From Jim Wallis at sojo.net:
For more than a decade, a series of environmental initiatives have been coming from an unexpected source - a new generation of young evangelical activists. Mostly under the public radar screen, they were covered in places such as Sojourners and Prism, the magazine of Evangelicals for Social Action. There were new and creative projects such as the Evangelical Environmental Network and Creation Care magazine. In November, 2002, one of these initiatives got some national attention - a campaign called “What Would Jesus Drive?” complete with fact sheets, church resources, and bumper stickers. The campaign was launched with a Detroit press conference and meetings with automotive executives.
Recently, more establishment evangelical groups, especially the National Association of Evangelicals, also began to speak up on the issue of creation care. Leading the way was Rich Cizik, NAE Vice President for Governmental Affairs, who, on issues like environmental concern and global poverty reduction, began to sound like the biblical prophet Amos. Cizik and NAE President Ted Haggard, a megachurch pastor in Colorado Springs, were attending critical seminars on the environment and climate change in particular and describing their experiences of “epiphany” and “conversion” on the issue. Cizik was quoted by The New York Times as saying, “I don’t think God is going to ask us how he created the earth, but he will ask us what we did with what he created.” In 2004, the NAE adopted a new policy statement, “For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility,” which included a principle titled “We labor to protect God’s creation.”
When the same New York Times article, written in March 2005 by Laurie Goodstein, noted that “A core group of influential evangelical leaders has put its considerable political power behind a cause that has barely registered on the evangelical agenda, fighting global warming,” the politics of global warming changed overnight in Washington, D.C. Previously, advocates around climate change and other environmental issues were simply not a part of George Bush’s political base and their concerns were not on Washington’s political agenda. But the NAE constituency is mostly part of the Republican base and the new environmental concern was not unnoticed by the White House - the very day the article came out the White House called the NAE to ask what policies they were most concerned about.
The next year saw NAE participation at many major climate change and environmental meetings - both domestically and internationally - and a series of press stories about the new evangelical environmentalists, including a full page interview with Rich Cizik in The New York Times Magazine.
In January, the Religious Right reared its head. In a letter addressed to the NAE - signed by 22 of the Right’s prominent leaders, including James Dobson, Charles Colson, Richard Land, and Louis Sheldon - they said, “We have appreciated the bold stance that the National Association of Evangelicals has taken on controversial issues like embracing a culture of life, protecting traditional marriage and family.” They then went on to say, “We respectfully request, however, that the NAE not adopt any official position on the issue of global climate change. Global warming is not a consensus issue.” It was a clear effort to prevent the NAE from taking a stand on environmental issues and even to veto the whole effort. Stick to our core issues they implied - meaning abortion and gay marriage. Five years ago, so powerful a group of conservative Christian leaders probably could have tamped down this new evangelical effort that served to broaden the range of moral values and issues of biblical concern. But not this time.
A month later, on Feb. 9, a full page ad appeared in The New York Times with the headline: “Our commitment to Jesus Christ compels us to solve the global warming crisis.” The striking ad announced the Evangelical Climate Initiative, and was signed by 86 prominent evangelical leaders, including the presidents of 39 Christian colleges. I was speaking at one of those schools shortly after the ad came out and talked to their president who was one of the signers. “I’m tired of those old white guys telling us what to think and do,” he said. He is a younger white man who decided to take a stand, even if it was against the old guard of the Religious Right.
The Evangelical Climate Initiative is of enormous importance and could be a tipping point in the climate change debate, according to one secular environmental leader I talked to. But of even wider importance, these events signal a sea change in evangelical Christian politics: The Religious Right is losing control. They have now lost control on the environmental issue - caring for God’s creation is now a mainstream evangelical issue, especially for a new generation of evangelicals. But now so is sex trafficking, the genocide in Darfur, the pandemic of HIV/AIDS and, of course, global and domestic poverty. The call to overcome extreme poverty abroad and at home, in the world’s richest nation, is becoming a new altar call around the world - a principal way Christians are deciding to put their faith into practice.
In places such as the U.K., Christians are rallying around the call to “Make Poverty History.” Many are comparing that call to the cry of British Parliamentarian William Wilberforce and an earlier generation of evangelical revivalists in the 18th and 19th centuries who changed history in England and America by their steadfast commitment to end slavery. For many, poverty is the new slavery. Again, this is especially true for a new generation of Christians. The connection between poverty and all the other key issues - the environment, HIV/AIDS, and violent conflicts around the world are increasingly clear for many people of faith.
