Heyduck Amendment

At Annual Conference this past week, we took some time on Tuesday afternoon, and again on Wednesday morning, to discuss resolutions on various social issues.

When the one titled “Resolution Regarding Global Climate Change” (page 124 at this link), I offered an amendment.  Line 16 read “1. Join in covenant with people of faith to work together to halt global warming and….”

I suggested that we strike “of faith” and replace these two words with the word “everyone.”  My rationale (which I gave after the amendment was seconded and I was asked, was that I don’t want only to work with people of faith on environmental matters, but I’ll work with anyone.

The motion carried easily.  There was no debate.

So, the question arises, why would the makers of the resolution in the first place suggest that we only work with people of faith?

Are there things you will work for with people of faith, but you won’t work with others?  I can’t think of anything I would want done that I wouldn’t be willing to work on with people of other faiths, or even no faith.

6 thoughts on “Heyduck Amendment

  1. How do you become convinced that global warming is worse than the alternative? I know that I prefer cooler weather to hotter weather, but why should I make my preference go for everyone?

    I understand the willingness to work with “everyone” over simply working with “people of faith.” Of course, I’m not sure what is meant by “people of faith.” Is any particular faith in view or are they talking about “religious” people?

    But if we work with everyone on this or any issue, what is the role of faith – or is there one? Perhaps we could argue that The Faith leads us to work for the Good of Creation. I think a strong biblical case can be made for the salvation Jesus brought being for the benefit of all creation.

    But how do we know what the good of creation consists in, how that good relates to global warming (or, more generally, climate change)? Do we find that in the bible? Christian tradition? Or do we have to listen to Science to learn the good of creation?

  2. Paul says, “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do it all to the glory of God.”

    1. Can just anything be done to the glory of God? Is there anything that cannot be done for the glory of God?
    2. Is the for-the-glory-of-God-ness of our doings a quality found in us as individuals or as a body or collective?
    3. Can people that don’t know or acknowledge God do things to God’s glory? Or is some intentionality required for an act to be done to the glory of God? (No doubt acts done by unbelievers can bring glory to God. My question is whether they can be described as doing something to the glory of God.)
    4. Do the acts we do to the glory of God bear any particular relationship to the Christian narrative? Are there some acts that can be understood – and done to the glory of God – with no reference at all to that narrative?

  3. Steve,

    I don’t know if you heard me, but I cheered you when you made the amendment.

    Richard’s wording on faith not withstanding . . . I was happy to hear an amendment further strenthening what we are prepared to do . . . instead of an amendment on what we want someone else to do so we feel better about ourselves and our world.

    I also voted in favor to the amendment to ask our churches to reduce our use of electricity by 2010 for the same reason. Faith, and our relation to our environment, to me, is about what proactive solution we will participate in before we expect proactive changes in others.

  4. To answer your question Steve. It is because the authours of the resolution are old people. They are modernists stuck in their little biforcated lives.

    I voted for your that amendment even though I voted against your 10% reduction amendment (which we have discussed and I concur with your per sq ft caveat).

    Also, was it just me or are almost every resolution written in political rather than theological language and ‘whereas’-ness?

  5. Richard – I appreciate you’re unwillingness to accept blindly the resolution’s presuppositions. Perhaps I should have left that part out. My point here being that if there is something I consider worth doing, I am willing to join with others – “of faith” or not, to do it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s