Global warming and how one's perspective is deeply affected by one's environment

The BBC did a nice little piece on different evangelical universities (Liberty University aka College of Falwell and Eastern Mennonite University where I attend seminary) here in Virginia on the issue of global warming that is worth a read. You can find it here. Read the article, if you would, before looking at my remarks.

Did you read it? : )

I just want to raise a point related to the nature/nurture discussion that is probably raging more deeply than it ever has in society. When it comes to bringing that discussion to bear on the church, I found what Brian McLaren had to say on the Nick and Josh podcast matters greatly as another voice in the conversation. I'll quote it in full here (and yes, I'm a dork that transcribed what Brian was saying to MSWord while he was talking);




"If we think the purpose of the gospel is to deliver souls to heaven after death, then we're going to read the entire gospel in a certain way; Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and the rest of the New Testament and all the rest of the Bible in a certain way.

But if that's not the primary problem that the Bible is addressing (though it is the primary problem in a lot of systematic theology approaches that say or assume that is what it addresses); but I'm asking a rather provocative question; what if that's not really the problem it addresses, what if the problem it addresses is that God has this beautiful and good creation, and human beings rebelled against God, we have left this relationship with God (what the Bible means by sin) and that sin is suicidal...sin destroys human beings and families and cultures and civilizations, and ultimately it will destroy the planet, i mean, that's easier for us to see now than for any generation in history (naive belief that WWI was last big war b/c humans were evolving beyond war). Other people had to take it on faith, for us it is sight.

We know very well that we can destroy the planet in our human rebellion. Human sin and evil and violence, and hatred and greed can destroy the planet, so if the gospel is the message of the kingdom, and the message of the kingdom is not evacuating Earth, but it's as the Lord's Prayer teaches us, "Your kingdom come," meaning come to earth, "your will be done on earth as it is in heaven," then we have to look at every area of life and say, "What would this arena of human life look like if God's will would be done?"





What Brian has to say I think matters deeply for the issue of global warming, and led to my conviction regarding this issue that I believe so strongly I created a Facebook group representing my belief that, ultimately; It's not about global warming, it's about caring for the earth. The issue is very polarizing (often driving folks to occupy one of two extremes), but as I see it (and Brian McLaren sees it), the issue of conservation (caring for the earth) is deeply a gospel-related issue. I would agree with McLaren that salvation as it is presently conceived of in most Christian groups is about how to get to heaven when you die rather than joining up with God in His movement to reconcile all of creation, starting now. Now, certainly, this will not happen in its fullness until the "Day of the Lord," but this should not lead us (as most folks often do) to the place where we sit on our hands and wait for the sweet by and by because salvation is all God's work. There's a strong thread running through Scripture that we are to be co-creators and collaborators with God in His work to reconcile and renew all of his creation.

Thus, how one reads and the environment one grows up in deeply shapes one's way of viewing reality. So, in a very real way, Christians should seek to embrace a deeper and fuller reading of Scripture and the purposes of God, both for their sakes and for the sakes of friends, acquaintances, and future generations. This is where my bias is exposed; I think Jerry Falwell's perspective on reality is handicapped by the way he interprets the gospel, and his perspective is deeply affecting a LOAD of people that uncritically accept his reading; both at Thomas Road Baptist Church, at Liberty University, in the conservative Christian camp across America, and globally when folks from other religious traditions and countries see him and think he speaks for all Christians. I'm sorry Jerry recently passed away, but his perspective on the gospel, in my view, was more destructive than it was helpful. In the grand scheme of things, I think Falwell's legacy is more negative than positive if we're speaking of the kingdom of God and the lifestyle we are called to exhibit.

Check out the practical differences between the EMU and the Liberty responses to the question of global warming;

"A lesson taught by Dr Thomas Ice, Liberty University's senior theologian, focuses on headaches like Armageddon, salvation and the Second Coming. Compared to these concerns, global warming is considered a mere sideshow at best, or a left-wing conspiracy at worst.

Asked his opinion on whether global warming is a reality or conspiracy, Dr Ice answers forcefully.
"It's a hoax, certainly," he says. "I think global warming is being used like many political issues to try to move the world from nationalism to internationalism or global governance." And his class? Asked how many of them are worried about global warming, not one raises a hand."

Hold that opinion and environment together with the EMU report;

"There is a massive and mounting body of scientific evidence that global warming is a reality," he (Loren Swartzendruber) tells the gathered congregation. "Hone your God-given talents, grow your entrepreneurial skills and stretch your scientific minds to co-create with God a better world. As disciples of Jesus, we can do no less."
Here, when asked if they are worried about global warming, almost everyone puts up their hand.

Now, I recognize that EMU isn't perfect, and is deeply in need of critique from others who might be more conservative and challenge the leftist message some of the faculty spout off, but at the very least there is a vigorous conversation on campus where more "liberal" and more "conservative" folks have a chance to be heard and interact. In addition, I think EMU embraces what I believe to be a much deeper Biblical understanding of the gospel that includes all of creation. That seems to be almost completely lacking at Liberty; I don't think I'm overstating the reality that, functionally speaking, Falwell is almost deity status in that environment.

