AUDIO
 |
Phillip Jensen speaks on Anger as part of a series on emotions in the Christian life, delivered at the Australia Day Convention 2010
|
Over the last couple of weeks, along with political leadership battles disputes about climate change and global warming have been on the front pages of our newspapers.
In our churches we have probably prayed for our political leaders, and will pray for our new opposition leader, but I don’t often hear much about climate change and global warming from our pulpits – even though it is the issue of the day and one about which most people have a strong opinion.
Why don’t we speak on climate change from our pulpits? Here are a few suggestions and comments I came up with as I examined my motives.
1. We don’t think this issue is as important as gospel proclamation and so not worthy of being part of what we say. Certainly this world we live in will pass away, and only what is unseen will last. But we also live in the overlap of the ages where we are at the same time inhabitants of heaven and living in this fallen world. How the Christian lives in this fallen world should be part of what we proclaim.
2. We don’t know what to say about the issue. Praying for our leaders and our planet is easy, we know what to pray for, but what do we say about climate change? The media is simplistic. It paints everything as black or white with only one dimension to it. But we should not be like that, so we don’t say anything. The problem is that it is the preacher’s responsibility to lead, and to help congregations to think God’s thoughts after Him. We may not know enough to be certain on the particularities of the issue, but we have much we should say about the principles. For example; I don’t know the details of the ETS arguments but the loudest objection to doing something significant quickly is that it is economically disadvantageous to us. Surely care for the world and for others around the world is the way we should think.
3. Comments and taking sides divides a congregation. This is true, but exposing our hearts and possible reasons for our opinions is important. Covering over these things does not help growth towards Christian maturity.
Why we must speak
If we do not speak about issues like this, our silence will be seen as a statement. Either a statement that Christian faith is not relevant to living in the here and now. It is just pie in the sky when you die. Or else a retreat from the truth that the gospel illuminates any issue we face in the everyday living of life.
Good article Archie, Evangelicals too easily step out of engaging with social issues, and we should engage on these. Christians need to help each other think Biblically about social issues. But so many churches follow the non-christian world around like puppies, adopting what ever the latest issue. why? either they've lost the gospel priorities and have nothing else to say, or it's simply a lot easier to be politically correct on the latest trendy topic. It was nuclear diarmament, then land rights, then whaling, then peace marches, etc all these are good things, but as society (and the media) got bored with them, (didn't fix them mind you) just got bored, and moved on, so did these churches. Puppies follow others around. So climate change is a big deal at the moment, but I give it 5 years max. then there'll be something else. We need to be aware of these issues, engage on them, but not be distracted by them from the main game. and you watch/personally and corporately... everyone's a greenie right up to the point of inconvenience.
We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Once again I would point readers to the work of the Social Issues Executive - you can find briefings here - and other Christian think tanks. For a number of years the SIE has been trying to bring a Christian mind to bear on these issues. CPX and CASE are also out there. Yes it would be good to hear more in churches, but the senior minister is not the font of all wisdom, knowledge and understanding (with apologies to my own rector!)
#63 - Climate change part 3: how sceptical is sceptical? is here
#60 - Climate change part 2: two evangelical views is here
I think you might have painted with too broad a brush when you dismiss social movements with "but as society (and the media) got bored with them, (didn't fix them mind you) just got bored, and moved on".
1) This locks you into a reflexive social conservatism which may be as hurtful to the gospel as churches flirting with everything that comes along as you describe. Perhaps you are engaging in hyperbole - how unusual for the net!
2) SOME of the social movements you list did have an effect. There is no doubt that the peace marches of the Vietnam Era affected the course of the war - and the social memory of that may be part of Obama's thinking on Afghanistan. Similarly anti whaling protest has affected government policy and the Singer-type philosophy which is linked to animal rights is something Christians have to have a view on.
(In arguing that these movements were more significant than you seem to be saying I am not arguing that they should be addressed from the pulpit.)
So there is a need for discernment here. And here I am sure that all the posters in this thread agree. Too cynical a view and you end up with Dabney opposing the abolitionists. He was a good theologian but a bad citizen.
