Theology of Nuance; Struggling with God and Man and Overcoming

American foreign policy — both good and bad — has always been deeply influenced by Christian theology.

Note: This is part of FPIF’s new Religion in Foreign Policy Focus. for more, visit www.fpif.org.

American foreign policy is built on a deep foundation of Christian theology. Some of the people who make our foreign policy may understand that foundation. Most probably aren’t even aware of it. But foundations are hidden underground. You can stand above them, and even take a strong stand upon them, without knowing they are there. When it comes to foreign policy, we are all influenced by theological foundations that we rarely see.

For example, few Americans have read the work of Reinhold Niebuhr, the most influential American theologian of the 20th century. Many have never even heard the name. Yet Niebuhr’s thought affects us all. In the 1930s, he launched an attack on the liberal Christianity of the Social Gospel, a movement that powerfully influenced U.S. foreign policy in the first third of the 20th century. The liberals were starry-eyed fools, Niebuhr charged, because they trusted people to be reasonable enough to resolve international conflicts peacefully. They forgot the harsh reality of original sin.

Niebuhr wrapped that traditional notion of sin in a new intellectual package and sold it successfully, not only to theologians but to the foreign policy elite. Since the 1940s, foreign policy has largely been reduced to an endless round of debates about how to apply Niebuhr’s “realism.” Policymakers who still tried to follow the Social Gospel path have been marginalized and stigmatized with the harshest epithet a Niebuhrian can hurl: “unrealistic.”

It’s a Jungle Out There

Many policymakers, like much of the public at large, have come to find a strange comfort in the world as Niebuhr described it. They see a jungle where evildoers, who are all around, must be hunted down and destroyed. Though frightening, this world can easily become the stage for simplistic dramas of good against evil. And the moral certainty of being on the side of good — the side of God — can provide a sense of security that more than makes up for the constant terror. That was not what Niebuhr had in mind. But as he found out so painfully, once you let ideas loose in the world, you can’t control what others do with them.

Niebuhr would have been pained to see what the neoconservatives have done with his ideas. Their theory starts out from his own premise: All people are born naturally selfish and impulsive. The godfather of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, was (like most of the early neocons) an intellectual — a teacher, writer, and editor — and (like many of the early neocons) a Jew. But he turned to Christian theology to describe his Niebuhrian view of human nature: “Original sin was one way of saying this, and I had no problem with that doctrine.”¹ Selfish impulses, when they get out of control, can tear society apart, he warned. To preserve social order we need a fixed moral order. We therefore need a clear sense of the absolute difference between good and bad, strict rules that tell us what is good, and powerful institutions that can get people to obey those rules.

According to this worldview, organized religion has been the most effective institution to promote moral absolutes and self-control. Religion now needs to be strengthened to stave off a rising tide of moral relativism that, along with secular humanism, is breaking down the bulwarks of social order and threatening to release a flood of selfish impulse to drown us all in chaos. A favorite neoconservative columnist, Charles Krauthammer, complains that American mass culture, dominated by skepticism and pleasure, is an “engine of social breakdown.” The best antidote would be a “self-abnegating religious revival.” Since that is not likely to happen, Krauthammer admits, the best place to recover moral discipline and will power is in foreign affairs: America must find the will to exercise its strength and become “confident enough to define international morality in its own, American terms.”²

Original Sin Goes Global

When neoconservatives apply their views to international relations, they deviate from Niebuhr’s teaching. All people may be sinners, they imply, but not all nations. They assume an (often vaguely defined) hierarchy of nations. At the bottom are the enemies of America, consistently described as chaotic, irrational monsters who are incapable of self-control and bent on provoking instability and evil for its own sake. Above them are neutral nations and then U.S. allies near the top of the pyramid. At the top is the United States, in a class by itself because its national motives are good and pure, somehow untainted by original sin.

Neoconservatives insist on this hierarchy, with its dramatic contrast between the good United States and its evil enemies, because it gives them the sense of moral clarity and certainty that they rely on to hold back the relativism they fear. They bolster their sense of certainty by reducing international affairs to simplistic myths: black-and-white tales of absolute good versus absolute evil. (Here I use the word “myth” in its religious sense of a narrative story that expresses a community’s worldview and basic values.) George W. Bush tapped into this mythic world when he said that the war on terrorism is “a monumental struggle between good and evil. But good will prevail.” The outcome is certain, according to Bush, because “we all know that this is one nation, under God.” But Americans must do their world-ordering job pretty much alone, since other nations and international institutions are too selfish to be trusted. The United States must rely primarily on military might, since the only language that the sinful evildoers understand is force.

The neoconservatives did not invent this myth. It goes back to the Puritan belief in “the new Israel” and Americans as God’s chosen people, with the special privilege and responsibility of bringing order to a sinful, chaotic world. Most Americans are still likely to see their nation as the global hero fulfilling that sacred task. Only the United States, they believe in a great leap of faith, is moved by an unselfish desire to serve the good of all humanity by spreading ordered liberty.

Throughout the Cold War era, across the political spectrum, there was no doubting the name of the threatening evil: Communism. After a decade of drift and uncertainty in the 1990s, the September 11 attacks, despite their horror, allowed the nation to breathe easier, at least in terms of the theology of foreign policy. Once again, it seemed that everyone agreed on the name of the monstrous sinners, the source of instability. Rudolph Giuliani could have been speaking for most Americans when he explained that the cultural payoff of the war on terrorism was moral stability: “The era of moral relativism…must end. Moral relativism does not have a place in this discussion.” That crusading tone of certainty gave Bush and the neoconservatives a very free hand in the early post-September 11 days, when they launched the invasion of Afghanistan. The administration then invaded Iraq with the approval of 75% of the U.S. public and nearly all the foreign policy elite.

Iraq War

The myth of U.S. moral and global supremacy - Americans as the world’s chosen people - went largely unchallenged until the U.S. venture in Iraq went sour. The myth says that the good guys are supposed to win every time, because they are good. When the myth does not get played out in reality, people start to complain. If you look at the current debate about Iraq from the standpoint of myth and theology, the complainers fall into three broad groups.

First there is the mainstream of the foreign policy elite, made up of Democrats and more moderate Republicans. They complain that the Bush administration is pursuing the right goals but using the wrong tactics. That’s because the elite still hold on to some shreds of the old Social Gospel view. They give most of the world a bit more credit for rationality; they fear the impulses of original sin a bit less. So they see military strength as one of several ways to secure America’s global hegemony. They are more willing to take a multilateral approach and use the carrot as well as the stick - to pull diplomatic and economic levers before calling out the troops.