The sacredness of life and family values are deeply important to these Christians as well - yet too important to be used as partisan wedge issues that call for single issue voting patterns that ignore other critical biblical matters. The Religious Right has been able to win when they have been able to maintain and control a monologue on the relationship between faith and politics. But when a dialogue begins about the extent of moral values issues and what biblically-faithful Christians should care about, the Religious Right begins to lose. The best news of all for the American church and society is this: The monologue of the Religious Right is over, and a new dialogue has just begun.
This is great stuff. What some don’t understand is that things like this are doing more to reach lost people than some of our “programs” aimed at lost people. When nonchristians realize we are not all James Dobson following Rush Limbaugh listening right wing wackos, it gives more creditability to our message.
I appreciate you for keeping things like this in the spotlight Mike.
Wallis has swallowed the global warming myth hook, line and sinker. Which is not surprising, since it furthers his left-wing political agenda. He should do a bit more research. A good place to start would be HERE. He might also consider reading Michael Crichton’s recent novel a href=”http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/”>State of Fear.
Of course Christians should be good stewards of God’s magnificent creation. But that does not mean becoming a tree-hugger, worshipping mother earth, or signing on to the global warming myth.
–
Wallis has swallowed the global warming myth hook, line and sinker. Which is not surprising, since it furthers his left-wing political agenda. He should do a bit more research. A good place to start would be HERE. He might also consider reading Michael Crichton’s recent novel State of Fear.
Of course Christians should be good stewards of God’s magnificent creation. But that does not mean becoming a tree-hugger, worshipping mother earth, or signing on to the global warming myth.
–
Thanks, Mike, for reminding us that “pro-life” means choosing life in many more places than just abortion-related issues.
Brad - I could not agree more –
When Christians and non-Democrats (Insert silly smirk here) alike realize that people who care about the stewardship of the environment are not all pine tree hugging, Euell Gibbons following, Al Franken listening, left wing weirdo’s - it really focuses the light where it should be - off of individuals (the creature) and onto the Creator and his creation.
“single issue voting patterns that ignore other critical biblical matters” This particular topic gets me into more debates (read: gets me into trouble) with other Christians than anything else. Thanks for this article!
Is not caring for the Earth and environment included in good stewardship of God-given blessings?
This reminds me of a quote from Brennan Manning that I love which we have hanging here above our desk…
“How I treat a brother or sister from day to day, how I react to the sin-scarred wino on the street, how I respond to the interruptions from people I dislike, how I deal with normal people in their normal confusion on a normal day may be a better indication of my reverence for life than the antiabortion sticker on the bumper of my car.
We are not pro-life simply because we are warding off death. We are pro-life to the entent that we are men and women for others, all others; to the extent that we can touch the hand of another in love; to the extent that for us there are no ‘others’.”
It is probably just me, but I get sort of sick at my stomach when I read about any church or para-church group tied into a political party, whether on the right or the left. In general, politics seems to me to be about one thing, gaining and keeping power. There is so much patronizing, pseudo-relationships, and elitism in politics.
As far as the war on poverty and global warming, it seems to be the cause-celeb. I know there are some very sincere people working for these causes, but this is not a new issue. Just think how many people “Feed the Children” and “Life Outreach” has been feeding and caring for without any national attention for decades. Think about all of the inner city ministries with “old white guys” (and women) who have poured their heart and resources into the lives of hurting people. Many adoption and foster care agencies around the country (and especially in Texas) have been largely funded with dollars from individuals who have owned and managed some of the largest oil and gas companies in the world. Depelchin in Houston is one such example. What about all of the hospitals that have been built with funds from “evil corporations” or their founders. Ever heard of the Fondrens in Houston?
The politics of most of the people who work in social agencies is very different than the donor base (not in all situations). I haven’t heard of a non-profit turning down money from an evil corporation. It is strange to me that NPR or PBS will rake a corporation over the coals, and at the end of a broadcast the announcer will say, “Funding provided by ______ ,” the same or a similar company that was accussed of corporate greed and destroying the environement. It seems to be all so convoluted.
