he taught us to love our neighbors and enemies as well.

I love ya man, just be careful about this kind of approach to things- this kind of attitude, as I have addressed on other topics in the past, is one reason that much of the rest of the world has much distaste for Americans- and "We" end up paying for that in blood and treasure as well as spiritually. God does not show favoritism- is not pro- American and not a nationalist or he also cares about Canadians and Indians, his creation, etc.

The scriptures are emphatic and replete with teaching that presents God as not judging or treating man, any man, with respect of persons. In other words, God is just and equitable in his dealings with man- Romans 2 speaks directly to your concerns about judging- but is also emphatic about applying standards universally. Maybe that's a problem for us both- for you with regards to American nationalism and me with regards to Indigenous people. But, I have no illusions that Indians are above reproach- all I have done is insist that the fact that they are there and they should be considered- and that their rights should be respected. I also have not said that ANWR should not be drilled- but that several things should be considered carefully and looked as part of the equation before acting and if and when the drilling is done. At least in my own view thats a perfectly sound position. Anyhow, look at Romans 2 and pay special attention to verse 11:

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance? 5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."^[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Acts 10:34-35
34 Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.

Collossians 3:25

25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.

1st Peter 1:13-25

Be Holy

13Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed. 14As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. 15But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; 16for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy."^[a] 17Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear. 18For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
22Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart.^[b] 23For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. 24For,
"All men are like grass,
and all their glory is like the flowers of the field;
the grass withers and the flowers fall,
25but the word of the Lord stands forever."^[c] And this is the word that was preached to you.
Footnotes:

1. 1 Peter 1:16 Lev. 11:44,45; 19:2; 20:7
2. 1 Peter 1:22 Some early manuscripts from a pure heart
3. 1 Peter 1:25 Isaiah 40:6-8

Love ya man.

Subject: RE: ANWR, Oil Development and Indigenous People
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:47:25 -0500

You’re right, I did a very poor job of expressing myself. Here’s the deal Scott…over the years you have championed the plight of Native Americans. In and of itself, this is fine…all people are worthy of a Champion. But, a few points from my perspective…

1) When do ‘Native Americans’ become plain old Americans? Why does there need to be a distinction? Why is their plight sadder than that of poor black Americans shooting each other in the ‘hoods? Or poor white Americans in the hills of Kentucky or West Virginia? Or red-skinned ‘Native’ Americans living in poverty due to alcohol abuse? This list is almost endless, even when only considering needy Americans. You make my point in a way, only you put it in a better perspective. We are of the HUMAN race. But as a people we are Americans. I made the statement in regards to Canadian Indians because a large part of that particular tribe lives in Canada and would be unaffected by ANWR.

2) Well….forget number 2. The truth is, I just don’t have the energy for this type of debate right now Scott.

Let me instead try to summarize my feelings. I don’t understand what is sacred about a patch of ground in Northern Alaska. I don’t understand why it is important to protect a very small number of peoples’ ability to hunt caribou. It is after all 2008…there are several ways to put dinner on the table. I don’t understand why we cannot, as a people (remember, American people), be as self-reliant as possible in regards to our own energy needs. Why should we not look for any way possible to reduce oil purchases from countries that view us as heretics and the enemy?

I agree with many of your perspectives Scott. But evaluate your own post below. Why are billions of barrels of oil denied to OTHER Americans to protect this tribe? And for that matter, protect them from what? Do the research and see how many times this same tribe leased their own land for oil exploration. Or tried to and failed. They just don’t seem to be victims here. Their plight looks more to be sour grapes at their own poor political and financial decisions in the past.

In regards to my statement on judging others and hypocrisy…does this shed a better light on why I would be a tad perturbed? Why are we calling into account a Christian’s standard of morals or ethics in regards to this issue??? There are Christians dying for the cause of Jesus every day. We should be championing those suffering in the Sudan. These are the issues of our world. I know I will sound callous, but I don’t care about the caribou. Nor do I care if German Americans can get German beer. Or if Japanese Americans have trouble finding good sushi. Whimsical, but you get my point. The world around us changes. That happens in every country, to every native tribe.

Ok, off to supper.

Love you too

My reply:

These are good questions. One thing I have learned to do is view these kinds of things- especially among friends- not as debates but rather as discussions or dialogs. That is difficult I know even among the best of friends- especially when you factor in people's passion for the subjects. But, its doable. If you can think of it that way it doesn't seem so urgent to go back and forth and takes a lot less energy.

I don't wanna write something long here- but do want to make a few comments.

First I read all the links you sent. The first one is easily the most well written and objective. I wouldn't say its perfectly objective or flawless- but the case is well presented.

There are a few things you stated that you don't understand that I can give some insight into- maybe even without being long winded- like that part about sacred. I won't go into the religious aspects as of yet. But let me comment about the question " When do ‘Native Americans’ become plain old Americans?"

