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."

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."

Apostles Creed in TRUE evolutionary nationalized form

Since the nation is obviously more important than the church in God's design, I propose a new creed to replace the Apostle's Creed so often affirmed by many of our churches that knuckle under to nationalism.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of the United States,
and giver of the Constitution, the second most heavenly document (though most practically
relevant one for daily life) on earth,
which provides an unparalleled moral code in its original form
that is only properly interpreted by fundamentalist "Christians":

America was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of mercantilism and colonization,
suffered under King George,
shed the shackles of British imperialism,
brought the land and its native inhabitants to their respective knees,
and became the pure city on a hill,
spreading the message of enlightenment and democracy to the uneducated masses,
and is worthy of the sacrifice of my life for its vision and ensuring of present status as top dog.

America has descended into the hands of liberals.
But through an emphasis on proper moral values,
the appointment of proper judges that know the aforementioned values,
and proper legislation that reflects those values,
will recover again.

America will retain its moral and physical position on top of the heap
and continue to sit at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
in continuing objectivity judging the living and the dead.

I believe in the American Spirit,
the holy rite of citizenship,
the message of freedom,
the beauty of materialism and individualism,
the sacrifice of my life for national and cultural goals
and life everlasting in submission to these goals regardless of my commitment to Christ.

Amen.

P.s. Feel free to amend this Creed to your individual nation-state as well...as long as you recognize that subjective creed is subordinate to (and derivative from) the objective American Creed. After all, Jesus came to fragment the world into a series of groupings of those in his church that are committed to the interests of their individual nations first and foremost. America is simply on top of the heap by providence

Peter King words of wisdom...

Leave it to a sportswriter to provide one of the most insightful political comments I've seen in awhile...




"There's a fairly significant decision coming in this country in 2008. We in New Jersey and New Mexico and New London and New Wherever have one simple request as you mull over the candidacies of a black man, a white woman and many white men in the coming presidential debate: Treat them as candidates, not black candidates or female candidates or white candidates."

I agree in principle with King's comments, because it's almost suffocating to live in this politically correct society sometimes.

I think it's downright lazy to vote for Hillary solely because she's a woman, and downright lazy to vote for Obama solely because he's black. With that being said, I don't think that flavor of downright lazy is any worse than voting for a candidate as a Christian solely because they're "pro-life" or "anti-gay marriage," as if those are the only moral issues on the table to figure out if a candidate is "really" Christian or not. I hate abortion (because I believe I'm called to value all life from conception to death), but I just may vote for a candidate who's pro-choice but much more consistent with my beliefs across the board: how the gospel's deep respect for life touches on the environment, the poor, war, marriage, etc.

As a result of that thinking, I'm a pretty big fan of Sen. Brownback from Kansas, who's a social conservative (with significant reasons to back up his positions; most Republicans use abortion, etc as election ploys and pay no attention to the issue in their job), is committed to reformation of the twisted aspects of government, and is opposed to the war in Iraq (though this is more likely a one-time thing). I think the guy's got his ducks in a row in a way that George W. couldn't even sniff at. I like Obama, even though I'm not a big fan of his social liberalism; I think he's a breath of fresh air.

p.s. Let's not forget Michael Jesus Archangel and Rev. Edward Allen Buck...legitimate candidates in my book. *cough cough*

With the warning of single-issue laziness being said, I certainly would LIKE to see a woman in the presidential office some time in America, and I would especially like to see a black person in office...given the social struggle they've had to undergo for equality in America (which is supposedly the land of the free but only granted equality under the law for blacks and other full-citizen minorities in 1964). So, while their gender or ethnicity might be a contributing factor among a host of other contributing factors for why I vote for them, I won't vote for them solely b/c they're a woman or a minority. You could apply this thinking to suggest to me that abortion is a more important issue among a host of important issues for you, and I'd be ok with that, but I'd want a conversation on why you think so. There are philosophical reasons behind being pro-life that apply equally to the death penalty, poverty, the environment, and war, but people don't often consider those because their churches aren't equipping them to be more educated voters, they're telling them how to vote. And that's dead wrong, both on the parts of church leadership and those who sit there and do exactly what they tell them without stopping to consider why in the world a responsible Christian should only care about two issues.

So I may vote for Obama, I may vote for Brownback, I may vote for McCain, and I may vote for Al Gore (if he runs). I know I won't vote for Hillary (well, I should qualify that; if it ended up being Hillary vs. Giuliani or Gingrich, I'll have to reconsider a bit), because she's just as flip-floppy as John Kerry was in '04, though I voted for him because the alternative was George Bush (who I'm not sure has ever allowed himself to try to connect the dots between his views on social conservatism [which I like] and how that intersects with big business, the environment, and the demand placed on his life by Christ to love his enemies).

In addition to all this, I need to revisit the discomfort I felt after voting for John Kerry; precisely because I felt the choice in 2004 was between bleh and double bleh. There are very legitimate third (or fourth or fifth) party candidates out there who I think more completely reflect my beliefs than the two political machines we call Democrat and Republican that often churn out candidates that I really don't care for (but feel compelled to choose between because any other vote is a "wasted" vote in our winner-take-all presidential elections). Is it socially irresponsible for me to vote for a candidate I know doesn't have a chance in hell of being elected, or is it the most socially responsible thing I can do to vote for that candidate, because I'm being true to the big picture of what I believe and subverting the system that demands I choose between two "legitimate" candidates? Is that a wasted vote or a maximized vote?

If all of this sounds like gobbledy-gook to you when you're reading it, it may be because it IS gobbledy-gook (I certainly allow for that ever-present possibility), or it may be because you haven't had enough time to grasp the big-picture reasons that drive me to think about politics, the state, and social issues in a certain way. It really boils down to two words for me as to my central concerns: primarily, Jesus. secondarily, church...somewhere way down the priority list, society. This commitment plays out in my thoughts often, and I'll leave it at that for now.