Is it entirely necessary to label folks as “wackos” simply on the basis of their political associations and/or scientific leanings? It is quite possible, friends, for a conscientious scientist to adopt a conscientious, pro-life, environmentally sensitive stance even though one disagrees with certain metaconclusions of the global-warming exponents. What a shame that we - Christian brothers and sisters of yours, I hasten to add - would be labeled “wackos” simply because our positions on these eminently disputable matters happen to coincide with the positions of public figures or political movements you find so utterly distasteful.
queue “One of the wackos, I guess” ball
Now that I think about it: it’s also worth considering which of the following statements, excerpted directly from Wallis’ article, more closely reflects the evenhanded, charitable, measured attitude that Christ might be thought to expect from us, especially when addressing other brothers and sisters in Christ:
“We have appreciated the bold stance that the National Association of Evangelicals has taken on controversial issues like embracing a culture of life, protecting traditional marriage and family…We respectfully request, however, that the NAE not adopt any official position on the issue of global climate change. Global warming is not a consensus issue.” (Dobson et al.)
“I’m tired of those old white guys telling us what to think and do.” (Anonymous president of a Christian college)
qb
***The best news of all for the American church and society is this: The monologue of the Religious Right is over, and a new dialogue has just begun.***
Perhaps this is true. There are conversations of a different type popping up all around us. But, it seems like we are a couple of connections short of real dialogue. (Though what occurs on this blog seems to be genuine dialogue.)
Is it possible that as new voices increase in number and become stronger the old voices will simply shout louder?
More voices, louder voices: this is not dialogue. At the very least, it seems that it is becoming clear to the keepers of the status quo that their monopoly has been broken.
Perhaps, we all need to open the eyes of our hearts and engage the Scriptures in such a way that we are drawn into the heart of God and shaped into the likeness of Christ. If we could just embrace this idea, then a “What Would Jesus Drive” campaign would seem so unnecessary.
That’s how it looks from where I sit.
-bill
“What would Jesus drive?” A Honda. The Bible (KJV) tells us that all the disciples were “in one accord.”
Mike,
Thanks for bringing further attention to this. As one of the signatories of the Evangelical Climate Initiative, I can say that the response has been tremendous. As a matter of fact, the BBC will be coming to my congregation on Sunday to interview me for a documentary they are doing on global warming.
My prayer is that God will receive the glory as we consider the wider ramifications of ministry to the “least of these.”
David said: “It is probably just me, but I get sort of sick at my stomach when I read about any church or para-church group tied into a political party, whether on the right or the left.”
“As far as the war on poverty and global warming, it seems to be the cause-celeb. I know there are some very sincere people working for these causes, but this is not a new issue.”
Very well said, David, and thank you for saying it. I can assure you that it’s not “just you.”
Wallis has swallowed the global warming myth hook, line and sinker. He should do a bit more research. A good place to start would be reading Michael Crichton’s recent novel State of Fear. He might also check out This Site.
Of course Christians should be good stewards of God’s magnificent creation. But that does not mean becoming a tree-hugger, or signing on to the global warming myth.
–
MIke- Interesting. I remember the first time I heard this being talked about in “Christian Circles”… Andre’Resner in 1991 at ACU…. teaching devotional and wisdom lit. Rocking my paradigm with his “creation theology”. Basically saying what everyone is talking about now: that we are stewards of the earth(not just bidding time until our eternal insurance policies kick in). I had no idea how far “ahead” of the curve he was on this issue. Makes me wonder what social ills, ideologies, we are still blindly following/allowing that a good fresh biblical theology should be confronting. Keep up the great BLOG and Go Rangers. We have a streak going!!!
We live in interesting times.
Oops. Messed up on my comment. Here’s the corrected version…
Wallis has swallowed the global warming myth hook, line and sinker. He should do a bit more research. A good place to start would be reading Michael Crichton’s recent novel State of Fear. He might also check out This Site.
Of course Christians should be good stewards of God’s magnificent creation. But that does not mean becoming a tree-hugger, or signing on to the global warming myth.
–
qb, Sorry I offended you with the wacko comment, it was intended to poke a little fun at Rush Limbaugh fans becasue he uses the “environmental wacko” phrase each time an important environmental issue comes up in the press.
Not to worry, Brad, not to worry. I still have to live with the fact that I posted a blog entry, “The Right to be an Ignoramus,” early last year. Which would I rather be called, a wacko or an ignoramus? A wacko, for sure. But it’s on the record, and I have to live with it.
dittohead qb
I’m all for taking care of the earth, cleaning up the air and water and all that…..
But are we *sure* that this thing they call global warming is really taking place?
Perhaps we should look into that before we build a theology around it.