If you aren't interested in anything at all in this post other than one nugget to take away with you, please re-read the McLaren quotation several times because I think it's so important to be aware of. What is the gospel? How does it affect the way I see the world? And how does it affect my relationships with my environment, both in human relationships and caring for the earth?

And maybe most pointedly, how can we break out of the liberal/conservative extremes that folks want to slot us into to embrace that a life of discipleship is one that will seem "liberal" to some and "conservative" to others? I'd point you to two previous posts I made that quoted Pres. Swartzendruber's excellent article "Liberal or Conservative?" here and here where he engages what it means to reject the either/or extremes and follow Jesus with all of our being.

I love one of his quips from a mentor of his who said often, "On some issues I am rather liberal...because I take the Bible very seriously. Which is a conservative position."

Prez Swartzendruber part Deux: or, "you Mennonites are among the few in the whole country making sense right now"

As promised, here is the second part of EMU President Loren Swartzendruber's excellent article. And in case as you read this you're tempted to click away because Swartzendruber's context (Mennonites) is different than yours, I think he's making some serious points about cultural nonconformity for the sake of Christ that can be applied to all Christian traditions. It's not as if the "historic peace churches" are the only ones given the command to be peacemakers; or Lutherans are the only ones to emphasize justification at God's initiative, to be seized by faith; or Methodists are the only ones who should pursue sanctification. Denominational distinctives are not meant to be exclusive, and thus Swartzendruber's words (though spoken within a distinctive context) are deeply prophetic to all Christians. What is our witness in our different cultural realities?

And I'll put in a pre-emptive p.s. for you here. I'm not Mennonite...I do consider myself deeply influenced by Anabaptism, but I'm not just toeing denominational lines here by quoting Loren. He's got something to say to all of us. And so he continues;

"My observation is that many of us who grew up Mennonite have struggled to come to peace with our past experiences. We remember the days when we were, in fact, very different culturally. It was embarrassing to stand out in the crowd. It is so much easier psychologically to 'fit in' with the multitude. And, now, particularly in the U.S. context, we fear the possibility of being ostracized by our neighbors if we dare to challenge prevailing assumptions.

What does this have to do with EMU and Mennonite education? I've devoted most of my adult life to this mission for one simple reason: I believe Mennonite Anabaptists have had (and still have) a unique theological perspective- and practice- that is needed in our world. I am disappointed with the headlong rush to "be like everyone else" as though our theological forebears were badly mistaken. Frankly, I think the burden of proof is on those who have embraced the majority culture. Again, the New Testament hardly promises that the followers of Jesus will enjoy majority status.

I've frequently said that I am 'proud' to be a Mennonite, though I always add with a smile, 'I'm proud in a humble sort of way.' That's not because I value being Mennonite above being a follower of Christ. I do believe, however, that it's not possible to be a generic Christian. We are all part of theological streams with historical wellsprings, whether we are charismatic, Pentecostal, Lutheran, or Anabaptist- and whether we realize it or not.

If EMU and our sister Mennonite schools and colleges are not unique and thoroughly committed to being Anabaptists as followers of Jesus, there is little reason for them- for us at EMU- to exist. There are hundreds of good, academically strong institutions that do a great job of educating young adults.

I am astounded at the number of parents around the church who aren't aware of this simple fact: We're different from other colleges. Even other educational and denominational leaders recognize we represent something unique. One university president from South Dakota, himself a Baptist, told me recently, 'You Mennonites are among the few in the whole country who are making any sense right now.'

Jennifer Jag Jivan, a member of the Church of Pakistan (a merger of four Protestant denominations) and a recent MA graduate, described the difference this way in a recent letter:

'I feel richly blessed that my life crossed the Mennonites. Like all people, of course, they experience their ups and downs, church conflicts, and others, but they are a people whose commitment to walk in the love of God in humility renews one's spirit in the goodness of humanity. My deep appreciation for all the Mennonites, whether meeting them in the cafeteria, bookstore, or classroom- their culture of helping others and meeting others where they are, and spreading this culture of love and peace- is breath-taking indeed! But what is more, this environment is so catching that it enables others to embrace this spirit and be the miracle of this love-sharing life. This is unique and very special to EMU.'

These statements are not reasons to become prideful, but they do show that others see something distinctive, a difference worth preserving. It may seem strange for a university president to say that he doesn't really care is his institution exists in the year 2006, 20 years from now. And I don't, not for the sake of the university itself. But, I do care, with all my heart and soul, that the church's witness is strong in the year 2026. I'm convinced it will only be so if a substantial number of our youth receive a Mennonite education.

To those who have stuck with me to this point in my 'sermon' and who are surprised at my audacity and passion, I made a similar speech to the EMU Parents' Council one morning last spring. I made it totally off the cuff, after I had forgotten I was to join them, and then I apologized for my passion. I reflected that perhaps I'm getting old, and that I no longer feel as if I have much to lose. They were slightly stunned, I think, and then said, 'Put it in writing. You're preaching to the choir.'