But these differences, though they can be very important, are largely ones of degree and tactics. Across the board, members of the foreign policy establishment, even the liberal Democrats, still give a very respectful (sometimes slavish) hearing to the great theologian Niebuhr. But they apply his “realistic” view of original sin only to other nations. The liberals among the elite, too, want their sense of moral clarity and certainty reassured by seeing it played out in a global drama of good against evil. So they make a huge exception for the supposedly pure and innocent motives of their own nation, the chosen people. They believe that the U.S. has a higher moral standing, which gives us the right and duty to rule. That’s how they can justify the most ruthless policies against anyone who stands in their way.

The bipartisan elite may not value the display of American strength as an end in itself, the way neoconservatives do. They are willing to risk a short-term appearance of weakness in one place in order to bolster long-term U.S. strength everywhere else. But long-term strength (including a long-term military presence in Iraq) is still crucial, because they feel a sacred calling to enforce “stability” - their favorite code word for a single global order that protects U.S. interests - everywhere and forever.

The second group of war critics is on the right. A growing number of traditional conservatives criticize the administration and the bipartisan establishment for betraying genuine Niebuhrian “realism.” These hard-core “realists” want the United States to recognize that it too is a sinful nation, limited in its goodness as well as its resources, all too likely to overreach and eventually destroy itself if it doesn’t scale back its hubristic dream of enduring empire.

Thus the right-wing “realists” become strange bedfellows with the third group of war critics, the left-wingers, who, starting from very different principles, arrive at the same anti-imperialist conclusions. Though most of them don’t know it, what makes leftists leftist is that they still champion many of the basic values of the Social Gospel movement. They do not accept the doctrine of original sin; they don’t think people are inherently doomed to be selfish and unreasonable. They assume that the vast majority of people, if treated decently and given decent living conditions, will respond by being decent people. For the left, order and stability are not as important as human growth, creativity, and transformation. The key to a better world is not strength and dominance, but sharing and cooperation. And leftists often assume - or at least hope - that the long-term trend of history is leading to that better world, a view that is rooted in the biblical hope for redemption.

In Middle America

Leftists who are consistent extend their Social Gospel view to its logical conclusion: There are no monsters - no inherently bad people — only bad conditions. So the good guys versus bad guys myth always distorts reality. But a surprising number of leftists sacrifice logical consistency for the emotional pleasure of the traditional myth. For them, of course, the monsters are the Bush administration, the neoconservatives, sometimes the mainstream Democrats too, and always, above all, the corporate elite whose hand they see behind every gesture of U.S. imperialism.

This left-wing version of the myth does not play very well in middle America, or even on the coasts apart from a few ultra-liberal enclaves. The hardcore “realist” view may get slightly higher ratings, but not much. Most Americans still demand a heavy dose of moral idealism in their foreign policy. They want to continue believing in the myth of American innocence. They won’t give in to a full-blown Niebuhrian pessimism about human nature - at least not when it comes to American humans. And they don’t want to believe that the economic and political leaders of their nation are utterly cynical “realists,” devoid of ideals, caring only about money and power.

So the mass of the citizenry, sick and tired of losing in Iraq, swing in line behind the only critical voice they can support: the foreign policy elite. The public criticizes the administration for its inept effort in Iraq. But most citizens don’t raise any questions about the long-term goals or the theological premises underlying them.

Only when something looks broken do people think about fixing it. The last time the U.S. foreign policy system broke down was when the United States suffered defeat in Vietnam. However, after a short period of radical questioning, a powerful reaction set in, fueled by the deep and widespread need for idealism and moral certainty. The neoconservatives got control of the public conversation in the late 1970s because they recognized that need and offered a Cold War myth that satisfied it.

The same need for moral clarity arose after September 11, but it’s been bitterly betrayed by the failure in Iraq. How can we avoid a similar neoconservative reaction as we question the underpinnings of U.S. foreign policy in the years to come? And if the Iraq debacle boots the neoconservatives out of power for good, how can we use this window of opportunity to challenge the most powerful alternative view, the bipartisan establishment consensus? From the outset it won’t help to scorn the average citizen’s idealistic view of America. That’s like wishing away the Rocky Mountains. Claiming that this worldview is unrealistic would be caving in to a simplistic Niebuhrian “realism.” After all, we on the left believe in our own idealism. We are happy to hear right-wing “realists” argue that Americans are no more idealistic than anyone else. But we forget that Americans are no less idealistic either. That includes even the most powerful leaders of the nation. Rather than demonizing them and dismissing their claim to good intentions outright, we would do better to look for common values that we can all agree on and then find progressive programs that can put those values into practice.

Different Moral Certainties

Just about all Americans, from Bush and Cheney and the CEOs of Exxon and Lockheed-Martin on down, sincerely want the nation to be secure. As long as our notions of security are built on the myth of well-meaning Americans versus ever-threatening evildoers who embody original sin, we can never dispense with the evildoers. They are as necessary in U.S. foreign policy as sin is in Niebuhr’s theology. They always have to be out there threatening us, in our imaginations at least, in order for our pursuit of national security to make any sense at all.

The bipartisan consensus on U.S. foreign policy calls for us to be powerful enough to dominate them. But every step we take to dominate only antagonizes more people and makes some of them really want to harm us. As long as we keep on this self-defeating road, we are not a national security state. We are a national insecurity state. So, we need to redefine national security in a way that meets people’s need for a second value that so many of us share: moral certainty. This involves a faith in some rock-bottom kind of goodness in the world, which many Americans believe has a special home here in the United States.

There is a special kind of goodness, rooted in a special kind of theology, that does have an old and honored home here — the goodness of nonviolence. There have always been Christians who were certain that the only moral way to treat others, even enemies, is with love, not violence. They knew it because Jesus said it, right there in the Bible. In 19th-century America, the abolitionists and Thoreau turned the theology of nonviolence into a homegrown strategy for political change.

Martin Luther King, Jr. took this strategy a crucial step further. He preached that it’s the government’s role to help bring all people together in what he called “the beloved community” (something very much like what the Social Gospel called the Kingdom of God). Every government policy should promote “the mutually cooperative and voluntary venture of man to assume a semblance of responsibility for his brother [and sister]” — the responsibility to help every person fulfill their God-given potential.

In King’s words, no matter how bad a person’s behavior, “the image of God is never totally gone.” So, government must serve everyone, everywhere. No one can be written off as a monstrous evildoer, sinful beyond redemption. That was a moral certainty for King, an essential foundation of his religious faith. King knew all about moral clarity and certainty. He was willing to die for the truths he believed in so firmly. But he was not willing to kill.

A Different Narrative

With King as our guide, we could have a distinctly American foreign policy based on the conviction of absolute moral certainty we find in the Social Gospel and nonviolence traditions.. Our goal would always be to move the world one step closer to becoming a universal beloved community. We would no longer act out the myth of good versus evil. We would not demonize a bin Laden or Saddam — or a Bush or Cheney. We would recognize that when people do bad things, their actions grow out of a global network of forces that we ourselves have helped to create. King said it most eloquently: “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.”