What you have to grasp first is that despite the matter of national citizenship their is still a strong cultural distinction betweeen the traditional views of tribes (at least in the ideal expression of culture) and mainstream American culture. In many ways these differences are irreconciliable.
It is much the same way between Christian culture and the mainstream collectivist culture. For Christian culture to be absorbed into mainstream culture would mean the death of Christianity- at least authentic Christianity- which as I have admonished is actually dangerously near. So, at the bottom, certain aspects of Native culture cannot be absorbed without the all out cultural death of Native identity. I am not sure how nuanced your thinking on this is- but the call for becoming a plain old American is in many ways a call for the complete assimilation of one culture into another. To answer your question of when this will happen- I will say not within our lifetimes our within the next few generations.
If you ask why there needs to be a persistent, separate Native identity at all- I would answer because Indian culture (again in its ideal form) is not compartmentalized, separating the spiritual life from the corporate community life as mainstream American life mostly is. Indian culture (ideally) is holistic and spiritual and its values inseparable from its citizenship in the U.S. or otherwise. Indians, or Idigenous North American Peoples, are in a unique position where they are at once full American citizens and yet are members of two distinct cultures that overlap somewhat in areas and not at all in others- again much the same as Christian culture (is supposed to be- ideally).

To wrap this up I will give an example from a recent "discussion". The quotations were put around the word discussion because the person I was "discussing" with became quite upset about my refusal to give in to his reasoning and considered it an argument when I did not consider it one because I was not nearly so emotionally charged up as he was and was merely stating my point of view. He told me I was a racist in fact- which after he calmed down and actually listened he admitted was wrong.

He asked me whether I would rather be viewed as a man or as an Indian man. I explained that this was a fallacious question- and not so much a question as a gambit or mechanism by which he was leading me to a syllogism or logical trap. He vehemently insisted that I MUST answer the question as man or Indian man. So, with the qualification that this was a fallacious question I answered indian man. That was when I became a racist in his view. But, by much persistence and patience I explained as I did above that such distinctions cannot and should not be made. To demonstrate, I asked him if he'd rather be considered as just a man or as a Christian man. After he calmed down enough- he admitted that he understood what I was saying and understood that you can't just force this false dichotomy or false separation on people. I am not just a man, just an American or just a Cherokee or just a Christian or child of God- I am simultaneously all of these and all of these bring a certain set of propisitions and considerations to the table- and none of these can be separated out without dehumanizing me and/or robbing me of part of my identity. Some would call this take on things multiculturalism and call it a curse. To that I would say that giving something a politically charged label and dubbing it as a negative does not by any means close the subject or the debate- its an oversimplification which is the tool of all propagandists.

That's already more than I intended to say. But, to conclude for now, let me say that acknowledging the rights or the problems that would be caused for some people in the vicinity of ANWR by the drilling enterprises is not showing favoritism for the few over the many. Niether does it show inequality. Equality and assimilation are not the same thing. Lastly, if you separate the caribou and other wildlife in the equation out and isolate them like you suggest it is much easier not to care about them I admit. But, as stated in my initial message you cannot really do that- they are part of an ecosystem and part and parcel to the human equation. If you say you don't care about them- you are really saying you don't care about the people or the big picture either. I would not saddle you with that accusation, because i know you better than that- but would admonish you to choose words carefully.

One more thing, concerning your thoughts about the importance of missionary work- consider this article i found about missionary work among the Gwich'iin.

source: http://www.restoringeden.org/campaigns/ANWR/threereasonsprotectANWR

Three reasons why all Christians should support protecting the Arctic Refuge

By Peter Illyn, March 15, 2005

As a minister in an evangelical Christian stewardship ministry, I believe the current push to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to industrial oil drilling is an enormous mistake.

The problem is not that the benefits would be so small – an estimated six-month supply of oil. The bigger issue is our responsibility before God to steward a unique natural and national treasure and our ability to exercise some self- control. The Refuge must be protected for three sets of reasons: biological, moral and symbolic.

The Arctic Refuge is a place of biological wonder. All throughout the Alaska and Canada boreal forest, during the same week in the spring, scattered groups of caribou hear the identical inner voice and know that "it is the time." The pregnant mothers stop eating, silently raise their heads toward the north, and with a slow, steady walk embark on an arduous journey. During their six-week pilgrimage to the herd's birthing grounds on the Refuge, the caribou initially are in groups of five, then ten, then hundreds, until they reach hundreds of thousands.

The caribou, dutiful to some unseen force, are drawn like iron shavings to a magnet. They struggle through deep snow over steep mountain glaciers and then swim across swollen rivers of ice. Many die, yet the caribou keep walking--steadfast, faithful, obedient to the spark of God within them. Two months later, when the caribou finally reach the refuge, they collectively give birth to their calves. Within a week the Refuge is full of moon-eyed calves, running and pronging in the meadow, overcome with a bliss rooted in the simple joy of life.

In all this, I cannot help but see the hand of God, the hand of a Creator who calls all creation to fruitfulness and then gives each species some wonderful form of divine providence to make that fruitfulness possible. Migration is one of nature's ways to be obedient to the wisdom of God. Be it a monarch butterfly's paper-thin wings struggling for 3,000 miles to reach a grove of trees in Mexico or the songbirds at my backyard feeder, migration is a species' sacred expression of honoring God's goodness, wisdom and providence.

