Skip to comments.The evangelical third coming
Posted on 03/15/2005 4:39:14 AM PST by Millicent_Hornswaggle
Here we go again! A "core group" of "influential" evangelical leaders is about to try to address "global warming" using political weapons.
Like previous efforts - Prohibition in the 1920s and the Moral Majority with which I was associated in the 1980s - this one is doomed because it distracts and dilutes the primary calling of evangelicals.
Do evangelicals have time on their hands because they've finished the mission to "go and make disciples of all nations"? Is this not a great enough commission that "global warming" and a host of other "issues" must be added to make evangelicals contemporary and relevant?
The Rev. Rich Cizik, vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, a Washington lobbying group, was quoted in The New York Times as saying, "I don't think God is going to ask us how he created the earth, but he will ask us what we did with what he created."
Rev. Cizik offers no biblical citation for his view. There is no biblical expectation that a "fallen" world can, should or will be improved prior to the return of the One to whom evangelicals are supposed to owe their complete allegiance.
Rev. Ted Haggard, president of NAE, says he has become passionate about the issue because he is a scuba diver (but not a scientist) and has seen how "global warming" affects coral reefs. What about passion for Jesus Christ?
The religious left has long tried to sway evangelicals into embracing its social agenda. It would appear they are finally succeeding. Rev. Ronald Sider, who heads Evangelicals for Social Action, a liberal Christian group with an agenda that reads like Democratic Party talking points, told the Times, "Evangelicals have sometimes been accused of having a one- or two-item political agenda."
A document he helped draft, called "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," is aimed at making "it very clear that a vast body of evangelicals today reject a one-issue approach," he says.
Jesus is appropriated these days for all sorts of things with which he would have nothing to do. Remember the "What Would Jesus Drive" campaign that attempted to convert people from their SUVs to more environmentally friendly cars?
Those on the left and right who misuse Jesus think they can have the best of both worlds. Desiring the approval of one, however, mostly leads to disapproval from the other.
Should politicians be unclear as to the source of evangelical power, Rev, Haggard says, "We do represent 30 million people, and we can mobilize them if we have to." Leaving aside whether he "represents" 30 million people and whether they would all vote and lobby in lock-step (they didn't in the '80s), this is a far cry from "Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord Almighty." (Zechariah 4:6)
The first description of Satan is that he is "subtle." (Genesis 3:1) Another translation says "crafty." Satan tempts to do what seems good. Liberal churches have long believed in a doctrine of salvation-through-works, as if helping the poor was the chief responsibility of government and an end in itself, rather than a means for individuals to communicate the love of God to poor people.
The social gospel is about causes, not Christ; agendas, not Alpha and Omega; politics, not the Prince of Peace; more of this world and less of the next one. It's a subtle, but effective, means of distracting evangelicals from their paramount calling, which is about conversion, not political convictions.
By focusing on the other kingdom, one can have the most influence on this kingdom. By attending mainly to improving this world, one is doomed to futility and can do little for the other one. Look at past efforts of religious activists - left and right - and note their limited success when the focus has been on transforming culture, rather than converting hearts.
This is going to be another failed effort that will lead many astray, divert resources from more effective pursuits and leave little of eternal value. Better to "store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal" (Matthew 6:20) rather than on earth where they do.
©2005 Tribune Media Services
While I would agree on the matter of junk science, I wonder why Cal has omitted any mention of Christian stewardship herein.....
'Bet it doesn't include conservative evangelicals.
I believe that the term "Evangelical" is being grossly misused. It seems to be the in thing to be asscociated with evangelical's now. I have never heard of this people in the article. I am surprised that Cal did not point out that in his piece.
make that these people ( must learn to proofread)
No, no, this is great! If liberals think evangelicals are FOR something, they'll surely want to be AGAINST it, no matter the reasoning, just out of sheer blind hatred. This might strike the biggest blow ever to the "Global Warming" nonsense.
Part of the good Reverend's problem may be his location. He needs to get out of there.
Don't forget about homosexual super-citizenship.
They're political liberals who have always been political liberals.
Who cares about the murder of a baby if a coral reef is being warmed? Is that what I hear?
Cal would do better to understand that this statement is true and reasonable. And you don't have to be Christian, either, to believe that we should take care of the earth.
No, the central question is how do you go about doing that? Not with bogus science and misallocated resources.
The soft underbelly of global warming is the wackos' opposition to windmills and tidal generators. If the 'fragile planet' is in such dire danger, then the sacrifice of a few fish and birds should be insignificant. But no, they are sacred, while the survival of individuals is nothing important. No worries. Global Warming is fly paper, and the left wing is a bunch of flies unable to escape it.
So, God won't care whether we believe or take seriously a clear and foundational but unfashionable part of His Word, so long as we buy into liberal orthodoxy.
Cal breaks this rule he sets up for others all the time. Is his column devoted to the gospel or to politics? A Christian can and should concern himself with both. Cal acts like he is the only person in the world capable of doing that.
Cal says: Do evangelicals have time on their hands because they've finished the mission to "go and make disciples of all nations"?
So what about him? Isn't he an evangelical? Why is he writing a column about politics? Is he helping the cause of the gospel by bashing Christians repeatedly? I don't think he is advancing the gospel one bit. He should practice what he is preaching first.
Show us by example, Cal.
Please read post #8! And, if you feel the urge, click the link.
In my opinion this is a good thing overall. As the left stops their war on faith, we will all win in the end. There will always be stupid ideas out there based on any number of things, but drawing from one's faith is overall a very good thing. It doesn't make them more or less Christian, nor does it have ANYTHING to do with the gospel. The gospel is not an issue of gov't. You do not relinquish your rights to participate fully in gov't just because you are a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim...whatever. Of course that will shape your view on issues. Ultimately the people will decide who makes sense and who doesn't.
Cal rattled on against conservative Christians a couple of columns ago regarding the Ten Commandments issue. He said they should work to change hearts first. WELL GUESS WHAT, CAL? Hearts are already with us. Seventy-six percent of the public support those displays (according to the AP, a liberal source). The problem is that the ACLU is suing all the time and the courts are ruling against the hearts of the public. That's what we are fighting. And it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the gospel -- other than one day these same people may try to take our right to preach the gospel away too.