We can never stand outside the network of mutuality, as if we were the Lone Ranger arriving on the scene to destroy an evil we played no part in creating. Just as Bush is tied to Osama, so each of us is tied to all those who do things that outrage us. We cannot simply destroy them and think that the outrages have been erased. To right the wrongs of the world, we must start by recognizing our own responsibility for helping to spawn those wrongs. Indeed, fixing our own part in the wrongs we see all over the world may be all that we can do.

But in the case of the United States in 2007, that alone would be more than a full time job for our foreign policy. We would have to, among other things:

• end the occupation that creates a breeding ground for violent jihadis in Iraq and Afghanistan;
• reverse the policy of supporting authoritarian regimes in the Middle East;
• stop participating in the mad rush for power and resources in Africa, which breeds disasters like Rwanda and Darfur;
• withdraw support for the corporations and financiers who would strangle the emerging popular democracies in Latin America;
• and treat everyone as our brothers and sisters, even the leaders of North Korea and Cuba and Iran.

In short, we would have to create a new notion of “national interest” based on the moral certainty that we are all threads in a network of mutuality that is the foundation of our national as well as individual life. Since our foundation is infinite and eternal, no one can threaten to destroy it, or us. Embracing that principle as the basis of foreign policy could set us on the road to a radically new way of thinking about genuine national security.

If that’s not something all Americans can agree on, at least it’s a program that gets the debate down to our most basic assumptions. This is a democracy. If the people want a religion-laden foreign policy based on the doctrine of original sin and the myth of good against evil, it’s what we should have. But at least we should all talk about it together, openly and honestly.

Notes

1. Irving Kristol, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (New York: Free Press, 1995), p. 5.
2. Charles Krauthammer, “When to Intervene,” The New Republic, May 6, 1985, p. 10.

Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. Email: chernus@colorado.edu

Psalm 62
Song of Trust in God Alone

To the leader: according to Jeduthun. A Psalm of David.

For God alone my soul waits in silence;
from him comes my salvation.
He alone is my rock and my salvation,
my fortress; I shall never be shaken.

How long will you assail a person,
will you batter your victim, all of you,
as you would a leaning wall, a tottering fence?
Their only plan is to bring down a person of prominence.
They take pleasure in falsehood;
they bless with their mouths,
but inwardly they curse. Selah

For God alone my soul waits in silence,
for my hope is from him.
He alone is my rock and my salvation,
my fortress; I shall not be shaken.
On God rests my deliverance and my honor;
my mighty rock, my refuge is in God.
Trust in him at all times, O people;
pour out your heart before him;
God is a refuge for us. Selah

Those of low estate are but a breath,
those of high estate are a delusion;
in the balances they go up;
they are together lighter than a breath.
Put no confidence in extortion,
and set no vain hopes on robbery;
if riches increase, do not set your heart on them.

Once God has spoken;
twice have I heard this:
that power belongs to God,
and steadfast love belongs to you, O Lord.
For you repay to all
according to their work.

Author: Thomas Merton
Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY, pp.165

An Excerpt from the Jacket:

“In this long-withheld manuscript, Thomas Merton identifies the readiness of many nations – led by our own – to prepare for and threaten mass murder as the most urgent moral crisis of our time. Ringing across four decades, his profound warning is more timely than tomorrow’s headlines.” Daniel Ellsberg

An Excerpt from the Book:

(Click here to read the Forward to the book)

This then in conclusion: the Christian is bound to work for peace by working against global dissolution and anarchy. Due to nationalist and revolutionary ideologies (for Communism is in fact exploiting the intense nationalism of backward peoples), a worldwide spirit of confusion and disorder is breaking up the unity and the order of civilized society.

It is true that we live in an epoch of revolution, and that the break-up and re-formation of society is inevitable. But the Christian must see that his mission is not to contribute to the blind destructive forces of annihilation which tend to destroy civilization and mankind together. He must seek to build rather than to destroy. He most orient his efforts towards world unity and not towards world division. Anyone who promotes policies of hatred and of war is working for the division and destruction of civilized mankind.

We have to be convinced that there are certain violences which the moral law absolutely forbids to all men, such as the use of torture, the killing of hostages, genocide (or the mass extermination of racial, national or other groups for no reason than that they belong to an “undesirable” category). The destruction of civilian centers by nuclear annihilation is genocide.

We have to become aware of the poisonous effect of the mass media that keep violence, cruelty and sadism constantly present to the minds of unformed and irresponsible people. We have to recognize the danger to the whole world in the fact that today the economic life of the more highly developed nations is in large part centered on the production of weapons, missiles and other engines of destruction.

We have to consider that hate propaganda, and the consistent heckling of one government by another, has always inevitably led to violent conflect. We have to recognize the implications of voting for extremist politicians who promote policies of hate. We must consider the dire effect of fanaticism and witch-hunting within our own nation. We must never forget that our most ordinary decisions may have terrible consequences.

It is no longer reasonable or right to leave all decisions to a largely anonymous power elite that is driving us all, in our passivity, towards ruin. We have to make ourselves heard.

Every individual Christian has a grave responsibility to protest clearly and forcibly against trends that lead inevitably to crimes which the Church deplores and condemns. Ambiguity, hesitation and compromise are no longer permissible. We must find some new and constructive way of settling international disputes.

It is clearly the mind of the Church that every possible effort must be made for the abolition of war, even though the theory of the “just war” and the right of legitimate self-defense remain intact. But appeal to this right must not blind us to the much higher and more urgent duty of working with all our power for peace.

This may be extraordinarily difficult. Obviously war cannot be abolished by mere wishing.

We have still time to do something about it, but the time is rapidly running out.

Table of Contents:

1. Preamble: Peace – A religious responsibility

2. Can we choose peace?

3. The dance of death

4. The Christian as peacemaker

5. War in Origen and St. Augustine

6. The legacy of Machiavelli

7. Justice in modern war

8. Religious problems of the cold war

9. Theologians an defense

10. Working for peace

11. Beyond east and west

12. Moral passivity and demonic activism

13. The scientists and nuclear war

14. Red or dead? The anatomy of a cliche

15. Christian perspectives in world crisis

16. Christian conscience and national defense

17. The Christian choice

This book has my highest reccomendations. It has helped seal my understanding of the issue of the Christian perspective on warfare once and for all.

Concerning the term “post -Christian” Merton writes this:

“Whether we like to admit it or not, we are living in a post- Christian world, that is to say a world in which Christian ideals and attitudes are relegated more and more to the minority. It is frightening to realize that the facade of Christianity which still generally survives has perhaps little or nothing behind it, and what was once called “Christian society” is more purely and simply a materialistic neopaganism with a Christian veneer… Not only non-Christians but even Christians themselves tend to dismiss the Gospel ethic on nonviolence and love as “sentimental”. “

Merton’s book was written in 1961 at the onset of the “Cold War” and the Vietnam conflict. Not only was it very prophetic for that time as well as this, but it recognizes the rise of the hardline neopagan pseudo- Christianity that holds sway in today’s toxic political discourse. If one were to substitute the word “terrorist” each time Merton wrote the word “Communist” he would be speaking directly to us today about the “War on Terror”.