If we saw the earth from God's perspective--in both time and scope-- we would see a constant motion of seasons, colors, tides, swirling clouds and flowing rivers. We would see migrations: salmon and whales, terns and geese, butterflies and hummingbirds, and caribou.

The wild instinct to migrate is evidence that God loves all of creation--not just humanity. Migrations should make us humble and small in spirit. Protecting the migrations of our fellow creatures is a test of our stewardship, our faithfulness, our willingness to think long-term and to be other-minded. It is a test of who and what we serve--for it was Jesus who stated, "You cannot serve both God and Money."

Drilling for oil in the Arctic Refuge is at heart a moral question. Are we willing to risk unraveling the caribou migration--the last great mammal migration left on the earth? Is this really our best thinking? Is it wise, faithful and prudent? Is it good stewardship? Or is it proof that we as a nation have become so short-sighted, mean-spirited, and self-centered that we no longer have boundaries that we are unwilling to cross; that nothing is off limits anymore?

The oil industry promises that this time there will be little environmental damage, but there is no evidence to back their claim. Instead, what you see in other fields in Alaska is ongoing pollution, including an oil spill virtually every day. If we allow drilling in the Refuge, there will be no going back.

Judeo-Christian theology defines holy as something set aside either by God for a divine purpose, or by humans, for service to God. It is time to consider the Arctic Refuge as a holy place as the Gwich'in people of the Arctic long have. They call the Refuge Iizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit, or the Sacred Place Where Life Begins. The caribou's birthing grounds are such a consecrated place that it is taboo for a Gwich'in to ever set foot there. For thousands of years, the Gwich'in people have seen themselves as stewards of the caribou, dependent upon them for food, clothing, tools and shelter. Theirs is still a culture where prosperity is measured by ways other than money and possessions.

The general public may see the Gwich'in struggle to protect the Refuge as a simple human rights concern--and it is that. But there's more to the story. Over 100 years ago, Hudson Stuck, a mountain- climbing missionary on a dogsled journey in Alaska, shared his faith with the Gwich'in people. They converted to Christianity―and their faith remains vibrant and strong today. Last year I had the privilege of speaking at numerous evangelical Christian colleges with the Rev. Trimble Gilbert, an Anglican priest, customary chief and tribal elder of the Gwich'in people. At age 70, he talks about his years growing-up, remembering how he would awaken in his tent to mornings as cold as 70 below zero and snowshoe to the prayer tent, where the whole clan would gather for daily prayers before heading out to hunt and fish.

Rev. Trimble had a simple message for the college-aged Christians: "Remember that we Gwich'in are your family in Christ." The Gwich'in are asking the United States, as a nation founded on Christian values, not to desecrate their sacred lands. They are also asking the Christian church to stand with them, to raise its voice, to "speak out for those who cannot speak for themselves" (Proverbs 31:8) as advocates for their people and for the caribou they depend upon.

Last, whether we drill for oil in the Refuge will indicate symbolically who we are and what we value as a nation. If we allow the desecration of this place--set aside by God and held sacred by the native people--just to make a quick profit, then we must face our failed faithfulness as stewards of God's creation. Every addict believes that the painless solution to his or her craving is to increase the supply of their obsession, though that may wreak great devastation on his family. In our automobile-dependent culture, have we, like the drug addict, lost such self-control that we are willing to harm a place of biological wonder and our caribou-dependent brothers and sisters in the faith who live there?

Christians in many states are struggling with debates over creationism-versus-evolution in the public schools. Following the 2004 election our new Congress is more reactive to conservative Christian values than ever before, yet ironically the Refuge is now under its greatest attack.

Where is the rest of the church's voice on issues of stewardship and human justice? Our silence is deafening. If we drill in the Arctic Refuge, this place of God’s wonder, then we are truly trading the sacred for the propane (pun sadly intended).

My Grandmother and the "Storage Barn"

My mother and I went up to Claremore, Okla. to see my Cherokee Grandmother after my sister Kara ran in a marathon in Tulsa yesterday. Grandmother was recently diagnosed with alzheimer's and has been in a nursing home for about two months. She has spent a short time in the hospital because she got medications all mixed up and took too much aspirin which ate up the lining in her stomach almost bleeding her out.

Grandmother looks good for 90 years old and was in good spirits. She was pleasant and polite and conversational... on the surface. There isn't much depth left. She doesn't have much short term memory left at all. She kind of lives in the moment with no real understanding of where she is and why. She pretty much thinks she's there as a volunteer worker for all the other poor souls filed away there to die. She does not see herself as a patient. She says she feels great. She walks the halls praying for all the other residents like she did for years at the Veterans Hospital. Everyday she gets up out of bed, bathes, gets dressed, eats breakfast and then gathers her things waiting for someone to come and get her and take her home. To pass the time she walks about watching the birds and the plants outside the windows and praying over the other residents that are upset and hurting. She says she's been busy and met a lot of nice people but she's ready to go home now...

"we can go right now if you want... I'm packed and ready," she says.

