VOLUME 6 NUMBER 4 - MAY 10, 2001

Christianity and Sustainable Development

Dr. Cobb, Jr. is Emeritus, at the Claremont School of Theology, and co-director of the Center for Process Studies. The following quotes will facilitate a deeper understanding of how Dr. Cobb views God. We believe it is sufficient to enlighten the average reader.

"....there are limits on Divine power, as God has to work with what is given and is unable to exclusively determine the outcome at any given moment. God is the supreme, but not the exclusive factor, influencing the process or forward movement of reality."

"God's limitation and our freedom are simply "givens" in the process of reality that neither God nor we asked for, but in fact find to be inherent in our situation."

"The future is genuinely open, and neither God nor we nor anything else can know with definitiveness what tomorrow will be like."

"Process always has been; meaning there never was a start, a creation from nothing. And, there is no final end to creation; it shall go on eternally."

Dr. Jay B. McDaniel is Professor of Religion, at Hendrix College, Director of the Steel Center for the Study of Religion and Philosophy and Co-founder of the Center for Spirituality and Sustainability. His web site (http://www.hendrix.edu/css/themes.html) states that "CSS (Center for Spirituality and Sustainability) has been established incorporating three themes:"

"Spirituality

...Living in ways that are wise, compassionate, and inwardly free, as illustrated in the spirituality's of various world religions, from Franciscan spirituality through Buddhist mindfulness to Native American points of view."

"Sustainable Development and Community Renewal

...Respect for life and environment, freedom from violence, elimination of poverty, promotion of justice for people and other creatures."

"Holistic, Rational Worldviews

...worldviews that honor the truths of science and religion, psychology and spirituality, and that help us appreciate the intrinsic value of all living beings."

Dr. Cobb and Dr. McDaniel apologized to those attending the conference for utilizing an unsustainable mode of transportation - the airplane. The fuel required to fly the aircraft is a nonrenewable resource. This depletion of natural resources prevents future generations from having equal access to the resources of mother earth. In their view an unacceptable situation.

The danger to our society does not lie in what these men may believe or say, for men across the ages have not accepted the basic tenants of Christianity as the truth. Turning a society is a matter of educating the youth in half truths. Impressionable college students were given scholastic credits for their attendance at the conference. Paraphrasing Lincoln - what is taught in the classroom of today is the reality of tomorrow. Or as Hitler so adequately proved, continually telling a lie soon gives it the aura of truth.

Dr. Cobb authored the book, "Sustainability: Economics, Ecology and Justice," ISBN 0-88344-822-x. On page 29 he asks ".....what new image should guide policy in the affluent countries?"

His answer:

"One alternative is to view the world in terms of regions and to seek for each region such a balance as it can sustain. This means to allow the limits of resources in each region, especially food production, once again to set the limit to its population. This would allow for some ecological recovery, and the affluent nations could undertake the changes necessary to reduce the technological threats to the global environment. Such a "natural" system, which works by periodic reductions of populations through famine, would require that no effort be made by people in other regions to alleviate the suffering caused by famine. Otherwise the entire population may be doomed to live continuously at the absolute limits of endurable misery. Also, the maintenance of a maximum population exerts pressure on the environment such that the context for a decent life in the future is worsened. These considerations support something like the lifeboat ethic. They require that, in an age of instant communication around the globe, we allow others to suffer and die without intervening in their behalf.

" A second possibility is to take seriously the idea of one world. The question then becomes that of the carrying capacity of the world as a whole rather than of regions within it. Populations in certain regions would then be supported by surplus agricultural production in other regions. At the same time, slowing populations growth by means other than disease and famine would become a global concern that could not be left entirely to the preferences of people in each region. People in regions capable of supporting larger populations would have to forego population growth and otherwise organize their lives to maintain surpluses for export to overpopulated regions. People accustomed to the use of resources for purposes not necessary for decent survival would need to make radical changes in their lifestyles and economic so as to increase their exports. These moves seem to accord with Christian humanitarianism, but there is some question whether Christians can realistically hope for long term voluntary restraint and self sacrifice on the part of populations whose adherence to Christianity is at best nominal. Further, it is unlikely that population control by means other than famine would succeed soon enough to avoid reducing the entire human population to extreme poverty."

It's sad that individuals calling themselves Christian do not find rhetoric such as this a threat. Hitler's rise to power depended on the average German turning his head and accepting the lie as truth.

After Dr. Cobb's keynote address, he was asked if he would agree with Al Gore's statement in his book "Earth in the Balance" - that a change to a sustainable way of life would be "a gut wrenching transformation for society". Dr. Cobb's replied, "absolutely." Asked if the new society would have to have a new set of ethics and perhaps would the 'Earth Charter' fulfill that purpose, he answered, "Oh yes," and he pointed to Dr. McDaniel, and commented that he was working on the 'Earth Charter' with David Rockefeller. Dr. McDaniel commented that the "Earth Charter" would be presented to the UN 10th anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit. The charter may be viewed at (http://www.earthcharterusa.org/ecdraft.html).

Dr. Cobb mentioned that the "transformation" might occur in one of two ways. A catastrophic failure of the either the world's weather system or the world's economic system. He is certain that the current world system is doomed and that it is just a matter of time until the new system is ushered in.