For instance:

“At one extreme we have the “hard” and “realistic” view. It excludes all other considerations and concentrates on one inescapable fact: the “terrorist” threat to western society. It considers that negotiation with “terrorism” is for all practical purposes futile. It is thoroughly convinced that only the strongest pressure will be of any use in stopping “terrorism” and the victory over “terrorism” by any available means takes precedence over everything else. Hence this “hard” position is in fact favorable to nuclear war and makes no distinction between preemption and retaliation, except perhaps to favor preeemption as more likely to succeed…
…they tend to regard anyone who strongly favors peace and disarmament as a “terrorist” dupe or fellow traveller, simply because of the worldwide propaganda given to the “terrorist strategy for peace”.

The simplicity and ruthlessness of this view makes an immediate appeal to a very large proportion of the American middle class. It is simple. It is clear. It promises results. It has the advantage above all of permitting disturbed and frustrated people to discharge their anxieties upon a hated enemy and thereby achieve a sense of meaning and satifaction in their own lives. But unfortunately this kind of satisfaction leads to moral blindness and to the stultification of conscience. The fact that this “solution” at the same time favors nuclear war, and considers it fully morally justified by its “good cause” and also appeals to certain types of Christians, shows that it is a SERIOUS danger. To be succinct, it produces a state of invincible moral ignorance. It consecrates policies that have very dubius justice, blurring the ethical clarity of Christian thought, making base emotions and hatreds with the specious appearance of christian zeal.”

This book is the most refined, comprehensive and persuasive tesament on this subject i have ever read.

I recently discovered this set of comments on the Sojourners blog where I entered the fray by asking someone what defines someone as a “leftist christian”. Below these comments by someone calling themself “Semper Fi”, I make a few coments myself:

Semper Fi said:

“We need a president with the testicular fortitude to wage a serious war to end all wars. It’s time re-awaken the “Sleeping Giant”. Time to start kicking booty like we mean business. The only way we will win this war on terror is to strike first, strike extraordinarily hard, and create a massive wake of devastation large enough that no nation would dare cross the line in the sand for fear of being next to incur our wrath. We have the technology and resources to do this. What are we waiting for.

That won’t happen with a Hillary in office. It probably won’t happen with a Rudy in office. But, I’m putting my vote on the candidate that’s not willing to put up with any more crap from the Islamic sector. If they want a holy war, let’s give them one that puts Hiroshima and Nakasake to shame, and restore the balance of power to the only nation with the ability to hold that power and maintain justice on this spinning chunk of rock.

Jesus was not a wuss. He was obedient to his Father. Had he not been, he would not have died on the cross. He had the power to do something different, but was obedient. All this silly “Christian” talk about playing footsies with our enemies is hogwash. God is not a wuss. He instructed Israel to utterly destroy every that lived and breathed when they went to war. They did not listen, and here we are today, post 9/11, with a bunch of retarded Muslim infidels causing problems for the whole pamn dlantet.

Time to wake up, America. This is not a fire drill. This is for real. Let’s fight to win. I’m not a fan of Pat’s, but what in the world is wrong with some of his ideas, like hiring a hit man to take out Chavez, or even Castro. What ever happened to real Americans, like Truman and Eisenhower, and real soldiers, like Patton and Churchill? That’s not anti-Christian. It’s anti-stupid!

I’m not an extremist. I’m a realist. What have we done lately that has worked? Nothing meaningful since Reagan left office. Nothing. We took giant steps backward under the “leadership” (ha ha) of Slick Willy. Why in the world would we elect his goofy witch of a wife for President? It amazes me that it’s even an option for some people. And this Barak Osama clown? Tell me I’m dreaming! Anything on the Republican ticket is a better option than any of our Democratic options.

The right choices are simple:
(1) Stop murdering our unborn children;
(2) Stop putting up with crap off of nations that house radical Islamists;
(3) Stop putting up with people that want to force us into embracing their choice to live a sinful and sexually perverted lifestyle;
(4) Stop supporting government that takes our hard earned wages and handing out gifts to those that have not done as well;
(5) Start teaching our children there ARE moral absolutes;
(6) Start electing officials that govern of, by and for the people.
(7) Start using our own oil and let Venezuela and watch all the Arab nations economically implode when we stop purchasing anything from them, and stop selling anything to them, including food. Let’s see how tasty they find them steel barrels.

9/11 - WE WILL NEVER FORGET! Shame on those who think we should. How dare you call yourself a Christian, or an American?

“Friends don’t let friends vote Democrat.”

Semper Fi!”

Scott says:

This is the epitome of secular humanist, miltary- humanitarian, antithetical to the gospel, self idolatrous, nationalist propaganda …. and yet somehow it is considered “conservative” theologically? Rather this type of position is immoral, irresponsible and irrational and in fact helps to perpetuate and create factors that make terroism, mass violence, hatred and the self perpetuating cycle of violence and revenge more likely rather than less.

I have just read a book entitled “Peace in the Post-Christian Era” by Thomas Merton the famous Christian author. Concerning the term “post -Christian” Merton writes this: Whether we like to admit it or not, we are living in a post- Christian world, that is to say a world in which Christian ideals and attitudes are relegated more and more to the minority. It is frightening to realize that the facade of Christianity which still generally survives has perhaps little or nothing behind it, and what was once called “Christian society” is more purely and simply a materialistic neopaganism with a Christian veneer… Not only non-Christians but even Christians themselves tend to dismiss the Gospel ethic on nonviolence and love as “sentimental”. “

Merton’s book was written in 1961 at the onset of the “Cold War” and the Vietnam conflict. Not only was it very prophetic for that time as well as this, but it recognizes the rise of the hardline neopagan pseudo- Christianity from which Mr. Semper Fi speaks. If one were to substitute the word “terrorist” each time Merton wrote the word “Communist” he would be speaking directly to us and those like Mr. Semper Fi. Let me demonstrate:

“At one extreme we have the “hard” and “realistic” view. It excludes all other considerations and concentrates on one inescapable fact: the “terrorist” threat to western society. It considers that negotiation with “terrorism” is for all practical purposes futile. It is thoroughly convinced that only the strongest pressure will be of any use in stopping “terrorism” and the victory over “terrorism” by any available means takes precedence over everything else. Hence this “hard” position is in fact favorable to nuclear war and makes no distinction between preemption and retaliation, except perhaps to favor preeemption as more likely to succeed…
…they tend to regard anyone who strongly favors peace and disarmament as a “terrorist” dupe or fellow traveller, simply because of the worldwide propaganda given to the Communist “peace line”.
The simplicity and ruthlessness of this view makes an immediate appeal to a very large proportion of the American middle class. It is simple. It is clear. It promises results. It has the advantage above all of permitting disturbed and frustrated people to discharge their anxieties upon a hated enemy and thereby achieve a sense of meaning and satifaction in their own lives. But unfortunately this kind of satisfaction leads to moral blindness and to the stultification of conscience. The fact that this “solution” at the same time favors nuclear war, and considers it fully morally justified by its “good cause” and also appeals to certain types of Christians, shows that it is a SERIOUS danger. To be succinct, it produces a state of invincible moral ignorance. It consecrates policies that have very dubius justice, blurring the ethical clarity of Christian thought, making base emotions and hatreds with the specious appearance of christian zeal.”

