http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080310/southern_baptists_environment.html?.v=1
Alright folks, we (those few of us who are still in the SBC) have officially gone off message. Our SBC leaders have boldly acted; not on behalf of the family, the unborn, the poor, the enslaved, the lost, the orphaned, or the abandoned but on behalf of junk science.
Global Warm...er, I mean Climate Change is a big political issue these days, especially for those with a man-centered worldview. It is now climate change so that a bunch of hurricanes and no hurricanes, flooding, drought, heat, and snow can all be claimed as proof-positive that my government grant and your social engineering is warranted.
While being a steward of God's creation is one of Adam's first callings, "a biblical duty to stop global warming" is a huge leap. I'm guessing that these leaders grew tired of being labeled by the politically correct crowd as backwards or another group of ignorant hicks. After all, what good is it for me to be the esteemed leader of 16.3 million if the rest of the world sees me as leading cavemen.
At the heart of this issue is the Christian and his role in this world. The Great Commission made us stewards of the Gospel which is the power of God to save Jew and Gentile, and yet today, the headlines have supplanted that for "Saving the Planet." Yes, we have social responsibilities, and yes, we have reasonable obligations to live wisely in our environment, but in this case, I think feel that our desire to be liked by the world may in the end get us off message and in bed with the world.
7 comments:
Well, I'm not a southern baptist but I have a few thoughts if I may.
First, what is the point of an official statement on climate change? I am a firm believer in the importance of our ancient creeds and confessions and still today see the importance of the early creeds in drawing boundries around orthodox faith. These creeds for the most part are about who God is and the role that he plays in the world, not about hot button issues of the day. Granted, I haven't read the actual statement but it seems meaningless unless there is some formal call to action. To your point, It's hard to see an official statement like this as anything more than a p/r move.
Now, I do believe that climate change is an issue that everyone including the church should take seriously but I agree that "a biblical mandate to stop climate change" is quite a leap. At the same time "junk science" is probably a little unfair. I don't have to make many assumptions to see where you stand but none of us Pea Ridgers are scientist...well, maybe Adam but none of us are ecologist or climate scientist so I don't think we are experts on the matter. Generally, we are going to form our opinions on secondary sources, meaning an individual who is not a scientist telling us what they think about the science (ie. backpacker magazine/Sean Hannity) which is how I tend to form opinions about issues I know little about and not the most reliable source. Jebo, if you have studied the science than I stand corrected.
For what it's worth my opinion is this: First, at the present time the majority of the scientific community agrees that climate change is occuring and are generally more divided on whether human use of fossil fuels is causing the change and what the effects may be. There is enough concern and probability of the negative effects that this should not be an issue that is easily dismissed by any responsible citizen. Yes, Al Gore went overboard but even if we don't buy his doomsday message there could be some very serious negative effects on society if the change is real and we are causing it. It frustrates me when people try to use God's sovereignty here (not saying you are, Jebo) because God's sovereignty has never freed us of human responsibility. Secondly, the changes that we can make in our personal lives to effect the environment and climate change are, within reason, good things and show us to be good stewards of the creation. If in the end the concern is unwarranted we will stil have made positive change. By the way, I am not making these statements as someone who is living in a mud hut and walking everywhere I go but I try to take baby steps and it is my faith that makes me think about the impact I have on the environment.
Now, the decisions that our government makes have much wider and deeper ramifications on society and may call for more scientific clarity but that's a whole different ball of wax and I don't percive as what the official statement was intended to address.
Lastly, to address the Christian and his role in the world we have to ask what is the good news? In the last couple of years I have gained a deeper understanding of what I believe is a more robust Gospel than I EVER previously understood. This Gospel says that through the power of the cross God is making the world to rights. That God will redeem and restore the entirety of his creation and this work began on the cross and will be completed upon Christ's return. The kingdom of God is accessible in the here and now. As Tim Keller says, "God's purpose is not only saved individuals, but also a new world based on justice, peace, and love, not power, strife, and selfishness." Our role is to be "signposts" of this kingdom and through word and deed introduce as many people as we can to the good news of the cross that redeems and restores a broken relationship with our creator and brings life and reconciliation where there is death and decay.