Several years ago, I decided to start giving at least one sermon a year (hey, it was a start) specifically to the broad category of “God and nature.” A 1996 title, “The Best Preaching on Earth” turned out to be a great resource for that. From that book, two sermons in particular were great models for me. “Tending the Garden without Worshiping It” by Ron Sider, and “The Works of the Lord” by John Stott. Another good source for this sort of teaching is Elizabeth Achtemier’s book on God and nature.
There has been much looking into it. The Academies of Science for all G8 countries maintains its validity. Even the Bush administration has acknowledged the reality of global warming.
If global warming is true, and I believe it to be, then we have a responsibility as stewards of God’s creation to look long and hard at how our environmental decisions will affect the “least of these.” There is no doubt that our emissions and our pollution affect those who live in substandard conditions.
I take great issue with the idea that since this kind of thinking is not new then we need to do nothing. For those of us who have recently become convicted of these realities to adopt the mindset that, since this is becoming a hot-button issue, I can remain above the fray is a failure to be faithful. It’s the same as saying, “Jesus said we would always have the poor with us, so there is nothing we can do about it.”
That is a belief that is all too commonly held among us.
It’s not a political issue. It is an “acting out my faith” issue.
There are so many encouraging things going on at the intersection of the church and American public life and this environmental initiative is only one of them. Politicians of all stripes here in Washington are realizing that the times are changing. It is less certain that Republicans can take all Evangelicals for granted and it is certainly true that Democrats have learned they cannot ignore Christians and their concerns. The hard task of the Church is to raise issues of justice while resisting the temptation to be co-opted by either political party. These are interesting times and God is at work in new and powerful ways.
Shaun
Scott,
I’ve heard people just as passionate as you on the other side of the issue (and they have scientists to back them up, too). From what I’ve read (and I have not done a whole lot of reading on either side), those who don’t believe it’s happening are pretty convincing.
And I disagree with you. It is a HUGE political issue.
We should take care of the earth. But we should not question someone’s faith or commitment because they do or don’t believe in global warming.
I never questioned anyone’s faith. I was responding to some earlier comments. In explaining to my congregation this past week what to expect with the BBC coming, I went to great lengths to emphasize that we are free to disagree with each other. There are two extremes in this debate: those who say there is absolutely nothing to it and those who believe the world is going to explode in a fiery ball tomorrow. I believe between those two extremes lies the truth. Where we all fall on that line, to me, is immaterial compared to the thought of how to best be responsible.
I could have better stated that comment by saying, “For me, it’s not a political issue.” Where I am at in my faith walk is to continually question how my attitudes and actions affect those who don’t have a voice. The impact of environmental atrocities in the wake of Katrina and Rita were a huge eye-opener for me.
Again, I could be wrong. But I don’t want to have been in a position to help the “least of these” and have failed to do so because I was busy debating how they got in that situation. What can I say, I’m an idealist.
Somebody forgot to tell God about the so called “global warming”
While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Genesis 8:22
A few months ago I was studying the Bible with a friend who was Buddhist at the time. We came to the story of Paul addressing the people of Athens where he tells them that God is the God who “made the world.” On a whim, I decided to put this truth into practice so we began our study by cleaning up a local lakeside. We didn’t save the planet from destruction that day, but a few weeks later my friend was saved from destruction. I think my friend got the point: as disciples of Jesus, we respect what God has created.
-r
In my judgment you’ve been unfair to the right. Their opposition to this was not due to a lack of concern for the environment but due to the very questionable scientific data supporting the idea of global warming. I guess if they are the right though that automtically makes them an acceptable target. No need for brotherliness if they are to our right, right?
Russ,
What a fabulous idea - one might say “inspired.”
Mike, thank you for this column. I became a member of Sojourners last year. They have some wonderful study guides looking at many social issues and Christianity. Right now, I’m working through the environmental concerns study guide.
Yes, poverty is the “cause-celeb” right now. But the biggest celebrity started the cause several thousand years ago. ‘Bout time we got on board.
Scott,
Dr. William Gray, an expert on hurricanes, says that the myth being put out that global warming caused the number and the severity of last year’s hurricanes to be higher is, and I quote, “ludicrous to the point of being silly.”
–
How disappointing. I expect the attacks on James Dobson from non-Christians but to read the comments today and see how he is being poked fun at from Christians too, well it’s sad really. Come on guys, he is one of our own and doing the best he knows how to help our families along in a culture that doesn’t have time for that sort of thing. Even if you don’t agree with all of his views, please show some respect for a man who has devoted his whole life to God’s work.