Taking into consideration Luke Chapter 6 which contains these quotes straight from the mouth of Jesus

“Love for Enemies
27″But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ lend to ’sinners,’ expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
Judging Others
37 “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

39 He also told them this parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40 A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.

41 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42 How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
A Tree and Its Fruit
43 “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45 The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.
The Wise and Foolish Builders
46 “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49 But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.”

…there is simply no way Mr. Semper Fi can justify the quote I cited above from him. In fact, on point with the discussion of “conservatism” and “liberalism” his views are not biblically conservative at all… but in fact they are rather an extremely “liberal”, authoritarian self serving, humanist, idolatrous perspective. Before someone turns around the scripture about not judging and condemning others on my statements here… I am not judging or condemning anyone… The Word does that. However, I do love Mr. Semper Fi as my countryman and fellow sinner and only offer a rebuke because I care enough to confront and offer a rebuke so that he and anyone else reading this will reconsider their position in the light of scripture. I have much more to say on these topics… but as for now this will do.

For the curious… I am niether republican nor democrat nor do I care much for either party, so this assertion;
“Whose ever side your politics are on , that is what defines your Faith.”
…is groundless and basless and another skewing of biblical perspective.

For more thoughts along these lines Google the Geotheology blog and look for the post “Loving America By The Book” from October. You can also use the search bar at the top of the Blog to locate it.

God Bless.

This excellent and informative video is a segment from one of the Transformations series, dedicated to racial reconciliation found here:

http://www.globalnetproductions.com/

The Native American Resource Network Page is here:

http://www.narnministries.org/economic.html

If you are in Oklahoma or the surrounding region and are interested in developing a fellowship or ministry dedicated to reconciliation and/or preaching Christ among American Indians, contact me. Like the video says… this work is of utmost importance.

SOURCE PAGE @ Oklahoma Christian University Talon

Gleaned from COSMIC THERAPY

Why I marched on Washington

By Jonathan Carroll

By Jonathan Carroll on 09/21/07 at 11:00 AM
Permalink • Email this • Share on Facebook • Digg this story

This one goes out to indigenous people all over the world.

lyrics:

We don’t serve your country
don’t serve your king
Know your custom don’t speak your tongue
White man came took everyone

We don’t serve your country
We don’t serve your king
White man listen to the songs we sing
White man came took everything

We carry in our hearts the true country
And that cannot be stolen
We follow in the steps of our ancestry
And that cannot be broken

We don’t serve your country
We don’t serve your king
Know your custom don’t speak your tongue
White man came took everyone

We don’t need protection
don’t need your hand
just keep your promise on where we stand
We will listen- we’ll understand

We carry in our hearts the true country
And that cannot be stolen
We follow in the steps of our ancestry
And that cannot be broken
We carry in our hearts the true country
And that cannot be stolen
We follow in the steps of our ancestry
And that cannot be broken

Mining companies, pastoral companies
Uranium companies
Collected companies
Got more right than people
Got more say than people

Forty thousand years can make a difference to the state of things
The dead heart lives here

My response is at the bottom after other blogger’s comments:

Evangelicalism and the Environmental Movement

November 24th, 2006

(By John MacArthur)

Evangelicals and the EnvironmentI do think we have a responsibility to care for the environment—we ought to care for every resource God has provided for us.

That’s illustrated in the Old Testament account where God put Israel in the Promised Land, a fertile land flowing with milk and honey. God provided them that productive land and commanded them to let the soil rest every seventh year.

You shall sow your land for six years and gather in its yield, but on the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, so that the needy of your people may eat; and whatever they leave the beast of the field may eat. You are to do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove (Exodus 23:10-11; cf. Leviticus 25:1-7).

God gave that command because He didn’t want them to exploit the land and extract all its life. Allowing the land to rest every seven years ensured that it rejuvenated itself and continued to provide in the future.

When the Lord gave the Israelites the Mosaic Law, He warned them if they apostatized, He would remove them from the land (Deuteronomy 28). Sadly, the children of Israel did just that and came under judgment—the Northern tribes fell to Assyria in 722 B.C., and Judah to Babylon in 605 B.C. In fact, God designated the Babylonian captivity as a seventy-year captivity to rest the land for all the Sabbath years that Israel violated (cf. Leviticus 26:33-35; 2 Chronicles 36:17–21).

So I believe we are charged to treat responsibly all the wonderful resources God has given us. But that, in fact, has very little to do with the environmental movement. The environmental movement is consumed with trying to preserve the planet forever. But we know that isn’t in God’s plan.

The earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet. It is, frankly, a disposable planet—it is going to have a very short life. It’s been around six thousand years or so—that’s all—and it may last a few thousand more. And then the Lord is going to destroy it.

I’ve told environmentalists that if they think humanity is wrecking the planet, wait until they see what Jesus does to it. Peter says God is going to literally turn it in on itself in an atomic implosion so that the whole universe goes out of existence (2 Peter 3:7-13).

This earth was never ever intended to be a permanent planet—it is not eternal. We do not have to worry about it being around tens of thousands, or millions, of years from now because God is going to create a new heaven and a new earth. Understanding those things is important to holding in balance our freedom to use, and responsibility to maintain, the earth.

Just a footnote. Though this earth is our temporary home, do take time to enjoy God’s beauty. Take care of your yard. Stop to smell the flowers. Enjoy the forests. God placed those rich resources on this planet for our comfort and His enjoyment. Let us be thankful to Him for that.

Posted in Evangelicalism, Politics |
18 Responses to “Evangelicalism and the Environmental Movement”

1.
on 24 Nov 2006 at 10:25 am Eric Zeller

Good comments. Did you see Doug Moo’s article on this subject in the most recent JETS? He had some helpful thoughts from a rather different perspective.
2.
on 24 Nov 2006 at 11:20 am donsands

Christians should care about the earth more than Non-Christians.
Nice post. Thanks.
3.
on 25 Nov 2006 at 12:42 am albert

To accuse Environmentalists of the error of being “consumed with trying to preserve the planet forever,” as if that is such a negative thing is a very disrespectful charge in my judgment.