She talked about wanting to go home and get her porch painted a different color and do some yard work, raking leaves and cleaning out the gutters. Its gut wrenching to deal with. Every time there is a pause in conversation she slips in how anxious she is to get home.

She also speculates about living elsewhere and offers, "If there's anything I can do to be of service I'll do it. The busier I am the happier I am and the better I feel. I can pay for the gas to drive me home or out to see my brother Ralph or my son. I'll bet I can do some work there. There's lots of Indian people and other handicapped I can minister to." The thought that she will be living in the nursing home or "storage barn" as she ironically calls it, seems out of the question to her.

The saddest part is that she definately is not going to get better or last very long where she is. She gets little or no exercise or mental stimulation or any kind of therapy that might help her mentally. Its unbelievable to me that it is so expensive to basically put someone in storage in a nursing home til they die and there is such little return. Rooms at the Motel 6 are roomier and better furnished. Nursing homes are filled because the families of the residents are pretty much all wage slaves and have to work and are thus unable to be caretakers.

I am strongly considering leaving my employment and moving up there to be her companion and caretaker. All I would need is basic expense money which I can guarantee you is a lot less that what is being paid to that "storage barn". Still this would be a major commitment. Yet, if I can work it out I will do that and do some writing and perhaps even finish my degree while up there as well.

Prayers for us are greatly appreciated. I could also use some advice on things that can at least slow her mind from deterioration and/or entropy.

I found some clips about being there for alzheimer's patients recently. They have really hit home with me now. Take a look at this:



Also, there are several more powerful and moving clips about alzheimer's patients and their humanity and dignity and how to be present for them here:

http://www.memorybridge.org/videos.php

Native American Christian Reconciliation Ministry

This excellent and informative video is a segment from one of the Transformations series, dedicated to racial reconciliation found here:

http://www.globalnetproductions.com/

The Native American Resource Network Page is here:

http://www.narnministries.org/economic.html

If you are in Oklahoma or the surrounding region and are interested in developing a fellowship or ministry dedicated to reconciliation and/or preaching Christ among American Indians, contact me. Like the video says... this work is of utmost importance.

The Dead Heart- Midnight Oil

This one goes out to indigenous people all over the world.

lyrics:

We don't serve your country
don't serve your king
Know your custom don't speak your tongue
White man came took everyone

We don't serve your country
We don't serve your king
White man listen to the songs we sing
White man came took everything

We carry in our hearts the true country
And that cannot be stolen
We follow in the steps of our ancestry
And that cannot be broken

We don't serve your country
We don't serve your king
Know your custom don't speak your tongue
White man came took everyone

We don't need protection
don't need your hand
just keep your promise on where we stand
We will listen- we'll understand

We carry in our hearts the true country
And that cannot be stolen
We follow in the steps of our ancestry
And that cannot be broken
We carry in our hearts the true country
And that cannot be stolen
We follow in the steps of our ancestry
And that cannot be broken

Mining companies, pastoral companies
Uranium companies
Collected companies
Got more right than people
Got more say than people

Forty thousand years can make a difference to the state of things
The dead heart lives here

My response to John MacArthur's take on the environment

My response is at the bottom after other blogger's comments:

Evangelicalism and the Environmental Movement

November 24th, 2006

(By John MacArthur)

Evangelicals and the EnvironmentI do think we have a responsibility to care for the environment—we ought to care for every resource God has provided for us.

That’s illustrated in the Old Testament account where God put Israel in the Promised Land, a fertile land flowing with milk and honey. God provided them that productive land and commanded them to let the soil rest every seventh year.

You shall sow your land for six years and gather in its yield, but on the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, so that the needy of your people may eat; and whatever they leave the beast of the field may eat. You are to do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove (Exodus 23:10-11; cf. Leviticus 25:1-7).

God gave that command because He didn’t want them to exploit the land and extract all its life. Allowing the land to rest every seven years ensured that it rejuvenated itself and continued to provide in the future.

When the Lord gave the Israelites the Mosaic Law, He warned them if they apostatized, He would remove them from the land (Deuteronomy 28). Sadly, the children of Israel did just that and came under judgment—the Northern tribes fell to Assyria in 722 B.C., and Judah to Babylon in 605 B.C. In fact, God designated the Babylonian captivity as a seventy-year captivity to rest the land for all the Sabbath years that Israel violated (cf. Leviticus 26:33-35; 2 Chronicles 36:17–21).

So I believe we are charged to treat responsibly all the wonderful resources God has given us. But that, in fact, has very little to do with the environmental movement. The environmental movement is consumed with trying to preserve the planet forever. But we know that isn’t in God’s plan.

The earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet. It is, frankly, a disposable planet—it is going to have a very short life. It’s been around six thousand years or so—that’s all—and it may last a few thousand more. And then the Lord is going to destroy it.

I’ve told environmentalists that if they think humanity is wrecking the planet, wait until they see what Jesus does to it. Peter says God is going to literally turn it in on itself in an atomic implosion so that the whole universe goes out of existence (2 Peter 3:7-13).

This earth was never ever intended to be a permanent planet—it is not eternal. We do not have to worry about it being around tens of thousands, or millions, of years from now because God is going to create a new heaven and a new earth. Understanding those things is important to holding in balance our freedom to use, and responsibility to maintain, the earth.

