Ummmm...
I don't know what to say. Good job Evangelical leadership. Thank you for joining with the global church in seeing our responsibility as stewards of this earth of God's by calling Americans, Congress and the White House to action on the issue of global warming.
Maybe the President and the king-making fundamentalist ostriches such as Focus on the Family will come around next and understand pro-life is holistic and that protecting our home for future generations, along with making it safe for the poorest of the poor are also the responsibility of "pro-lifers."
The Evangelical Climate Initiative
Story in Christianity Today, with links
BBC and newspaper reports
5 comments:
"king-making fundamentalist ostriches such as Focus on the Family"
That's a pretty harsh thing to say of your brothers and sisters in Christ. To write as if your understanding of "pro-life" is somehow the "true" definition of what Christians should be about is just as "fundamentalist" as those you criticize.
Positive affirmation of the things that you believe are core to the gospel (caring for the poor and the environment) is one thing. I actually agree with you. But tearing down other Christians is quite another.
Like you said in an earlier post:
"I have met too many people (and seen them come out of the woodwork lately) that speak the truth with no love, are frighteningly mean, jealous, impatient, unkind, bitter and angry, divisive, gossipy, slanderous, and lack joy, peace and self control, who (like what they accuse Brian of) take only part of the Canon of Scripture seriously, effectively ignoring or dismissing much of the rest, thereby prooftexting to justify any negative words or behavior they deem worthy of a situation!"
Mark, thanks for stopping by and offering your opinion. I enjoy a bit of interaction and like it when someone takes me to task.
You quoted me as saying "effectively ignoring or dismissing much of the rest, thereby prooftexting to justify any negative words or behavior they deem worthy of a situation!"
my point with focus on th efamily's narrow view of prolife and what Christians should be concerned with. It is also my concern with their ideological stance which causes them to dismiss important research with no backing, just a simple Bush-like "not all the facts are in" statement.
As forthe harshness of my rhetoric, let's look at these descriptions.
1.kingmaking- Dobson has basically said this about himself. He is in th epower business and wants Bush to understand he gives him power and can make or break a president. This is not an insult. This is not harsh.
2. Fundamentalist- again Dobson has declared himself this in the past. According to a dictionary definition of this term, he would be one. Plus, there is a difference between Evanglicals and Fundamentalists. According to what I understand a fundamentalist would not allow any thought in that is against his worldview while an Evangelical walks int he world and attempts to have a larger understanding of Scripture's role and the christian's role in the World (at least when I think of classic Es like John Stott).
3. Ostrich- this may be a bit harsh. I probably should have used it descriptive and not as a label. I should have said...
"when dealing with important issues such as GW, they stick their heads in the sand like ostriches."
I may go back and change it a bit because of your response (but, maybe not since I am a bit lazy).
But, these guys are acting like ostriches, according to the way American's usually use this term.
You said, "To write as if your understanding of "pro-life" is somehow the "true" definition of what Christians should be about is just as "fundamentalist" as those you criticize"
I would say that these Focus types write as if their understanding of pro-life is the true definition, while I am tyring to open the definition up to include a large understanding of the world and Bible. It is the actual opposite of fundamentalism. I am saying "don't be narrow minded" and please open up to other things. However, I need to criticize.
the danger is that any stand one takes can be construed as fundamentalist in some manner. If I call someone out whom I think is wrong, am I a fundamentalist? If I cannot do this, what is the point of a blog?
I am just asking. I may be missing your point (besides the harshness of my words, which I understand).
I prefer to look at this whole situation as a positive development in the evangelical world. The list of detractors in the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance is actually quite small, and I doubt that any ad hominem attacks on thier "backwardness" will really change thier minds. They've been getting that for a long time, and sometimes for noble stands that they have made against culture. Thier anti-environmental stance is a terrible mistake however, but I think that most of us evangelicals can be convinced using our own language to address the problem. It just takes some time.
Thanks for calling attention to this. Nice blog
As a fan of the ironic, Rick, you must at least appreciate the irony of the fact that a gargantuan blizzard paralyzed the Northeast on the heels of this announcement about global warming.
I assure you I'm not reading anything into it and confess that I don't know enough about the issue to have an informed opinion. I just appreciated the irony.
Alex,
for some reason I answered your question on the top post concerning global warming
Post a Comment