The ramifications of this message are that when we do something redemptive such as feed the poor, care for the environment, or share our own story of reconciliation we are preaching the Gospel. Obviously, human beings are made in God's image and are the pinnacle of the creation so the great comission is our directive but I think making disciples encompasses introducing others to the entirety of this "upside-down" kingdom of God.
After all that, which was mostly just me thinking out loud, I think it is time for the evangelical church to recover a more holistic view of the Gospel where we move beyond a duty to prostalatize or "get butts into heaven" to being a signpost of God's redemption and restoration in the world. Let's just hope that we don't lose the centrality of the cross because if we do, you are exactly right, we will be nothing more than people trying to save the world through the example of the nice prophet Jesus. Tommy and I have had several conversations about this but the pendulum is swinging so let's hope it dosen't swing to far.
If you made it this far you get a blow pop, and forgive me for my wordiness but my beginning to grasp this full Gospel (I don't think we fully "get it" until our redemption is complete upon Christ's return) has had the most profound impact on my understanding of and love for God and what my mandate is as a follow of Christ.
I have a couple hunches: one being if we as Americans simply reduced our footprint, and I’m not exactly a good example, I know, meaning, we just lived in houses that made sense and consumed what makes sense, we’d be OK. And legislate where it makes sense, i.e. not throwing our biohazards into the Hudson River. My other hunch is this (and it contradicts the first): the earth is or will soon be stressed beyond capacity and it has more to do with shear population (maybe a byproduct of industry) than poor ecological management. No matter … here’s my real post.
How does an institution with so many things right, beginning with the most correct premise with which one can begin, that of affirming God's supremacy and the Word's supremacy, manage to get things so wrong time and time again? It is uncanny. In fact, I don't really believe it is possible by 'chance'. Clearly, God doth enjoy a few laughs at our expense.
The matter of an 'official statement'... Why this? Why now? Why at all? Why take forever to acknowledge something's existence, then afford that something all-importance? This is one of the biggest issues I have with the Baptists I so appreciate and love. The way you decide on an issue, reason that the decision came by way of revelation from God, then resolve that it is of utmost importance, then imply that it receive canonization. Forgetting that the whole thing began as a debate anyway where you might have once been on the other side of the issue. There’s nothing wrong with admitting you don’t know the answer!
What am I talking about? Take a church who decides to build a building. (you probably know where this is going) And the pastor tells the church he thinks they should build a building.
1. He prayed about it.
2. He thinks God would be pleased to do it.
3. He thinks any uncertainty, and I mean ANY uncertainty about it on his end will cause people to question his closeness to God. This drives his resolve, even is he doesn’t think all that through.
4. Therefore, everything associated with the project is given a tinge of Holy decree.
5. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with the project is clearly in rebellion against leadership and God.
What have you then created? A culture of fear and of mob rule where open dialogue is not difficult, it is impossible. Where you might not SAY, "Our course of action is delivered from God and therefore, it is just important as if it were Scripture", that is exactly what you're saying. And while it might sound eerily similar to how Rome has dealt with changes in the world over the past thousand years, you lack the hierarchy that keeps power-mongers in check and this makes it maybe a little bit worse! Balance, compromise, civil disagreements, matters of gray, miniscule measures of uncertainty … these things do not … CAN not exist in this world. Which is why everything is 100% contentious all the time. It is all of God and therefore receives God-like importance and everything meaningful that’s ever been is attached to it, and b) I really don’t believe in the sovereignty of God or else I wouldn’t let all this stuff matter so much. (if that opens another can, I apologize)
This strikes at the core of the hows and whys today's evangelicals stumble when it comes to cultural issues. Why not...promote your ideas as passionately as you please and as you believe have been directed by God and as you interpret God's Word but stop short of connoting that you have God's blessing on your ideas? A little humility, in other words. No one will think less of you! In any conversation with a hint of controversy, I tend to state my opinion as strongly as fact because I tend to feel very strongly about issues of the faith. Humility is a struggle for me, especially when I feel certain on a topic. But we should try to always end these discussions acknowledging that we could be completely wrong! In fact, here's a newsflash, God is not weakened when we are wrong! Did you get that? You can earnestly seek God's counsel, come up with something you think is from God, and be totally wrong! And God might have even had his hand in that!