Mike,
To be honest, I’m not sure where I am at on this issue. This nation is totally dependent on fossil fuels and despite everything we can do, we will be for the forseeable future. Since we have for so many years bowed to the whims of the “environmental wackos”, we are way behind the curve on use of nuclear fuels to generate our power. And while I would love to see us follow the Brazilian example and convert to clean burning ethanol as a pimary fuel source, it will be years before the complete transition could be made. In truth, while I believe that we should take care of the environment that God provided for us, I also have serious doubts that our actions can do much to change that environment. One volcano belches more pollution into the atmosphere in a day than all the cars and trucks and trains, etc. do in a year. And the wonderful system that God created so effeciently cleanses all that pollution from the stmosphere so well that a year later we forget that it ever happened. Can we have an effect? No doubt. We should be good, responsible citizens in every area because of who we represent. That fact should frame every cause we become involved in.
Since we are on controversial topics, anybody want to get into the illegal immigration discussion?
Lisa E,
My point about “cause-celeb” is that there are servants who have been dilligently ministering to the poor and needy of our world before any one knew Bono existed. There have been Christians “on-board” for centuries. Because we live in a media-driven culture, we tend to focus on what gets the medias attention. For example, the attention Oprah Winfrey received for building a community in Houston for hurricane victims as oppossed to the work that Second Baptist of Houston did in the areas devestated by Katrina and Rita. I get frustrated with the “now someone is doing something about it” because it gets media attention, when servants have been working long before the press arrived. I do not want to discount the power of a Celebrity getting involved and what that can do for a cause
I understand your comment about Jesus being a “cause-celeb,” however, look where his “celebrity” took him.
Here’s an interesting post on the subject.
It is titled “Temperatures Are Up One Degree - Have You Noticed?”
–
There is value in care for the ‘garden’, but there are matters of greater value.
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.
Wow, Mike, I didn’t realize you were this gutsy on your blog. Way to go!!!
While I applaud those who strive to do their part to promote good stewardship of God’s creation, I am not sure that making environmental concern a tenet of faithfulness isn’t just a distraction from our truest, highest purpose.
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.
Please, in your rush to condemn conservative political thought, don’t allow the pendulum to swing to far in the other direction. As disciples, our allegience must first be to Christ and his teachings. We may find our personal beleif’s more compatiable with a certian political party, (liberal or conservative) but just because we agree with their positions of some of the issues doesn’t mean we agree with them all. Just as being a member of the Church of Christ doesn’t mean I hold all the beleif’s of all those who belong to that tribe. Mike, you have been so encouraging to all of us to remember to be more inclusive, especially with those with whom we disagree. Please don’t weaken your witness to us in that area by now attacking social conservatives just because you personally disagree with their position on a single issue. Specifically, to criticize someone like James Dobson, who has done so much for families and been an encouragment to so many to live more Godly lives, just because you disagree with him on certain issues is troubling to me. Isaiah tells us that in comparision with the everlasting nature of God’s salvation, the earth will wear out like a garment. Yes, as disciples we must be stewards of what he has given us. But doesn’t that passage make it clear that the resources of this earth are not everlasting? Thanks be to God, however, that his love for us is. No matter what position we take on issues, I still beleive that what remains is faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is love. Even for those with whom we disagree.
Overall, I’ve been impressed that people seem to care. This is certainly a first step in getting this issue to become a part of what the church is concerned about.
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.
Katrina, one can rewrite your statement and still keep the gist of your point in any number of troubling ways.
For example, you might have written:
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.
Jay, thank you for your thoughts! Though it may not have been clear, I don’t disagree that a Christian has a responsibility to make loving, caring choices for the well-being of other people and the resources that have been entrusted to our care. Certainly Jesus spent much of His time ministering to the physical needs of people who came to Him. But Jesus also put spiritual concerns far above physical ones. His first words to the paralytic were “Your sins are forgiven”, not “take up your bed and walk.”
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!
Katrina,
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.
I understand where you’re coming from, and don’t think we disagree on the point so badly as to not have a reasonable dicussion.
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.
Didn’t Jesus say “…the poor you will always have among”.
I remember this when I hear people talk about wiping out poverty.
“…among YOU.”
The global warming believers here might want to read This Article for a different perspective.
–
Excuse me, that should have been This Article.
Although the other one is good, too.
–
Mike, I wish that you would have edited this post with a little more kindness. This from someone who recylces everything imaginable, because I believe in taking care of God’s creation.
Google is the best search engine