First of all, you cannot accuse the work of respectable Environmentalists just because one has a different presupposition. Granted, probably most active Environmentalists do not believe in Christianity and a future restoration of creation, but to deny their passion and love of nature in preserving what they can is still a noble characteristic and should be very much commendable. To attack their presuppositions is for another time, but please do not attack their work in trying to preserve the Environment. Because of Environmentalists, we are enjoying God’s creation at the moment and will continue to do so in the future.

It should be Christians that take the charge of preserving the Environment, not the “Liberals” or “Secular-Progressives.” Christians have more reason to not only preserve the Environment for the benefit of generations to come, but also because God made this world and delighted in its creation and goodness. (Even if it is ruined by Sin) We must delight in what God delights in, and Christians should be the ones taking the charge for the benefit of all men, and for the glorify of God.

Lastly, this has everything to do with the Gospel. To argue that such a task deters one from the Gospel is not the point at all. And to have a disposition in caring for God’s creation is to live out the Gospel. Having a pessimistic eschatology also should not have any bearing as well. Such times will come in God’s sovereignty. That is not for us to claim as a reason to do less of a job than what the Liberals are doing.
4.
on 25 Nov 2006 at 10:12 am Shazazz

Albert,

To your comment that “you cannot accuse the work of respectable Environmentalists just because one has a different presupposition,” I fail to see anywhere in John MacArthur’s quotes where he has accused anyone. I believe JM has given a very gracious but straight-forward counterpoint to that humanistic way of thinking which front-loads earthly matters before eternal ones. It seems that JM even would meet agree with the Environmentalists half-way (just short of making the Environmentalist movement a crusade). So to say we have an accusation here ignores the considerate, articulate first couple of paragraphs by the author.

-JS
5.
on 25 Nov 2006 at 11:22 am albert

I have listened to MacArthur enough to know his attitude towards Environmentalists.
6.
on 26 Nov 2006 at 2:43 pm Jazzy Cat

The environmental movement along with the global warming movement and others are controlled and run by politically motivated far left wing anti-capitalist and in many cases anti-American extremists. It is sad to see so many Christians buy into these movements. The human causation of global warming is nothing short of a hoax. Thirty or so years ago they were warning of a coming ice age as George Will cited in an article this past summer. The recent article on discernment by Dr. MacArthur also applies to these matters as well.

W.H.
7.
on 26 Nov 2006 at 8:15 pm albert

The same could be said of Fundamental Evangelicalism in terms of its far-right, neo-conservative, extreme-capitalist, ignorant/arrogant Americans being motivated by political agendas.

Your argument does not advance your point. It simply reminds us that there is corruption in every facet of politics and religion regardless.

The point that I would try to make is that what Environmentalists are doing, in essence, is what God has intended for us to do as dominion-bearers of this earth and the “religious right” has failed miserably to contribute to it. They have only criticized it. There is nothing wrong with having such a “crusade” to save the Environment. We are trying to preserve what the Lord has created to be good and delightful to Him. To criticize such a movement with such an argument would then demand conservative christians to cease protesting pro-abortion issues if one indeed dares to be consistent.
8.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 12:55 am woostar

Albert:

Can give me one example of respectable Environmentalist?
9.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 10:07 am Jazzy Cat

Albert,
What is an extreme-capitalist? Does the calling of conservatives ignorant and arrogant advance your agenda. There is a conservative agenda that we do not try to hide. The extreme left-wing agenda attempts to conceal their motives behind global warming, environmental, animal rights, and other activists causes. All of which have a disdain for free-enterprise and capitalism.
10.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 4:17 pm a_simple_bloggtrotter

Albert,

Are you suggesting in the last paragraph of your last post that the life of a tree is the same in God’s eyes as a human soul? Or that the two are remotely equal? Indeed, this cannot be your argument( biblically), so what exactly are you trying to get across?
11.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 8:11 pm farmboy

Given that we live in a fallen world where redeemed children of God are a distinct minority, based on the evidence, what is the best way to care for the world (the environment) until it is brought to an end at God’s appointed time?

First, when a person is concerned about where his next meal is coming from or where he will sleep tonight, he is not going to be focused on cleaning up a polluted stream. Taking care of the environment is a luxury that only people in relatively wealthy economies can be concerned with. Decentralized, market-based economies do a better job of maximizing wealth creation, as opposed to centrally-planned economies. Thus, it follows that decentralized, market-based economies can better afford the luxury of concern for the environment. In this regard, note that the most polluted spots on the earth are in current or former communist nations.

Second, who has a vested interest in taking care of and preserving a particular tract of land? The owner. Thus, private property rights go a long way toward preserving the environment. A farmer takes care of his land because topsoil erosion will hurt his ability to continue to raise crops. A timber company takes care of its forest resources because it needs a continuing reliable source of timber to harvest. Private property is owned by some person or entity in particular. In contrast, public property, since it is owned by everyone, is owned by no one in particular. In economics this is referred to as the tragedy of the commons. A rancher will not over graze his private range land, allowing grass to grow to optimal height before grazing. That same rancher will behave differently when it comes to public range land. If he waits on the grass to grow, there is the risk another rancher will come along and graze his cattle first. The result is suboptimal use of the range resource.

Third, when it comes to pollution of common resources, such as the air, the theory of externalities gives us guidance based on the superiority of private property for optimal use of resources. One approach is to “internalize” the pollution externality. A second approach is to use a market based system to allocate pollution rights or permits. It is more costly to reduce pollution in some settings than in others. It follows then that allowed pollution should be allocated to those settings where it is most difficult to reduce pollution.

It is wrong to state that only members of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, or other similar groups care about the environment. Private property owners also care about the environment, specifically the part of the environment that they own as private property. And, it is in those decentralized, market-based economies where private property rights exist where pollution is minimized.
12.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 8:46 pm albert

jazzy cat,

You did not understand my point. But likewise I could respond again, Does calling all Environmentalists “extreme-leftists,” “anti-capitalist,” “anti-American,” advance your agenda? I never resorted to name-calling, you did.

bloggtrotter,

What is it that you do not understand from what I’ve been saying? God created our Environment, he created us to hold dominion over these things. So therefore, the fact that we ruin our Environment is testimony of our negligence, not good stewardship of God’s creation. And the unfortunate thing is that it is the “Liberals” that are fulfilling this task, not the “Conservatives.” This is not a talk on Capital Punishment or Abortion.
13.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 9:44 pm Rob Auld

Conservatives are stupid, moronic, white males who look for any other group to hate. If McArthur can make stupid broad statements then so can I.