It may be worth pointing out that in addition to what ever pro climate change activity there is aming christians - there is a lot of christian activity on the skeptic side - especially in the US. (Jeremy's earlier post addressed the diviseness of the issue)
Although I think there's a little truth in what I was saying, there were rallies against the wars in Afghanistan,and Iraq a few years ago but now we've moved on, whales are still slaughtered but it's not front page. I worry that as a society we have a very narrow and short attention span. We think about what the Media spot light turns to. But you're right we mustn't be cynical, skeptical maybe but not cynical. And we must engage with social issues, as per Karen's comments above.
by the way I'm reading Eric Metaxas' biography of William Wilberforce ("Amazing Grace") it's brilliant, inspirational and troubling at the same time. So many 'respectable' people and institutions when confronted with the horrors of slavery, simply looked the other way, including the establishment of the Church of England at the time. He fought the battle for more than 20 years. Now this was a case of Christians leading the way. regards Al
It has been said that the abolition of slavery represents one of the rare instances in history of nations acting against their own self interest. This has something to do with the christian motivations behind the movements. The challenge for us is to disern if a current evil requires that sort of christian critique today.
I would be interested to know what you make of the significance of Wilberforce NOT being a clergyman, in making the movement work (although John Newton is one of many counter examples).
I have already expressed my view re this matter on Jeremy's earlier thread - see posts #31 and 33 which bear directly on Archie's post, Al's response and the issue you raise:clergy vs informed layperson. Within the Reformed tradition the magic words are two kingdom theology and Kuyper (and they are not precisely the same thing).
Cheers
PS I'm an apology for next Tuesday afternoon but am sounding out alternative colleague.
Al is right in saying it's not the main game, but the main game is also not the only game and we need to get the balance right. We can be gospel-focussed and mercy minded without compromise. Might I commend pages 10-17 of this year's Richard Johnson Lecture as a thought-provoking approach to this issue.
Currently reviewing the issue in view of engagement in public domain on pro life, freedom of religion issues the past year or two.
Re Kuyper, me too!
In earlier days having read Kuyper's Stone lectures, Henry Van Til's The Calvinistic Concept of Culture and Hans Rookmaaker's Modern Art and the Death of a Culture, I was a convinced Kuyperian by age 25 - which is now in the somewhat distant past!
"Why we should here more about climate change from our pulpits."
Sorry to point it out. I'm just like that.
But of course Christians are not silent. Christians such as Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd are very outspoken on the issue of global warming - they just happen to disagree.
Let's focus on whether Christian church leaders should buy into this debate? Why should the parish rector be taken more seriously on this subject than, say, the parish gardener? Should the pulpit be used for Christians to talk about this? (At the expense of the usual use to which it is put, presumably).
I envy the congregation which knows its bible so well that it can afford to take a Sunday off teaching it, and delve into an area in which the Christian conscience must certainly be brought to bear, but which is primarily an issue of science or economics.
I envy the church leader whose pastoral and bible-teaching duties are so taken care of that he or she can afford to take time off to join fellow-Christians Tony and Kevin in a political debate.
P.S. Or are we merely speaking of church leaders opining, dutifully, a variant of "something must be done"? - in which case I'd rather they didn't advertise Anglicanism's superlative ability to indulge in hand-wringing oral pieties.
You have a good point, why should the parish rector be taken more seriously on the subject of global warming than the average layperson (who looks after the gardens)? I suppose one answer could be that some parish rectors also have science, engineering, maths degrees (and on occasion PhDs). So some rectors are in a position to comment in a moderately informed way.
My problem is: this is a technically complex topic, and there are people in the congregation who deny climate change and people who are sceptics. And these people are passionately sceptical or deniers. So whatever is done, must be done is a careful way so as not to convey the attitude that 'you're unChristian if you don't do something about climate change' - you're right, Alan, it's an issue of Christian conscience.
I disagree, however, about whether this is an issue of science and/or economics. Surely it has a moral, and therefore, Christian edge to it. Rampant over-consumption by the developed world and an insatiable desire for profit by companies has put us in the position in which we find ourselves - surely that's worth a comment?
Regarding your last para, several points
1. I won't repeat what I have said earlier re two kingdom theology of the reformers which I think is highly relevant to topic.