Just a footnote. Though this earth is our temporary home, do take time to enjoy God’s beauty. Take care of your yard. Stop to smell the flowers. Enjoy the forests. God placed those rich resources on this planet for our comfort and His enjoyment. Let us be thankful to Him for that.

Posted in Evangelicalism, Politics |
18 Responses to “Evangelicalism and the Environmental Movement”

1.
on 24 Nov 2006 at 10:25 am Eric Zeller

Good comments. Did you see Doug Moo’s article on this subject in the most recent JETS? He had some helpful thoughts from a rather different perspective.
2.
on 24 Nov 2006 at 11:20 am donsands

Christians should care about the earth more than Non-Christians.
Nice post. Thanks.
3.
on 25 Nov 2006 at 12:42 am albert

To accuse Environmentalists of the error of being “consumed with trying to preserve the planet forever,” as if that is such a negative thing is a very disrespectful charge in my judgment.

First of all, you cannot accuse the work of respectable Environmentalists just because one has a different presupposition. Granted, probably most active Environmentalists do not believe in Christianity and a future restoration of creation, but to deny their passion and love of nature in preserving what they can is still a noble characteristic and should be very much commendable. To attack their presuppositions is for another time, but please do not attack their work in trying to preserve the Environment. Because of Environmentalists, we are enjoying God’s creation at the moment and will continue to do so in the future.

It should be Christians that take the charge of preserving the Environment, not the “Liberals” or “Secular-Progressives.” Christians have more reason to not only preserve the Environment for the benefit of generations to come, but also because God made this world and delighted in its creation and goodness. (Even if it is ruined by Sin) We must delight in what God delights in, and Christians should be the ones taking the charge for the benefit of all men, and for the glorify of God.

Lastly, this has everything to do with the Gospel. To argue that such a task deters one from the Gospel is not the point at all. And to have a disposition in caring for God’s creation is to live out the Gospel. Having a pessimistic eschatology also should not have any bearing as well. Such times will come in God’s sovereignty. That is not for us to claim as a reason to do less of a job than what the Liberals are doing.
4.
on 25 Nov 2006 at 10:12 am Shazazz

Albert,

To your comment that “you cannot accuse the work of respectable Environmentalists just because one has a different presupposition,” I fail to see anywhere in John MacArthur’s quotes where he has accused anyone. I believe JM has given a very gracious but straight-forward counterpoint to that humanistic way of thinking which front-loads earthly matters before eternal ones. It seems that JM even would meet agree with the Environmentalists half-way (just short of making the Environmentalist movement a crusade). So to say we have an accusation here ignores the considerate, articulate first couple of paragraphs by the author.

-JS
5.
on 25 Nov 2006 at 11:22 am albert

I have listened to MacArthur enough to know his attitude towards Environmentalists.
6.
on 26 Nov 2006 at 2:43 pm Jazzy Cat

The environmental movement along with the global warming movement and others are controlled and run by politically motivated far left wing anti-capitalist and in many cases anti-American extremists. It is sad to see so many Christians buy into these movements. The human causation of global warming is nothing short of a hoax. Thirty or so years ago they were warning of a coming ice age as George Will cited in an article this past summer. The recent article on discernment by Dr. MacArthur also applies to these matters as well.

W.H.
7.
on 26 Nov 2006 at 8:15 pm albert

The same could be said of Fundamental Evangelicalism in terms of its far-right, neo-conservative, extreme-capitalist, ignorant/arrogant Americans being motivated by political agendas.

Your argument does not advance your point. It simply reminds us that there is corruption in every facet of politics and religion regardless.

The point that I would try to make is that what Environmentalists are doing, in essence, is what God has intended for us to do as dominion-bearers of this earth and the “religious right” has failed miserably to contribute to it. They have only criticized it. There is nothing wrong with having such a “crusade” to save the Environment. We are trying to preserve what the Lord has created to be good and delightful to Him. To criticize such a movement with such an argument would then demand conservative christians to cease protesting pro-abortion issues if one indeed dares to be consistent.
8.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 12:55 am woostar

Albert:

Can give me one example of respectable Environmentalist?
9.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 10:07 am Jazzy Cat

Albert,
What is an extreme-capitalist? Does the calling of conservatives ignorant and arrogant advance your agenda. There is a conservative agenda that we do not try to hide. The extreme left-wing agenda attempts to conceal their motives behind global warming, environmental, animal rights, and other activists causes. All of which have a disdain for free-enterprise and capitalism.
10.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 4:17 pm a_simple_bloggtrotter

Albert,

Are you suggesting in the last paragraph of your last post that the life of a tree is the same in God’s eyes as a human soul? Or that the two are remotely equal? Indeed, this cannot be your argument( biblically), so what exactly are you trying to get across?
11.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 8:11 pm farmboy

Given that we live in a fallen world where redeemed children of God are a distinct minority, based on the evidence, what is the best way to care for the world (the environment) until it is brought to an end at God’s appointed time?