While events never quite unfold as we might think, Dr. Cobb and the Mustard Seed are looking for similar events to occur. It's just that we do not share his view that the collapse will usher in a lasting sustainable society. Praise God!

Many are familiar with the illustration of the frog in the pan of water that is slowly being heated. The change in temperature is so gradual that the frog continuously adjusts until he's cooked. This often used analogy seems applicable to the case in point: the newly announced "partnership" between the EPA and State governments.

To quote the EPA: (http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/partnership.html)

"States and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have joined together to form a new State/EPA Nonpoint Source Partnership. The Partnership provides an excellent framework for States and EPA to work together cooperatively to identify, prioritize, and solve nonpoint source problems. The States and EPA initiated the new partnership at a national nonpoint source meeting sponsored jointly by The Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) and EPA in April 2000.

"The States and EPA have established seven work groups to focus on nonpoint source topic-specific needs, including: watershed planning and implementation; rural nonpoint sources; urban nonpoint sources; nonpoint source grants management; nonpoint source capacity building and funding; information transfer and outreach; and nonpoint source results. The information and products emerging from these seven work groups should help States to more effectively implement their nonpoint source management programs."

Is Alabama participating? Is the frog in the pot and is the temperature rising? The answer is, of course, yes. To view the pilot project across the US, access http://h2osparc.wq.ncsu.edu/2000rept319/. Alabama's pilot project is near Opp. on the Lightwood Knot Creek in the southeast section of the State.

The program across the US began with "point source pollution", meaning a manufacturing plant or a specific point of possible pollution. The next phase is "nonsource point" which began in the year 2000. "Nonsource point pollution" includes every action by man that may pollute. Each step brings new and ever increasingly restrictive regulations. Many perceive the elimination of pollution as a necessity. What they don't see is the transfer of right to control the temperature of the pot in which we all are swimming. In this case pollution control is merely a vehicle of control. The laws and regulations, now in the formulating stage, will be the enforcement rules and the muscle to force everyone to comply.

Locally

In the Jefferson County area, twenty three local governments have joined a local Storm Water Management Authority. Two municipalities, Trussville and Helena have enacted storm water ordinances. The first stages require new construction, business and residential are required to capture and filter storm water runoff. Later all homes and business will be required to retrofit a catchment designed to filter runoff water. Next, certification that the water in the catchment is free from all man made pollutants.

Nonsource point pollution will probably soon include septic tanks, since pollutants from them can find their way into the water table. United Nations Agenda 21 deems it necessary to measure all solid waste from population centers. Hence, septic tanks will likely be the next battle cry for planners/environmentalists.

How restrictive will government regulation become? Only time can answer that question, but in man's fallen state nothing is beyond his imagination.

There are probably many factors entering into the effort to rewrite the Alabama State Constitution, but to try to pass this effort off as a grass-roots movement is beyond the realm of reason.

Grass-roots movements involve a lot of ordinary citizens and very little in the way of financial support, and they generally occur only when the citizenry has "had it up to here!"

The average citizen knows little or nothing about the Alabama Constitution and only becomes concerned about it when he thinks someone is trying to deprive him of "his rights."

The movement we are witnessing has been well planned and is highly financed. Civic leaders have been recruited to lead the charge, so-to-speak, and the media is falling all over itself to show the people what a sorry document they have been depending on for the last hundred years.

Admittedly, there is room for improvement. The only perfect document I know of is the Holy Bible. But the dangers that loom when the politicians and special interest groups get together to convince the citizenry of their need for something far outweigh any good that might come out of a constitution rewrite at this particular juncture in our Alabama history.

Anyone who has been looking at what's going on knows that our nation is facing serious threats to its sovereignty due to the many United Nations Conferences, Conventions and Treaties. What even those who recognize this danger have failed to notice is the threat to the sovereignty of the individual states, and particularly to local governments.

There is the big push for regionalization that involves nation states and national boundaries. We glimpse this in the "free trade" treaties like NAFTA and GATT and we hear about it when our president talks about erasing borders between trading partners to our north and south.

Bit there are other efforts going on in our own backyards: efforts like Region 2020 and other efforts to establish regional planning boards or commissions and give them jurisdiction over several counties and the municipalities contained in those counties. There are efforts to regionalize jurisdiction over water-ways that will cross state boundaries, or perhaps even national boundaries between the U.S. and Canada or Mexico. [For an example of what can happen in these situations, read Henry Lamb's article, "Way Out of Control," concerning the Columbia River Gorge Commission, that appeared on World Net Daily on February 24, 2001.]

Why bring this up in a discussion of the Alabama Constitution? House bill - HB-64- introduced by Jack Venable and already passed by the House would repeal Article II of our constitution, which defines the state and county boundaries of Alabama. Is this a part of our constitution that we do not need? I don't think so! But it sure might help those who dote on regionalization.

There are obviously other factors involved in the constitution rewrite effort. State gambling interests are without a doubt drooling over the prospect. And anyone who thinks the budget shortfall that is so heavily impacting Alabama schools just happened to come about at this opportune time... Well, that's just a supposition, but it sure is providing ammunition for the proponents of a constitutional rewrite. A new constitution just might make it easier to raise taxes?