In a WSJ front-page article called “Heated Debate” (read it free here), Andrew Higgins explains how Texas Christians cite “conflicting Scripture” and the need to “stay on mission” in their split over what to say about global warming.
He cites Frank Brown, pastor of the Bellmead First Baptist Church, as a Christian conservative who believes he has scriptural reasons to oppose global warming. Is this really an example of a trend? It’s good journalism to identify a trend and provide a living example to put a “face” on the trend that has been found. On the other hand, it’s poor journalism to talk with an individual and from that conclude that there’s a trend.
I wonder if it's really “conflicting Scripture” that’s driving the split on this issue. I must run in the wrong circles of conservative Christians, because I've never heard a soul cite “end times” theology that the earth’s demise is prophesied and should therefore be left alone.
Clearly, evangelicals are not in the vanguard of the conservation movement, but that can't be the reason why.
So, maybe it's because we can't "get past" certain "hot button" political issues? That's what Jim Ball says, who is quoted in the article. Ball, a graduate of Baylor University and head of the Evangelical Environmental Network, says that those reluctant to embrace the fight against global warming "want to keep evangelicals focused on just three things -- abortion, judges and gay marriage."
I don't think that's what's driving those of us who are hesitant to embrace global warming as a defining issue for evangelicals. We’re willing to expand the set of issues that we'll address, but we won't leave behind “abortion, judges and gay marriage” in the process. It's my observation that those who want evangelicals to "expand" the set of issues beyond prolife causes and the defense of marriage really just want to quit talking about prolife causes and the defense of marriage. It's also been my observation that conservative Christians talk about a lot more than just these specific issues: Evangelicals are actively bringing attention to Darfur, slave trade, prison reform, and--yes--conservation, too.
You have to get much deeper in the WSJ article before you get to the real reason why evangelicals are not in the forefront on conservation issues like global warming. Jack Graham hit the nail on the head. Though his Prestonwood church was recently named America's "best green church" at a Dallas conference of church builders, suppliers and managers, Graham explains why this isn’t a major focus for evangelicals: "I have a lot more people asking, 'How can I get through the week?' than about the future of the planet."
That, of course, is no excuse for ignoring conservation. But when it really gets down to it, that's the reason most of us evangelicals aren't in the vanguard of the environmental cause. It's not because of the other things cited in this article: our "end times" theology or our "confliciting Scripture" or our too-narrow focus on "hot button" issues. It's simply the reality of pastoral ministry: we counsel people struggling with marriage issues, financial pressures, and efforts to make life work. As a result, most of what we choose to address involves the immediate pressures of daily life, not the merits of solar panels or hybrid vehicles.
(By the way, the WSJ journal did a good job covering the late Francis Schaeffer and his early call for evangelicals to get involved in conservation. Also, I was glad to see Jack Graham get some good press. But why did the author fail to point out that Dr. Graham is a graduate of Baylor University, too, just as Jim Ball, the head of the EEN? I'm not sure why it was important to mention Ball's alma mater, but once he mentioned it, he could have mentioned Graham was from the same school.)
No comments:
Post a Comment