First, when a person is concerned about where his next meal is coming from or where he will sleep tonight, he is not going to be focused on cleaning up a polluted stream. Taking care of the environment is a luxury that only people in relatively wealthy economies can be concerned with. Decentralized, market-based economies do a better job of maximizing wealth creation, as opposed to centrally-planned economies. Thus, it follows that decentralized, market-based economies can better afford the luxury of concern for the environment. In this regard, note that the most polluted spots on the earth are in current or former communist nations.

Second, who has a vested interest in taking care of and preserving a particular tract of land? The owner. Thus, private property rights go a long way toward preserving the environment. A farmer takes care of his land because topsoil erosion will hurt his ability to continue to raise crops. A timber company takes care of its forest resources because it needs a continuing reliable source of timber to harvest. Private property is owned by some person or entity in particular. In contrast, public property, since it is owned by everyone, is owned by no one in particular. In economics this is referred to as the tragedy of the commons. A rancher will not over graze his private range land, allowing grass to grow to optimal height before grazing. That same rancher will behave differently when it comes to public range land. If he waits on the grass to grow, there is the risk another rancher will come along and graze his cattle first. The result is suboptimal use of the range resource.

Third, when it comes to pollution of common resources, such as the air, the theory of externalities gives us guidance based on the superiority of private property for optimal use of resources. One approach is to “internalize” the pollution externality. A second approach is to use a market based system to allocate pollution rights or permits. It is more costly to reduce pollution in some settings than in others. It follows then that allowed pollution should be allocated to those settings where it is most difficult to reduce pollution.

It is wrong to state that only members of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, or other similar groups care about the environment. Private property owners also care about the environment, specifically the part of the environment that they own as private property. And, it is in those decentralized, market-based economies where private property rights exist where pollution is minimized.
12.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 8:46 pm albert

jazzy cat,

You did not understand my point. But likewise I could respond again, Does calling all Environmentalists “extreme-leftists,” “anti-capitalist,” “anti-American,” advance your agenda? I never resorted to name-calling, you did.

bloggtrotter,

What is it that you do not understand from what I’ve been saying? God created our Environment, he created us to hold dominion over these things. So therefore, the fact that we ruin our Environment is testimony of our negligence, not good stewardship of God’s creation. And the unfortunate thing is that it is the “Liberals” that are fulfilling this task, not the “Conservatives.” This is not a talk on Capital Punishment or Abortion.
13.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 9:44 pm Rob Auld

Conservatives are stupid, moronic, white males who look for any other group to hate. If McArthur can make stupid broad statements then so can I.

Rob
14.
on 28 Nov 2006 at 1:51 pm truegrit

[…] In fairly close proximity of time, I came across these two posts about the perception of how Evangelicals line up on environmental issues. The first I came upon was the “Hungarian Luddite” I didn’t give too much deep thought to it, but then came across The Pulpit Magazine’s Evangelicalism and the Environmental Movement post. […]
15.
on 28 Nov 2006 at 3:37 pm Shane

I think Francis Schaeffer was the first conservative evangelical to put emphasis on ecology. Like many issues we have to be careful of throwing the baby out with the bath-water. As Christians we should be good stewards of God’s creation, yet there is such a danger of over-emphasis on it (like the old social gospel). I think JM presents a balanced view on this. There is a political party called the Green Party, who in their literature refers to the earth as “Mother earth”, which is nothing but neo-paganism. This issue reminds me of the so-called ‘animal rights’ issue. Of course, the biblical principle would be that we shouldn’t abuse animals, yet neither should we put them on par with humans. Excellent post, very relevant (in the true sense of the word!).
16.
on 10 Jan 2007 at 2:54 pm Laz

“The earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet. It is, frankly, a disposable planet”

I agree with this statement, the earth is a temporary place. Can you imagine what would happen if one said this on CNN? The outcry and calls for one’s head would be out of this world…
17.
on 25 Apr 2007 at 3:08 pm Ashly

God gave Adam a “stewardship” responsibility. The earth belongs to God and we are tenants and should take care of God’s earth(e.g. don’t dump the motor oil down the drain). Unfortunately, some people who do not have a personal relationship with Christ, have made “environmentalism” into a religion and worship “mother earth.” Others have not cared about God’s earth or God’s creation(e.g. people) and have polluted it with smog and etc. that hurts our health and well being in their pursuit of profit.
18.
on 20 Oct 2007 at 6:31 am Scott Starr

Many believers and Christians today have an underdeveloped knowledge of proper theology and proper biblical concept. It seems that they are guided more by political ideology rather than by sound biblical teaching. When discussing the purpose for the creation and existence of mankind and/or studying the book of Genesis and the creation story people do not seem to have a clear understanding of the purpose for man or of the rest of creation that ties it all together. I have heard the point made many times that God created man to glorify Himself. This is true. Yet if we do not understand or cannot explain fully what that means- we cannot really worship effectively or witness to other people effectively.

