Yes. Here is the correct link: https://www.aoiusa.org/green-patriach-continues-his-witness-to-the-unity-of-orthodox-christians/

Thanks

https://www.aoiusa.org/2009/10/green-patriach-continues-his-witness-to-the-unity-of-orthodox-christians/

This means that women will not be able to take birth control pills any more or estrogen-replacement drugs. Why? Because these get flushed into the rivers and have caused significant genetic mutations in fish.

Anybody wanna tell the women of the West they can’t take any more BCPs? Maybe an encyclical from the EP will do it?

Let’s get real…

Anthony, would you agree that if the EP’s calls Castro and his murderous regime enviromentalist then there is something seriously wrong with the Green Patriarch’s understanding of his own signature issue and his understanding of the dignity of the human person?

I asked you for YOUR answer, so don’t admonish the EP to define “Christian stewardship”,

I don’t have my own theology, as I am not the Church or a Bishop. I have not seen a thoughtful theological defense of ‘Christian stewardship’ in relation to the environment (which is really a relationship with neighbor). Neither have you (unless you want to point us to it).

give me the proof that any “non-partisan” organization survey/group believes that the EP’s position is “alarmist”.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13541

do some basic research – you will find the alarmist position is anything but “a consensus” (not that that is a substitute for scientific method). This is of course before you get to any moral/philosophical evaluation (how to act on the alleged facts). We can even accept the alarmist position and not agree on what it MEANS.

You argue against “centralized” solutions but then concede that the EPA has a crucial role to play (thus acknowledging that some level of centralization and therefore sacrifice of unrestrained liberty is required).

EPA is a lawful organization created by duly elected representatives. They do not tax. They are not a tax regime/income redistribution plan trying to re-organize society on a basic level. You really don’t know what the EP is supporting (through Copenhagen and the like) do you?

You claim that while there is a moral case to be made for environmental stewardship that the EP makes a secular one,

He does. Read Fr. Gregory Jenson’s post on this very website. Any Christian moral case will have as it’s presuppositions an Christian understanding of man and the created order. The sky is falling alarmist position is secular in it’s assumptions and its solutions.

Until you put aside your obvious fear of impending doom you will not be able to view the alarmist position critical. Until you make a basic inquiry into Christian anthropology and freedom, you will assume that the alarmist solutions are as “neutral” and non partisan as any other. It’s easy to label those you don’t agree with. It’s harder to think critically…

You tried your best to dance around the question, and in the end provided our own “partisan” solution. I asked you for YOUR answer, so don’t admonish the EP to define “Christian stewardship”, give me your definition; don’t speculate about the ability to outline a praxis, outline one yourself; give me the proof that any “non-partisan” organization survey/group believes that the EP’s position is “alarmist”.

It seems that YOU are the one between a rock and a hard place. You keep arguing that the EP has adopted an alarmist secularist position — epithets that are meant only to disparage the scientific community’s amazing level of consensus on the environment in recent years — but deliberately define the Christian position to support another secularist position.

You argue against “centralized” solutions but then concede that the EPA has a crucial role to play (thus acknowledging that some level of centralization and therefore sacrifice of unrestrained liberty is required). You claim that while there is a moral case to be made for environmental stewardship that the EP makes a secular one, all the while presenting us with an algorithm (my economic life and political freedom on one side, pollution and the my children’s future on the other) that is strikingly secular. And then, to top of your moral equation, your make the baseless claim that our environmental protections are the envy of the world (I guess that’s the fun part of blogs — not having to substantiate your statements).

YOU are the one that has bought something “hook line and sinker”. You have bought into the fiction that environmentalist are just “alarmist” and that this has something to do with “freedom”. In fact, even if Copenhagen were adopted, you have not told me how that equates to a victory of tyranny over freedom. Isn’t it possible that all it is going to do is make it more EXPENSIVE FOR YOU TO POLLUTE? And if you are so concerned with freedom, aren’t you concerned with how free future generations will be to enjoy God’s creation if we continue down this course?

So, once again good sir, give me a non-partisan solution rather than an American Enterprise Institute answer wrapped up in disingenuous moral language.

Off the top of my head:

First, ‘Christian stewardship’ should be better explained from a theological point of view. Others have started to do this – and perhaps the EP has but I am not aware of it. The statements I have read have been of the slogan and sound bite variety that seems to paste over a vacuous call to “Christian stewardship” over partisan politics.