A Baptist might say to me here, “Geez, we try and placate the green folks and we just can’t win.” Well, like Jeebs said, it smacks of seeking to be liked and accepted and while you might have seen it as conciliatory, it comes across all wrong. Since this seems to be a pattern, I think it might be wise to look at what I’m talking about here, or another reason why, no matter what position the group seems to go with, they usually manage to look somewhat foolish.
I hear so many differing reports on global warming, I have no idea what is really going on. On one side, one interesting proposition is that combustion engines may prove to be the world's salvation as the greenhouse gasses they collectively produce pale in comparison to that of the livestock that would’ve been necessary to support the world’s population, the increased energy and food needed to support the world, were the engine not around. Pretty humorous, particularly when you get into the methane these animals produce, yet something to consider. On the other, talk of some ice in Greenland melting and this creating a new coastline somewhere near Orlando with Charleston and Manhattan under water, freaks me out a little. The point is, I don't know and I don't know what should be done about it but I do have ideas on what shouldn't be done.
1. Continue unabated and say, "Who knows, doesn't matter anyway because God is in control." This cracks me up, not only because it is a pathetically thin veil to what I really want, untrammeled economic prosperity, it runs completely antonymous to the same works-based theology that is practiced and preached. I can’t get deeply into that, suffice to say, the approach to missions, while meant well and while actually being a motivator, is typified, “How will they know unless I tell them?” I don’t think you’re going to hear many who would espouse this view toward the earth with the same toward missions, “(shrug) What’re you going to do? God is in control, let Him worry about it.”
2. Become the voice of alarm with the premise that God hath decreed us to stop using gasoline. Maybe you are trying to mollify those who would call you a buffoon. Maybe you seek to assuage the reaction to the party line (see #1 above) I would simply say, to use the same verbiage in connection to your exclusive revelation from heaven is not the way to go. “This is taken from Genesis. When God put Adam in charge of the earth, that means for us today to wear organic burlap (I’m just sayin’ I don’t even know what burlap is) and ban plastic.” Hey, if this is your conviction, I’m all about you doing it and telling others to do it. Just drop the attachment that folks who aren’t like you are against God.
What I do know (sic) is Christians should promote their worldview as stridently as they can, but please, don't pretend to have a pipeline to God on these issues. To Juice's point, PLEASE don't use the term "Biblical mandate" without there actually being one! This is a very polarizing term, and there's nothing wrong with polarizing terms, but when they're just bandied about carelessly, they do no good in this discussion, other than clearly displaying bias and acrimony. The heathen laugh at you, other Christians are embarrassed by you, and it serves no purpose other than to make you look silly ... again.
I made it through Juice's response. I want my blowpop. I never made it through Tommy's....maybe tomorrow.
Yeah! What Toom said. I think Ellis Loyd (Sr. English at ol' Shamrock High)would be proud; shocked by proud. You said it well.
Juice, well said. While skeptical of the Climate Change movement, both on the basis of the known science and moreso on the the basis of proposed solutions, I am one of those who dig cans and bottles out of trash cans to fill the recycling bin. In fact, there's a level of conviction that comes with it. We all must do what the Lord has laid on our hearts.
However, my words were meant not so much as a slam against environmentalism as a gnawing skepticism in the "spokespeople" of a group I love and am a part of.
It is one thing for me to be a private individual with strongly held convictions, but it's something else for me to use my position to issue a proclamation as Holy Writ, especially as issue up for debate.
I also take issue with science being reduced to consensus (the strongly held beliefs of many does not rise to the level of good science), and the same goes for men of God; even moreso. A consensus among preachers is not a Biblical mandate. In my mind, a pastor's authority comes from the truth/Truth he possesses, and in many ways, so does a scientist's.
Blow Pop, please.
Ah, the art of concision. I don’t have it, but kudos to Jeebs. Perhaps therein lies the difference in my $5,000/year UGA education and his $30,000/year Davidson degree. I think I understand where you are coming from. I wish I had used “Holy Writ” because that’s what I was searching for. You pretty much summed up what I tried to say in your 4th paragraph and here I used all those words and still sorely lacking erudition.