If we say to the unbeliever or potential believer, “God just likes to be worshipped,” and do not explain more fully, the listener may well go away guffawing because it could be said that what you have just described is a psychotic egomaniac- a God that has created an entire reality just so he can have someone to give him flattery and adulation. The truth is that there is far more to the concept of worship than this. Also, when teaching doesn’t cover this point with sound and thorough explanation it sends believers out ill- equipped to answer tough questions from the world.

So what is the purpose of mankind and all life, of all creation and of worship?

There are many verses throughout the Bible that proclaim the purpose for the creation of the cosmos. Simply put, all creation was made to glorify and reveal God. God created the Earth and mankind to reveal himself throughout the universe, to share himself with and through life and to commune with and through mankind and the rest of his creation. God made man special… with a special place and purpose in creation… to tend and take care of his garden and to be holy. Most people that are familiar with Judeo-Christian tradition know the rest of the story… man rebelled. Yet God’s original purpose for man and the rest of the cosmos is still intact, in force and has been reconciled by Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:18-20 says this:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Colossians 1:15-20 says this:

The Supremacy of Christ

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Now let us clarify what worship is. Worship is not meant to be a groveling, flattering experience for man to kiss the feet of a God who needs adulation. Worship has the same purpose that man and all of the rest of creation has- that is to commune with God… to share in God’s presence… to participate with God. Worship is as much for man as for God. Worship is a gift from God for man to share in his presence and his glory, to commune and to experience holiness and be joined together in spirit and in truth.

Jesus himself, the King of all Creation (Col. 1:15-20), spoke these words to a Samaritan woman he encountered at a community well:

John 4:23-24

23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”

Living a life of spirituality that is grounded in truth is worship. Worship is not supposed to be relegated to the few hours a week that we sit in a Church pew. In a sense, all life, all creation, is supposed to exist as worship.

I am always amazed at the resistance and debate that I get when I assert the Christian, people- perhaps even moreso than others, actually do have a role and responibilty to play in the maintenace of the natural world… AKA “the environment”. Too many Christians in my view, have made “the environment” something abstract… something that is “out there” separate from themselves and from God and something thus inconsequential to our walk as Christians and our concerns as men. It is true “the environment” is for mankind to be in stewardship over and for us to use. Yet, how are we to “be fruitful and multiply” if we do not acknowledge, understand and accept the full purpose God has charged us with in the Earth? Caring for the Earth and worshipfully observing our purpose ordained by God also enables us to better love our neighbors and maintain public health, to be witnesses for God’s purposes and better commune prayerfully with God.

How is it that Christians have allowed themselves to be distracted and deterred from this vital role we are meant to play by terms like “tree hugger”? Would you like to see the Church grow and like to see all those “environmental wackos” out there converted to people using their passions for enlarging the Kingdom of God? Then I think its time for the Church to rediscover this aspect of God’s intent for his people and include it as part of a Godly, balanced worldview. We are not talking about becoming environmental activists or engaging in godless naturalism here.

I have often heard it said… even by Christian people that “all of this environmental stuff is mainly a political ploy”. I actually challenge this notion at its core. I remember having this conversation with an Uncle of mine. he simply could not understand why anyone should be concerned about the environment because it will just be burned up someday. I explained to him that his own house was destined for destruction and decay as was his own physical body and asked if this was really a good excuse for not taking care of his home or his body. So you see, this concept of stewardship for our home planet, the very ground of our being, is not just political… its spiritual.

Creation itself bears witness to the glory and nurture and nature of God. The universe itself testifies to God as it contains intelligence, direction and purpose as exemplified in physical growth cycles, birth, youth, maturity and fulfillment. The universe itself testifies to God in that it has moral content… that is to say that there is a right and proper way to live in the universe. It is the task of Godly people to seek that right way to live. Thus, our relationship to the universe is not that its just like some big buffet feast merely for our consumption. Our relationship to it, according to God’s purposes as defined in the Bible, is to be that of stewardship. Every link in the food chain, every species and every part of the various ecosystems of earth has a special and specific purpose in maintianing the overall harmony and balance. so why are we humans here? It should be obvious. We are perhaps the only species capable of taking care of all of the other species and systems that God has placed in our trust.

Hence, the mandate to “be fruitful and multiply”. We simply can’t do that if we live or act irresponsibly with regards to ecology.

Part of loving our neighbors also entails not only enabling godly societies and governments but also healthy environments that have clean air and water.

Too often, Christian people let the idea that this Earth will pass away mis-lead them away from their responsibilities as stewards. They forget that as humans we are the only species on this planet that is capable of protecting the whole- and that was our assignment by God in the beginning. They forget that when we harm the earth, the balance of nature- we do violence to ourselves- to other people- because as humans we are dependant on nature, as the very ground of our being, to feed us, to provide clean water and air and a network of life that is cyclical, nuturing and sustaining to the health and well being of ALL life. Thus- it cannot be denied that nature has order, has natural law and therefore has balance, purpose and even a morality about it. Even though science tries to convince us that life is merely some big bio-chemical accident- science simply cannot come up with any explanation for the existence of purpose and/or moral order. The fact that this Earth will soon pass away in no way relieves us of the responsibility of taking care of it until God decides out time is up. Taking the “it doesn’t matter anyway” approach to the ecosystem God has gifted us with makes about as much sense as not maintaining the health of your household, your own body or the bodies of your children- because “they are just going to die someday anyways”. When we take care of our nest- we take care of everybody else as well as ourselves- is this not a form of loving your neighbor?