Second, on the basis of a consistent and well thought out theology, a practical and prescriptive morality (that is to say a praxis) could then be outlined. This morality would necessarily be apolitical, but would provide a Christian with the necessary guidance to work within the political sphere for a moral outcome on the environment and mankind’s place in it.

This outline would be much more comprehensive in the moral dimensions it addresses than the EP’s current trajectory. For example, any moral perspective on “climate change” would also take into account the creation and man’s place in it. It would factor in man’s economic life, his family life and the blessings of children, even his political life (freedom vs. tyranny, etc.). When you do that you find that the alarmist position on the environment, before you even get to the alarmist solutions, has certain aspects that arise out of a secular view of the created order and man that are antithetical to a Christian understanding and praxis.

Finally, armed with the above a Christian no matter what his political predilections could embrace this call and work within his political situation in his country’s political and moral heritage.

As it stands, the EP has uncritically accepted (“hook, line, and sinker” as they say) a secular alarmist position, and compounded the error by throwing his support behind particular political solutions that one can only support if one is a pragmatic/progressive socialist. For example, as a traditional conservative in politics I support environmental solutions that take into account man’s political and economic freedom. I believe this approach has worked in America where a combination of rule of law (e.g. the EPA not allowing factories to pollute the commons) and market solutions (technology such as catalytic converters on cars and soot scrubbers on coal power plants) has produced an environmental cleanliness and stewardship that is the envy of the rest of the world.

For whatever reasons, the EP has bought into both the questionable alarmist position (that says we are at a crises point in resource use and life style) & centrally planned solutions (e.g. Copenhagen) that only folks who don’t value Christian liberty can possibly support.

It’s really too bad, as he is now between a rock and a hard place. He will either have to repent, and admit that he not only uncritically accepted a very questionable view of the science and situation, but also promoted particular political solutions to the exclusion of others – none of which he is supposed to do in his capacity as a Bishop of the Church. Such a repentance would have him stepping back and admitting this error and then moving forward on the theological and moral questions – which should have been done in the first place

OR

He will continue on his current path and simply trying to yell louder than his opponents (which include answering your critics not with substance but with arrogant comparisons to “great moral leaders”), and trying to force a particular political solution down the throats of Orthodox people everywhere. I have faith that he will not only utterly fail in this, but he may well bring about a very vocal break with other bishops and laity who do not accept his politicization of this issue…

Then what is a “non-partisan” solution in dealing with the Christian stewardship I have mentioned and which you agree with?

For arguments sake, let’s assume the following (remember in truth we don’t grant these things as true, at least in the whole):

1) The “environment” (i.e. the planet and her climate, etc.) is a zero-sum game
1) The Alarmist position is true – the game is almost over and drastic measures are needed.
2) Mankind really does need a spiritual “kick in the pants” from a Bishop of the Church to help us understand the crises and just as importantly to act on the crises

I know from you post you agree with the above. So given these hypotheticals then the light is green for a Patriarch to ‘prophetically’ speak to man about the tradition of Christian stewardship and enrich the conversation with this tradition.

So what does the EP in fact do. He does rightly speak of Christian stewardship. Good for him (I in fact support this 100%)

BUT (and this is a huge BUT) he does more. He actively supports partisan solutions. You see, people from all sorts of political perspectives (excepting maybe militant atheistic communists) are part of Christ’s Church. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars. The EP has chosen a side however. He actively supports solutions that come from a particular political perspective. Copenhagen is a centrally planned solution that is antithetical to free men. The very partisan CAP explicitly explains why the EP is on their side as a “progressive” – this is a partisan designation. The EP by choosing sides has left his role as a Bishop and entered into the realm of partisan politics by his own choosing. Not only that, he is supporting this partisanship as the Orthodox thing to do.

When we point this out, you then point the finger at us and claim WE are the ones being partisan – that is exactly backwards.

Good point Chrys

Again, your not listening. You even have it backwards as to who is being partisan.

Anthony, you are right and I would agree. However, this would kind of mean that he has elevated his personal security above the purported peril facing the planet – a peril so critical and urgent that it requires policies that would unavoidably impair the economic “security” of millions. Since this would hit the world’s poor (who can least afford or survive such expensive constraints) particularly hard, it puts him and other “green leaders” in the awkward position of harming the most vulnerable in order to address a serious but theoretical outcome with costly but largely ineffective solutions (most of which are estimated to have only a nominal effect on CO2 production). As said elsewhere on this blog: for thee but not for me.