Heh—what’s so fun about this is that the vast vast vast majority of Episcopalians in the SE, and the SW will 1) not read it and 2) if they were to stumble across it will utterly disagree.

So much hot air.  No doubt their bloviating is a major contributor to
“global warming.”

I’ll believe it when I see our bishop ride his bicycle on his next visit to our parish (140 mile roundtrip).

Yes, isn’t it great that this was produced while they all flew to Ecuador for the meeting.  Please don’t mind that expansion of our own carbon footprint as we tell you to reduce yours.  Pot/Kettle, you know the drill.

If only they were as exercised about people knowing Jesus Christ! However, from their viewpoint, faith in Christ is of no consequence, unless it is part of the pathway for someone to becoming a good Leftist.

Cranmerian:

Please don’t mind that expansion of our own carbon footprint as we tell you to reduce yours.

Remember that the rules don’t apply to The Important People, only to their subjects.  Arnold Schwarzenegger was very quick to sign all sorts of global warming bills in California and trumpet this same sort of stuff, all the while owning and driving multiple Hummers.

“How long will the land mourn, and the grass of every field wither? For the wickedness of those who live in it the animals and the birds are swept away, and because people said, “He is blind to our ways.” (Jeremiah 12:4)”

Did this happen to the land because of the “wicked” non-green treatment of the land or did this happen to the land because of the “wicked” non-observance of the Law given to Moses by those living in the land?

Who do they think is listening?

And I thought cows were to blame.

While I believe there are far more pertinent and “in their pay grade” topics our bishops should be addressing, I will admit to being very concerned about the earth’s resources and the “green” mandates being used as political tools, and means of power and aggression. I read this recently and thought, “Whoa, the implications here are serious!” The good bishops need to read it:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/China-Consolidates-Grip-on-nytimes-2650144197.html?x=0&.v=1

Moreover, the Chinese are making major inroads and investments in Africa. They’re busily building infrastructure and creating jobs while ensuring for themselves the development and export of African raw materials.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65916/deborah-brautigam/africa’s-eastern-promise

A package of stories from the BBC, unfortunately older:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7086777.stm

Can we see where this is going? The world is on the “green technologies” band wagon and guess who possesses—and manipulates—the “rare earths” needed for green technologies? And guess who is investing in Africa and building solid ties to that continent for the future (and for supplies of fossil fuels and minerals, of course)?

The bishops need to stick with their own line of work, now more than ever. Christians are going to need solid teaching, encouragement, and witness to stay faithful through what’s to come. I wonder—is there a “government-approved” Anglican Church in China?

Check out ICECAP for another perspective.

Teatime2 (#10.) wrote,
“Moreover, the Chinese are making major inroads and investments in Africa.”

The Chinese have been active in Africa for decades.  During the Cold War, thery were building soccer stadiums as free gifts to African countries.

They were also giving nicely refurbished coastal patrol and attack boats to African countries.  Back then, during the Cold War, the Chinese Communist motivation was to have quick and free access to strategic African sites in the event that the “cold war” became a “hot war.”

The Saudis have also been giving ‘freebies’ such as mosques to the Africans over the past several decades.  Their motivation was and is to establish Muslim dominance in the African countries. 

Maybe the Muslim problems in Nigeria owe much of their origin to this Saudi, probably Wahabi, effort.

Heh, heh, heh; such concern for the environment from a bunch who had to jet to Quito, Ecuador to make the pronoucement.  The vast majority no doubt don’t have a lick of scientific training and don’t even comprehend the words they are mouthing.  They certainly do not understand the economic implications of what they are calling for—and most certainly would not want those implications to apply to them.

I wonder how many in the HOB are driving a smaller car than 3 years ago?  I wonder how many live in a smaller house than 3 years ago?  Are they car pooling?  Riding bicycles?  Walking?  It would make an interesting survey…....

The theology (or should I say lack thereof) contained within this document is astonishing.  The frequent misapplication of Genesis and the eisegesis necessary to make all the cute, furry animals, polar bears and seals our “partners” is mind-boggling.  Did any of the Bishops actually read this tripe before it was published?  I would like to know if any of them objected to this?  Is there a minority report out there?  More the point: who do they think they’re kidding?

Fr. Michael+

Can you say ‘koolaid’?  Guess they are at least in the right part of the world to publicly announce they have been drinking it…

There was one dissenting vote that I could hear. My own. For the reasons cited by Warren Mueller. The document was written by the HOB Theology Committee. Bishops were given a copy the day before, though I understand it was debated a year ago (before my time) and re-referred to the committee for changes (I know not what). Discussion lasted maybe 15 minutes. No one spoke in opposition. It was, however, changed from a Pastoral Letter to a Pastoral Teaching.