Rob
14.
on 28 Nov 2006 at 1:51 pm truegrit

[…] In fairly close proximity of time, I came across these two posts about the perception of how Evangelicals line up on environmental issues. The first I came upon was the “Hungarian Luddite” I didn’t give too much deep thought to it, but then came across The Pulpit Magazine’s Evangelicalism and the Environmental Movement post. […]
15.
on 28 Nov 2006 at 3:37 pm Shane

I think Francis Schaeffer was the first conservative evangelical to put emphasis on ecology. Like many issues we have to be careful of throwing the baby out with the bath-water. As Christians we should be good stewards of God’s creation, yet there is such a danger of over-emphasis on it (like the old social gospel). I think JM presents a balanced view on this. There is a political party called the Green Party, who in their literature refers to the earth as “Mother earth”, which is nothing but neo-paganism. This issue reminds me of the so-called ‘animal rights’ issue. Of course, the biblical principle would be that we shouldn’t abuse animals, yet neither should we put them on par with humans. Excellent post, very relevant (in the true sense of the word!).
16.
on 10 Jan 2007 at 2:54 pm Laz

“The earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet. It is, frankly, a disposable planet”

I agree with this statement, the earth is a temporary place. Can you imagine what would happen if one said this on CNN? The outcry and calls for one’s head would be out of this world…
17.
on 25 Apr 2007 at 3:08 pm Ashly

God gave Adam a “stewardship” responsibility. The earth belongs to God and we are tenants and should take care of God’s earth(e.g. don’t dump the motor oil down the drain). Unfortunately, some people who do not have a personal relationship with Christ, have made “environmentalism” into a religion and worship “mother earth.” Others have not cared about God’s earth or God’s creation(e.g. people) and have polluted it with smog and etc. that hurts our health and well being in their pursuit of profit.
18.
on 20 Oct 2007 at 6:31 am Scott Starr

Many believers and Christians today have an underdeveloped knowledge of proper theology and proper biblical concept. It seems that they are guided more by political ideology rather than by sound biblical teaching. When discussing the purpose for the creation and existence of mankind and/or studying the book of Genesis and the creation story people do not seem to have a clear understanding of the purpose for man or of the rest of creation that ties it all together. I have heard the point made many times that God created man to glorify Himself. This is true. Yet if we do not understand or cannot explain fully what that means- we cannot really worship effectively or witness to other people effectively.

If we say to the unbeliever or potential believer, “God just likes to be worshipped,” and do not explain more fully, the listener may well go away guffawing because it could be said that what you have just described is a psychotic egomaniac- a God that has created an entire reality just so he can have someone to give him flattery and adulation. The truth is that there is far more to the concept of worship than this. Also, when teaching doesn’t cover this point with sound and thorough explanation it sends believers out ill- equipped to answer tough questions from the world.

So what is the purpose of mankind and all life, of all creation and of worship?

There are many verses throughout the Bible that proclaim the purpose for the creation of the cosmos. Simply put, all creation was made to glorify and reveal God. God created the Earth and mankind to reveal himself throughout the universe, to share himself with and through life and to commune with and through mankind and the rest of his creation. God made man special… with a special place and purpose in creation… to tend and take care of his garden and to be holy. Most people that are familiar with Judeo-Christian tradition know the rest of the story… man rebelled. Yet God’s original purpose for man and the rest of the cosmos is still intact, in force and has been reconciled by Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:18-20 says this:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Colossians 1:15-20 says this:

The Supremacy of Christ

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Now let us clarify what worship is. Worship is not meant to be a groveling, flattering experience for man to kiss the feet of a God who needs adulation. Worship has the same purpose that man and all of the rest of creation has- that is to commune with God… to share in God’s presence… to participate with God. Worship is as much for man as for God. Worship is a gift from God for man to share in his presence and his glory, to commune and to experience holiness and be joined together in spirit and in truth.

Jesus himself, the King of all Creation (Col. 1:15-20), spoke these words to a Samaritan woman he encountered at a community well:

John 4:23-24

23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”

Living a life of spirituality that is grounded in truth is worship. Worship is not supposed to be relegated to the few hours a week that we sit in a Church pew. In a sense, all life, all creation, is supposed to exist as worship.

I am always amazed at the resistance and debate that I get when I assert the Christian, people- perhaps even moreso than others, actually do have a role and responibilty to play in the maintenace of the natural world… AKA “the environment”. Too many Christians in my view, have made “the environment” something abstract… something that is “out there” separate from themselves and from God and something thus inconsequential to our walk as Christians and our concerns as men. It is true “the environment” is for mankind to be in stewardship over and for us to use. Yet, how are we to “be fruitful and multiply” if we do not acknowledge, understand and accept the full purpose God has charged us with in the Earth? Caring for the Earth and worshipfully observing our purpose ordained by God also enables us to better love our neighbors and maintain public health, to be witnesses for God’s purposes and better commune prayerfully with God.

How is it that Christians have allowed themselves to be distracted and deterred from this vital role we are meant to play by terms like “tree hugger”? Would you like to see the Church grow and like to see all those “environmental wackos” out there converted to people using their passions for enlarging the Kingdom of God? Then I think its time for the Church to rediscover this aspect of God’s intent for his people and include it as part of a Godly, balanced worldview. We are not talking about becoming environmental activists or engaging in godless naturalism here.

I have often heard it said… even by Christian people that “all of this environmental stuff is mainly a political ploy”. I actually challenge this notion at its core. I remember having this conversation with an Uncle of mine. he simply could not understand why anyone should be concerned about the environment because it will just be burned up someday. I explained to him that his own house was destined for destruction and decay as was his own physical body and asked if this was really a good excuse for not taking care of his home or his body. So you see, this concept of stewardship for our home planet, the very ground of our being, is not just political… its spiritual.

Creation itself bears witness to the glory and nurture and nature of God. The universe itself testifies to God as it contains intelligence, direction and purpose as exemplified in physical growth cycles, birth, youth, maturity and fulfillment. The universe itself testifies to God in that it has moral content… that is to say that there is a right and proper way to live in the universe. It is the task of Godly people to seek that right way to live. Thus, our relationship to the universe is not that its just like some big buffet feast merely for our consumption. Our relationship to it, according to God’s purposes as defined in the Bible, is to be that of stewardship. Every link in the food chain, every species and every part of the various ecosystems of earth has a special and specific purpose in maintianing the overall harmony and balance. so why are we humans here? It should be obvious. We are perhaps the only species capable of taking care of all of the other species and systems that God has placed in our trust.

Hence, the mandate to “be fruitful and multiply”. We simply can’t do that if we live or act irresponsibly with regards to ecology.

Part of loving our neighbors also entails not only enabling godly societies and governments but also healthy environments that have clean air and water.