2. I agree that moral issues certainly belong in the pulpit. The problem becomes when the moral point is generated on the basis of science/economic issues that lie outside the competence of the preacher and regardless detract from the fact that the pulpit is for gospel issues.
3. I think you illustrate my point by making what to me and undeniably others in any congregation are arguable assertions. If you want to make judgments about insatiable desire for profits I am going to hold you accountable to explain and defend your assertion. I consider the expression rampant over consumption by the developed world incredibly loose and again contentious.
Straight away you are in deep controversy – serving the gospel? I think not.
With the greatest respect, this won't do, too much contestable allegation. If we go into the public domain, we need carefully thought out Bible related, historical conditioned and factually relevant positions. Your post has slogans that some will cheer and others dismiss as left wing sloganeering.
I also think the cheap media bashing we all seem to enjoy is off the mark. There has been *tons* of good, in-depth, on-going material on climate change, Afghanistan (eg Paul McGeough), Iraq, etc, in the SMH (paper) at least. We really should stop being so media-hostile and encourage people to be more informed. Bashing the media while complaining we're too short-sighted seems contradictory to me -- the reporting and opinion is there if you want it (I know because I read it). We should be encouraging more people to read it, not fear it.
As for climate change, will the reporting be the same in 5 years? Maybe, maybe not. Will the billions in research and the enormous momentum that has slowly & steadily been gathering pace still be rolling on? Probably. Is that a good thing? Absolutely. Will it be enough to actually stop progressive climate change any time soon? No, but the media did it's job - it asked the questions, we moved in the right direction, but were also found wanting.
cont.
That said, I think we should be very careful about dipping into political issues from the pulpit. (I would argue climate change transcends politics in the same way gravity and evolution do -- climate scientists aren't a cabal of fat-left activists as some politicians seem to think!)
Right-wing activism in the US was disastrous for the church, and again while I would dispute climate change is the issue of any side of politics, unfortunately here it is a political issue, and the lesson of the US is that when you mix religion and politics you get politics.
The other issue is that outrage is cheap.
It's easy to wind up a congregation so they leave saying "I'm outraged! Aren't you outraged? Yes, it's so... outrageous!" But outrage doesn't seem to beget anything other than more outrage.
If we really want to encourage positive change from a position of Christian ethics then we should temper the outrage and encourage our highly educated, highly mobile, and generally well resourced members to join a political party, or public service (or NGO), understand the levers of power, and do the hard work on policy *outside of* church. (Or join the scientific effort, too!)
I think we're sometimes guilty of being so keen to be 'right' theologically, as though that's enough, that we apply the same thinking to other issues. If we're well intentioned and feel strongly enough about it, isn't that enough? Hardly. Talk is cheap.
1. God appointed mankind as caretaker of his perfect creation.
2. We're sinful, so we didn't do a perfect job.
3. Our sinful actions affect the creation, e.g. soil erosion, polluted rivers, polluted air, etc
4. Since the fall, the creation is in travail, waiting for God to renew it.
5. In the meantime, we should repent of our behaviour and seek to address/mitigate the damage.
So, if after due consideration, we think the evidence is that climate change is a possibility then we should repent and seek to address/mitigate the damage.
My approach is to examine the ways that spiritual problems arising from this predicament stunt the formation of faithful Christian disciples. In short, the various issues generate (I think) three main responses: fear, guilt and helplessness. These in turn give rise to patterns of thought and behaviour that can be described as denialism, despair (nihilism and survivalism) and desperation (unthinking myopic activism). The Christian virtues of faith, hope and love grounded in the doctrines of atonement, creaturehood and resurrection (amongst others) have a great deal to say to these spiritual challenges.
I also take it also that climate change (and ecological issues more broadly) represents one of the greatest bridges for evangelism. In my experience of talking with people outside the church about such things, I have encountered very significant levels of fear, guilt and helpless. Let's learn how to address these matters with integrity and compassion with the good news of Jesus.
The Centre for Public Christianity (Greg Clarke and John Dickson) has just published a short piece I wrote on this: http://www.publicchristianity.com/Copenhagen1.html.
Peace,
Byron
* Watermelon politics. (green on the outside and red in the middle). The radical left in Australia has been antagonistic towards Christianity since WW1.. so there is long running antipathy amongst Christian conservatives to the Green-Socialist Alliance and a big suspicion of their claims and agendas.