One of the great things about us, and this blog, is we know quite a bit about where we are coming from because often we are coming from the same place. And yet, I would challenge you to find a group of Southern white boys all raised within 10 miles of each other, who could possibly be any more different than this motley crew (or Crüe, if you prefer).
I typically loathe the sentiment expressed, “Well, that’s something right for me, not necessarily for you”, or “That’s my personal conviction, not everyone’s”. I loathe it because I find myself saying it so often and I really think it is destroying our society one post-modernism at a time, institutionalizing the belief that absolute truth is a foolish pursuit. (I so want to give a quick rundown of how this happened to the ancient Greeks but I can hear the yawns already). Despite all that, sometimes, that is simply what must be said, where there is no clear directive.
1. Theological liberals typically pull the string back, let the arrow fly, and come short of the target. This happens when one should reasonably see Scripture as issuing a command or principle that is to be followed. What is the litmus test? I don’t presume to know, but I would imagine it goes to motive. Generally, when someone is consistent with a loose interpretation of Scripture, there is an underlying doubt of God-breathed inspiration. That being said, some of the best sermons I have ever heard come from this camp, after all, there is a LOT of latitude here. Often these guys are intellectuals – too smart for their own good – but often too, they understand the conceptual gospel. Whereas conservatives spend their time on the trees, the forest is gained by the lib who in turn, tells us just what Jesus would have us to with the poor but doesn’t have the heart to preach to them about their sin. It is also a group with which I find debating difficult. If we can’t agree on a basic understanding of inerrancy, I don’t know if I have much to say.
2. Tucker likes to throw the ball over my head sometimes to show off. He wants to show me how far he can throw it. Only if the ball can’t be caught, it isn’t a good pass. The same goes with my archery example. Theological legalists like to shoot the arrow as far as they can, regardless of where the target is. I sometimes see it this way: to claim you believe in inerrancy and then to not actually practice it is worse! Shoot, Bob Barker would disqualify you automatically because you went over. What the heck am I talking about? It is extra-Biblical presumption to take something that is clearly an interpretation and hold it up as if it were “Holy Writ” (Barnes, 4)
Which brings me to what I started to say. We all have been exposed to the same teachings and some different teachings but the similarities are more remarkable than the differences. And yet, on issues such as “global warming”, there are as many opinions as there are pie-holes. (And Jeebs can tell you a pie hole isn’t always what you think either)
This is tricky business because there’s no authority (which is why I like confessions such as the Westminster COF, that might distinguish a church or churches as a denomination in spelling out exactly how certain things are interpreted and why I think our era of post-denominational church is ultimately a bad thing, doctrinally) and it implies everything is up for grabs, particularly in a climate where the worst thing you can do is claim some sort of absolute truth. It is always interpreted by some (and sometimes it IS) a power play.
Anyway, that was a good sentence to end on, but I never really finished because Jeebs makes another great point. Science should not be reduced to consensus. First of all, anyone who does this, (and I’m talking about arriving at a final, definitive position on something that history has long debated or even perhaps, something that has been assumed as universally without controversy) puts his trust in the natural world and not in God. Why is the scientific community largely driven by the motivation to disprove the supernatural? To reduce everything to a logical string of occurrences and conditions that can be explained. Because these individuals want to escape from their God-given responsibilities. And this topic is way too big to get into here. Suffice to say, it is my belief that everyone believes in God, they’re just in various stages of denial. Secondly, everything about the natural world is changing, if not perceptibly, still certainly. How can you have true consensus and finality on something that is a moving target? I’m not a philosopher but that sounds like a breach.
So, nutshell me. These scientists who would have you believe that if you deny symptomatic data and the majority conclusion you are a D.A., they are using the same tactic (albeit a wholly politically correct one) that the theological legalist would use. Here’s the caveat: don’t deny that the symptomatic data exists, that actually might make you a D.A. But in reaching a conclusion on this one, recall that the majority conclusions are largely held with the PRESUPPOSITION that there is no God.
Blow pop please. I read everything. W
I found a blog on this deal that was interesting.....
http://timmybrister.com/2008/03/12/press-release-climate-change-divides-convention-kills-evangelism/
Post a Comment