My life would be blessed if the 'choir' would carry the message and deliver their young adults in large numbers to EMU and all of our Mennonite schools- and most blessed when those graduates have become the faithful members and leaders of the church tomorrow.

To those from other theological traditions reading this, I am grateful for your recognition of and appreciation for EMU's unique role in this world. I am grateful, too, for the insights you bring to us and to this role."

Ok, ok, these are radically different, but...

First things first, click on the following link here to see one of Peyton Manning's skits from hosting SNL: hilarious at times, over the line others, but all in all it'll get a chuckle out of you. Here's the link.

Second, I'm going to post a great article in two parts (with the first part here) written by the President of Eastern Mennonite University where I'm going to seminary. It's a tremendous article, perceptive as well as in-your-face. Among other things, a college president having the brass ones to say that he doesn't care if the institution of EMU exists 20 years from now should grab a little of your attention (maybe the industry of cancer research that often seeks to treat symptoms rather than angle in on the cure for the sake of the perpetuation of the industry could take a lesson here).

President Loren Swartzendruber asks: "Liberal or Conservative?"

"'Are you a conservative or a liberal?' This appears to be a simple, straightforward question, yet my answer is never simple. It is: 'I don't know. I am both, and I am neither. It depends on the issue. It depends on the person or group to which I'm being compared.

I'm a pacifist because that's how I understand the meaning of following Jesus, but that is a very liberal position to some of my friends. I support certain lifestyles and am disheartened by other lifestyles- ones which I believe EMU should actively discourage- so some call me and EMU conservative. If you really want to know what I believe, you'd be safe to read the "Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective" (link here). Not that I agree with every last detail, but I do trust the discernment process of my church body. When I was baptized I committed myself to this: to follow Jesus and to 'give and receive counsel.'

I was surprised when EMU was lauded in a 2006 college guide book, All-American Colleges: Top Schools for Conservatives, Old-Fashioned Liberals, and People of Faith. Many, though not all, of the other 49 colleges in the guide book are 'conservative' in that they have a direct connection to orthodox conservative causes, such as educating and preparing students to serve in the U.S. military. Yet the profile on EMU is largely accurate.

The title of the guide underscores the dilemma that an institution like EMU faces in explaining itself to prospective student, donors, church people, and community members. How do we define ourselves within a cultural context that wants to reduce complex realities to simplistic cliches? Sometimes I receive calls from community folks who seem to know exactly how a Mennonite institution should conduct itself. These calls bemuse me since those of us committed to this expression of the church rarely possess such certainty, despite our heartfelt prayers for guidance.

Since my ordination in 1975, I have preached in more than 230 congregations, most Mennonite, but some other traditions. Frequently I have engaged folks in Christian education conversations and interacted with members and leaders over a meal. Though I am optimistic by nature, I have detected a trend that concerns me: I am troubled by the loss of identity among many who call themselves Anabaptist.

I am not referring to such simplistic identity labels as conservative and liberal. Do these really matter? I meet church members who eagerly embrace one in opposition to the other, as though it is really possible to be consistent across the spectrum, whether theologically or politically. As one of my Anabaptist mentors used to say rather frequently, 'On some issues I am rather liberal...because I take the Bible very seriously. Which is a conservative position.'

I have a deep concern that Anabaptist Mennonites have been derailed theologically by the influence of so-called Christian radio and TV. I grieve that we are increasingly unable to stand up for the Jesus of the New Testament who called us to another way. We are also subject to liberal theology that downplays the significance of Jesus' invitation to salvation.

The problem with drinking from other theological wells is that we are subtly lulled into thinking that all Christians share similar perspectives. Yet all do not read the Bible the same way. Many believers have a 'flat book' view of the Scriptures. The logical result is that Old Testament perspectives are put on the same level as the New Testament. Jesus himself demonstrated a different approach: 'You have heard it has been said...but I say...'

My Anabaptist theological ancestors interpreted the Old Testament through the eyes of Jesus and through the lens of unfolding revelation in the New Testament. Unfortunately, that's a perspective not heard from most speakers in the popular Christian media. Either my Anabaptist forebears were deluded, or they were right. I'm throwing my lot with them. They believed the example and words of Jesus must be our guide, and so do I.

What practical differences does this make? Some years ago I was guest preacher for several days just prior to a U.S. presidential election. One individual told me, in all seriousness, that she would not vote for a particular candidate because he ' would take away all our Bibles.' The same person appeared surprised when I responded that Jimmy Carter may well have been the most 'Christian' president of my lifetime. At least he attended church regularly, openly confessed his faith, and has been a life-long Sunday school teacher.

I wish I could report that her concerns were unusual. I've heard the wild-claims of what might happen 'if so-and-so were elected' all too often. Never mind that I doubt any U.S. political leader would denigrate the Bible, I have to ask the obvious question from a New Testament perspective: 'What difference would that make?' I've always understood that the strength of the church, and the faith-based stances of its believers, are not subject to the 'state.'

What kind of faith is demonstrated if we insist on being legitimized by government? Our friends in Ethiopia saw people flock to the church during a time of prolonged persecution. They didn't need governmental support for the church to flourish, even as they would certainly appreciate, as we do, the freedom to worship in peace."