Although the other one is good, too.

–

–

My frustration is that any number of “political issues” have been deemed important enough for the church to associate itself with, but other “political issues” have been deemed “political” and therefore unworthy of attention within the church. This is a false dichotomy.

I am not advocating for the church to become The Nature Conservancy (a great organization BTW). Rather, I’m saying that the church should recognize the good that a group like TNC seeks to accomplish.

You said that your fear was that by aligning ourselves with different causes, we would lose sight of our commision to reach the lost.

I don’t have a problem with “reaching the lost” per se, rather my “problem” is the way we do it. It becomes more important than actually serving people. Mathew 25 speaks to me. There’s an emphasis on doing things for other people. In fact, Jesus never mentions “reaching” people in this specific text. I think a clear implication (from many places in the Bible) is that you reach people by doing something. Today we use the phrase actions speek louder than words. In this way, various causes that we choose to align ourselves with can be a means to “doing” something on that list that Jesus spoke about in Mathew 25. Giving the hungry something to eat, giving the thirsty something to drink (BTW, clean water is one of the first things to disappear with poor environmental stewarship in many places around the world), inviting the stranger in, clothing the naked, and looking after the sick.

This is why I’m a little less “evangelistic.” I take great humor and identity with the words of Johnny Cash in his song with the line “You’re so heaven-minded, you’re no earthly good.” (Not saying that YOU’re no good, that’s just what the song says) :). I think the moment a Christian becomes this way, it’s time for some hard reflection.

So I guess I’m challenging myself, you, and anyone else that’s reading. Supporting worthy causes don’t mean abandoning the church or its purpose.

I appreciate your thoughts so much. I can remember a time when it was radical in Churches of Christ to support James Dobson and other evangelicals.

I guess what concerns me, and it is probably a dyfunctional reaction to my past, is that I sometimes feel that different groups right now are saying, “Your really not a true Christian unless you support _________ . ” The attitude doesn’t seem that much different than years ago; just different issues.

My fear is that, in our quest to do good and align ourselves with various (wonderful) causes, we will lose sight of the eternal nature of the commission that God has given us to reach the lost. Yes, we should do good wherever we go, and individual believers should act out their faith in a way that is consistent with the charity and lovingkindness we’ve been shown, but if we allow the church to become a staging ground for political platforms, no matter how well-intentioned, I think we are starting to look too much like the world, and less like those who’ve been called out of it.

I hope that was clearer. It may be that we simply disagree on this point, and that’s okay! God bless you and your walk with Him!

For example, you might have written:

While I applaud those who strive to do their part to promote caring for the sick, I am not sure that making concern for people’s health a tenet of faithfulness isn’t just a distraction from our truest, highest purpose.

If evangelism is the highest purpose, then providing medical care for someone who’s in danger of dying is to risk missing an opportunity to “convert” them. (What if they died? Shouldn’t you try to convert them first and provide medical care second?)

Identifying ways that God would have us act, and then prioritizing them so you don’t have to attend to the things you think are “secondary” is not being faithful to our calling.

For other’s statements that “it’s going to burn anyway, why should we care,” how presumptious of us to take God’s choice (when this happens) and make it for him.

I have doubts about the sincerity of some Christians who claim to actually care. It’ll take more than a statement on environmental care to make me a fan of Ted Haggard.

I also am disappointed, though not surprised, by some who quickly speak up to say, “how do we really know anything’s happening, the scientists can’t even agree.” (Frankly I’m impressed because I expected these voices to be more frequent).

As a biology grad student, I can tell you that all you need to do is a pick a field and you can find your dissenting voices.

Don’t want to believe that HIV causes AIDS? Listen to Peter Duesberg.

Think that a bacterial flagellum supports intelligent design and disproves evolution? Listen to Michael Behe.

Hate the slippery slope of admitting the earth is round and thus weakening the “Biblical” view? There was (and may still be) a flat earth society dedicated to promoting this view. They also believe the space program is a complete hoax.

Likewise, no one’s ever seen an electron. We have big unanswered questions about gravity.

I have no doubt that someone, somewhere has got alternative ideas about almost any topic in science.

Christians would do well to understand that science is a consensus activity. The consensus that global warming is both happening and is caused by human activity is overwhelming. I know only the basics of the science (it’s not my area of study) but I know how the process of science works and therefore trust those people who’ve dedicated their lives to studying this subject.

So many people (especially Christians) accept science in so many places in their life, but they make a small number of exceptions in areas they don’t like. The same scientific method that’s used uncontested everywhere else in science is suddenly suspect when Christians don’t like the result. It’s little wonder to me then why so many scientists view Christianity as a force opposed to reason.

Still, I’m glad to see the issue being raised and that many care about what’s happening.

I’m reminded of a passage in a novel that I love, “A Voice in the Wind” by Francine Rivers. In the course of encouraging fellow Christians to live for Christ amidst the pagan influences of ancient Rome, one of the brothers says this: “Ours is a struggle to live a godly life in a fleshly world. We must remember we are not called upon by God to make society a better place to live. We are not called upon to gain political influence, nor to preserve the Roman way of life. God has called us to a higher mission, that of bringing to all mankind the Good News that our Redeemer has come…”

Or, as Paul put it, “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”

Let us not, in doing what is good, obscure what is best.

The mountains around me are being raped of their trees, and I so hate seeing it, but I can’t expend energy there. The incest, the rape, the abuse of little children surrounding me demand precedent. Prayer, hand holding, listening, encouraging, counseling etc. take too much time to address the felling of timber.

The mountains are being stripped of their hidden inner value (coal, gas, oil), but how can I afford to invest more than a sigh and a shrug when the homes the coal heats are sanctuary for drug abuse, sexual perversion, every sort of vile behavior (and more) that I can imagine? How can I elevate it to any level of “priority”?

For Christians to imagine that they are ‘really getting into the game’ when they engross themselves in the debate of global warming or conservation or similar concerns is to miss the greatest issue, and to miss the greater contribution: Love your neighbor. It doesn’t need to be much more complicated than that…it just needs to be rightly understood and faithfully lived.

Land abuse and resource abuse may not be occuring near to everyone reading your post, but the human abuses are. Thus, underscoring the importance of keep the first things first and not wandering into issues of less import.

No offense to you or those who’ve commented with enthusiasm on the article, but to me, the article sounds more defiant than directive, more political than productive, more celebratory of victory over the ‘religious right’ (as if the RR are in partnership with Satan and His work) than of vision for righteousness, more culture-driven than Christ-driven. The tone, much more than the content, was astray of the Gentle Shepherd’s. It was factual and trendy, but proud and inappropriate.

At the risk of being misunderstood as unconcerned for the land (Which I am not. Come see my farm.) or sounding overly pius (which I may be, though I wish I were not), I encourage and opt for less conversation on such issues and the investment of more time in prayer for deeper ills.

You know me, and you know the spirit with which I submit my thoughts. God lead us all as we humbly walk together.