To understand the point I am working with here- do a serious word study on the Hebrew terms Ruach and Nephesh.

Consider also the message of a large portion of the Psalms (like Ps 136;104). These reveal that part of reverence and regard for God includes recognition of his majesty as expressed in nature. Such regard is part of holiness, worship and communion with God. We are to love and obey God, love righteousness and hate evil as in disharmony, destruction, chaos and discord. Because God (and Christ in God) is Creator of nature and the director of human history, He controls nature and historical events. Free human sinners may thwart or work against His purposes for creation for the time being, but His ultimate goal for creation and His purpose of redemption shall be achieved. The will of God shall be done on earth, in history, as it is done in Heaven. The Lord’s ultimate goal for his creation is an age of peace, the realization of the kingdom of God on earth
(Ps 46:8-11). To say God is sovereign King of the universe means that HE cannot be controlled or manipulated by man. He hears our laments and complaints but remains free to act how and when He chooses. He saves from destruction and dispenses justice. God’s sovereignty extends over the whole of creation and all the nations (Ps 22:27-28). His kingdom, across all generations, is everlasting. People do not discover God. He reveals himself to them. God pours out his spirit in all of creation and nature. It is to be respected in this light. This respect is part of a worshipful attitude towards God and necessary to any human efforts at the holiness God desires from us. To even attempt holiness we are to put our spirit, our mind, our purposes in accord with God’s intents and purposes and designs. We are to love goodness and godliness and hate even the appearance of evil.

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

13 All has been heard; the end of the matter is: Fear God [revere and worship Him, knowing that He is] and keep His commandments, for this is the whole of man [the full, original purpose of his creation, the object of God’s providence, the root of character, the foundation of all happiness, the adjustment to all inharmonious circumstances and conditions under the sun] and the whole [duty] for every man.

14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it is good or evil.

Laying aside all this high end philosophy and theology. The point I am seeking to make is simple in the most practical of terms. It really comes down to a matter of respect and gratitude. When we humans, especially believers, operate with a sense of entitlement and selfishness like spoiled children running afoul on the master’s property- we cannot enjoy a fully realized or empowered prayer life. Gratitude for every breath, every drink of water and every bite of food is the basis for what I am saying.

Consider these questions;

Who is God of this world?

Who is God of all creation, earth and all matter that it contains?

What is the difference between the concept of “the world” and the definition of all creation and earth?

Who is sovereign over the world and the systems that damage and pollute

Who is the Sovereign over the earth?

I was reminded of this as I drove this morning by a radio broadcast sermon. The sermon by John MacArthur which was otherwise a good one basically dismissed the whole subject of earth and our proper relationship to it in one swoop as “the false religion of environmentalism”. I then did a search on the subject looking for MacArthur’s thoughts on the subject. I was glad to find a little more fleshed out theology on the subject here. I have heard MacArthur touch on this subject via the radio more than once and usually he does not qualify his statements even as much as is found here. Even here, I find his reasoning to be a bit lacking. I respect Mr. MacArthur’s teaching and am quite fond of it. However on these matters I do have caveats.

I will assert again that the proper, Biblical perspective on the issue of environment is key. If we have proper biblical perspective- there is no room for “the false religion of environmentalism”. It is true that when any “ism” or any thing displaces God at the center of life- then it is idolatry. Environmentalism, militarism, democratism, republicanism, anti-abortionism, atheism, communism, humanism, etc. etc. are all then on equal terms when they displace the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and the rules that of conduct that they have set forth as the apex and focus of all existence. I contend that simply dismissing the whole subject of man’s relationship to creation with blanket labels like “the false religion of environmentalism” is a false and possibly even heretical teaching as much as humanism or any other “ism”. I have laid out a pretty simple and yet complex case on this.

The point should also be made that I am in no way asserting that the sin of environmental disregard and destruction is a greater sin than say that of murder or drunkenness or sexual perversion. I am asserting that it is a sin on equal terms with other sin. It goes against God and our fellow man.

Taking the entire subject of ecology and labeling it as godless and as “the false religion of environmentalism” without qualifying it makes about as much sense to me as taking the subject of sex and calling it godless and labeling it as “the false religion of sexism” without qualification.

Just as sex has its purpose and its place in God’s design- so does man’s relationship to the “environment”. Moving outside the proper place and perspective of God’s design for sex is a sin as is doing the same with regards to environment. There are distinctions and they must be acknowledged and understood.

For more on these vital topics also visit these posts:

The Misuse of "Radah" (dominion)

A Biblical View of the Environment

A Christian View of the Environment

The Meaning of Genesis

Why Are We Here?

Project Earth: Preserving the World God Created

Quantum Freewill, the Breath and Spirit of God...

Doing Lunch With The Almighty

Poverty, Pollution and Environmental Racism

Eleven Inherent rules of Corporate Behavior

Is God Green?

Thank You For This Earth

Indigenous Mind