* A reluctance to allow science/scientists to become the ultimate authority in religion and morality. (This can feed back into the evolution v creationism debates)
* The Australian Christian community is older than average. It is well documented in polls that older Australians are more sceptical about climate change. My theory is that older Australians are more likely to have seen apocalyptic claims in the past come to nought so doubt the current hype.
* As David Palmer explained on my blog last week, amongst Reformed evangelicals there is a commitment to Two Kingdom theology which can lead one to query the real significance of the issue.
Regarding point 3.: I would have thought it was a self-evident proposition that most businesses operate to make a profit (not all, but the vast majority). However, publicly listed companies (on the ASX, Dow Jones, NASDAC and my favourite, the German DAX - call it puerile humour, but I love it when the business reported says, "Germany's DAX is down") exist to make profit and pay dividends for their shareholders, and neither shareholders nor the sharemarket take too kindly to losses. And neither does the sharemarket nor do shareholders take too kindly to profits being lower than expected or being revised down. In other words, companies' desires for profit are never satiated. So, QED on the 'insatiable desire for profits'? I think so.
Oh, and here's a quirk of political spin - a recession is defined technically as "two or more quarters of negative growth". Hmmm..."negative growth" - do they mean "two quarters of decline"? Yes, but we're so growth-driven that to call anything a "decline" sparks panic.
Now, turning to 'rampant overconsumption' - if that's too lose a phrase for you, how 'bout this one: 'Obesity epidemic'. I think that should do it. It's a pertinent example of overconsumption - more calories consumed than expended = obesity, and obesity = overconsumption; and since there's an epidemic, then that's fair to say it's 'rampant'. And that's just in one area of our lives. Fossil fuel usage is another area of overconsumption.
@Jeremy #22: Reluctance to allow science to settle moral debates? Yes, and this is right, since it doesn't. But it is ludicrous to ignore science in helping us work out what is the case, even if it doesn't necessarily give us the best ways of responding to what is the case. To pick two (hopefully uncontroversial) parallels - for many years some people rejected that there was a link between HIV and AIDs, and some people also claimed that smoking did not lead to increased incidents of lung cancer. The science in each case is crucial to moral arguments, but does not give all the answers. Should we fund retroviral drugs for poor African communities ravaged by AIDS? Should we ban smoking in pubs? The science is relevant, even crucial, to the discussion, but doesn't simply give the answer, which requires consideration of many other factors. To shoot the science is to blindfold the ethical discussion.
Older people more sceptical? The polling does seem to indicate that. I'm not sure it is necessarily about apocalypse-fatigue. Older people are generally more resistant to large social changes because they have more invested in the status quo (and this isn't a bad thing in itself, except perhaps when the investment is primarily financial).
(cont.)
PS I realise, Jeremy, that you weren't necessarily endorsing those reasons, simply putting them forward as explanations.
But then, this is hardly surprising: the Nazi and Fascist parties of the 1940s were well ahead of their time in advocating environmentalist; and you would expect their modern counterparts, with their high collectivist view of the State, and its role in people's lives - to embrace climate change with open arms.
Thanks for your comments (and recognising that I am trying to understand the context of the debate not pushing my personal opinion).
The real heart of the scepticism about human-induced global warming is over the following IMHO: that human pollution could have an appreciable impact on a system as large and complex as the globe's climate.
In other words its a scepticism of the power of human agency v the natural world.
In your view does the Bible/ theology have something to say at that point?
There is an avalanche (excuse the pun) of material on the web discussing this issue.
It is a controversial question.
Indeed there is one theory that human-induced global warming actually started back then... with ancient human beings playing their part through agriculture/burning scrub.
What is not disputed is that levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a role to play in changing global climate over the eons along with other factors such as the position of the continents and the position of the earth relative to the sun.
is as irrelevant to contemporary thinking as an irrelevant thing that has passed its use-by date.
You might as well ask why we aren't spending more time on how we are going to feed the horses that are currently needed for transport in our busy cities. It's an important part of caring for our creation (for we all love horses and would hate to see them disappear from our streets), and I have not heard a single sermon on this subject in the last 20 years.