Too often, Christian people let the idea that this Earth will pass away mis-lead them away from their responsibilities as stewards. They forget that as humans we are the only species on this planet that is capable of protecting the whole- and that was our assignment by God in the beginning. They forget that when we harm the earth, the balance of nature- we do violence to ourselves- to other people- because as humans we are dependant on nature, as the very ground of our being, to feed us, to provide clean water and air and a network of life that is cyclical, nuturing and sustaining to the health and well being of ALL life. Thus- it cannot be denied that nature has order, has natural law and therefore has balance, purpose and even a morality about it. Even though science tries to convince us that life is merely some big bio-chemical accident- science simply cannot come up with any explanation for the existence of purpose and/or moral order. The fact that this Earth will soon pass away in no way relieves us of the responsibility of taking care of it until God decides out time is up. Taking the “it doesn’t matter anyway” approach to the ecosystem God has gifted us with makes about as much sense as not maintaining the health of your household, your own body or the bodies of your children- because “they are just going to die someday anyways”. When we take care of our nest- we take care of everybody else as well as ourselves- is this not a form of loving your neighbor?

To understand the point I am working with here- do a serious word study on the Hebrew terms Ruach and Nephesh.

Consider also the message of a large portion of the Psalms (like Ps 136;104). These reveal that part of reverence and regard for God includes recognition of his majesty as expressed in nature. Such regard is part of holiness, worship and communion with God. We are to love and obey God, love righteousness and hate evil as in disharmony, destruction, chaos and discord. Because God (and Christ in God) is Creator of nature and the director of human history, He controls nature and historical events. Free human sinners may thwart or work against His purposes for creation for the time being, but His ultimate goal for creation and His purpose of redemption shall be achieved. The will of God shall be done on earth, in history, as it is done in Heaven. The Lord’s ultimate goal for his creation is an age of peace, the realization of the kingdom of God on earth
(Ps 46:8-11). To say God is sovereign King of the universe means that HE cannot be controlled or manipulated by man. He hears our laments and complaints but remains free to act how and when He chooses. He saves from destruction and dispenses justice. God’s sovereignty extends over the whole of creation and all the nations (Ps 22:27-28). His kingdom, across all generations, is everlasting. People do not discover God. He reveals himself to them. God pours out his spirit in all of creation and nature. It is to be respected in this light. This respect is part of a worshipful attitude towards God and necessary to any human efforts at the holiness God desires from us. To even attempt holiness we are to put our spirit, our mind, our purposes in accord with God’s intents and purposes and designs. We are to love goodness and godliness and hate even the appearance of evil.

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

13 All has been heard; the end of the matter is: Fear God [revere and worship Him, knowing that He is] and keep His commandments, for this is the whole of man [the full, original purpose of his creation, the object of God’s providence, the root of character, the foundation of all happiness, the adjustment to all inharmonious circumstances and conditions under the sun] and the whole [duty] for every man.

14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it is good or evil.

Laying aside all this high end philosophy and theology. The point I am seeking to make is simple in the most practical of terms. It really comes down to a matter of respect and gratitude. When we humans, especially believers, operate with a sense of entitlement and selfishness like spoiled children running afoul on the master’s property- we cannot enjoy a fully realized or empowered prayer life. Gratitude for every breath, every drink of water and every bite of food is the basis for what I am saying.

Consider these questions;

Who is God of this world?

Who is God of all creation, earth and all matter that it contains?

What is the difference between the concept of “the world” and the definition of all creation and earth?

Who is sovereign over the world and the systems that damage and pollute

Who is the Sovereign over the earth?

I was reminded of this as I drove this morning by a radio broadcast sermon. The sermon by John MacArthur which was otherwise a good one basically dismissed the whole subject of earth and our proper relationship to it in one swoop as “the false religion of environmentalism”. I then did a search on the subject looking for MacArthur’s thoughts on the subject. I was glad to find a little more fleshed out theology on the subject here. I have heard MacArthur touch on this subject via the radio more than once and usually he does not qualify his statements even as much as is found here. Even here, I find his reasoning to be a bit lacking. I respect Mr. MacArthur’s teaching and am quite fond of it. However on these matters I do have caveats.

I will assert again that the proper, Biblical perspective on the issue of environment is key. If we have proper biblical perspective- there is no room for “the false religion of environmentalism”. It is true that when any “ism” or any thing displaces God at the center of life- then it is idolatry. Environmentalism, militarism, democratism, republicanism, anti-abortionism, atheism, communism, humanism, etc. etc. are all then on equal terms when they displace the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and the rules that of conduct that they have set forth as the apex and focus of all existence. I contend that simply dismissing the whole subject of man’s relationship to creation with blanket labels like “the false religion of environmentalism” is a false and possibly even heretical teaching as much as humanism or any other “ism”. I have laid out a pretty simple and yet complex case on this.

The point should also be made that I am in no way asserting that the sin of environmental disregard and destruction is a greater sin than say that of murder or drunkenness or sexual perversion. I am asserting that it is a sin on equal terms with other sin. It goes against God and our fellow man.

Taking the entire subject of ecology and labeling it as godless and as “the false religion of environmentalism” without qualifying it makes about as much sense to me as taking the subject of sex and calling it godless and labeling it as “the false religion of sexism” without qualification.

Just as sex has its purpose and its place in God’s design- so does man’s relationship to the “environment”. Moving outside the proper place and perspective of God’s design for sex is a sin as is doing the same with regards to environment. There are distinctions and they must be acknowledged and understood.

For more on these vital topics also visit these posts:

The Misuse of “Radah” (dominion)

A Biblical View of the Environment

A Christian View of the Environment

The Meaning of Genesis

Why Are We Here?

Project Earth: Preserving the World God Created

Quantum Freewill, the Breath and Spirit of God…

Doing Lunch With The Almighty

Poverty, Pollution and Environmental Racism

Eleven Inherent rules of Corporate Behavior

Is God Green?

Thank You For This Earth

Indigenous Mind

I recently attended the World Missions Workshop at Oklahoma Christian University as I mentioned in the previous post. There I met some good folks and heard many inspiring things. I have exchanged e-mail with a few of the presenters that spoke at the conference now. I expressed my desire to do missions work and plant Churches of Christ among Native American Indians to someone I met there who in turn asked me about my personal history, my family heritage and my desire to reach Indians for Christ. Here is the response I wrote to him, I want to share it with the world:

Well, This is a long story, but I will tell it and tell it as concisely as possible so that you’ll understand my motivations concerning Indians. I am from the suburbs of Oklahoma City, Del City to be specific. I grew up there and now live right next door in Midwest City. I am a life long member of the Del City Church of Christ. I did spend about 12 years in Texas, 3 in Waco and then 9 in Dallas.

I graduated High School way back in 1982 in Del City. I then spent two years at Oklahoma Christian and then moved on to Oklahoma State and OU. My field of study was in Media, Journalism and Radio Television and Film.
I never did get a four year degree. I ended up getting a two year technical degree at Texas State Technical College in Waco. I have many unused college credits and am working on getting into a degree completion program asap. From there I want to get further education in theology and ministry. I had run out of time and money in about 1987 and had entered the work force. In 1987 I lost my support system. My mother and father divorced in 1987 after 29 years of marriage and my maternal grandparents which had lived nearby and always been supportive fell into very poor health and died. All this had a devastating effect on me.

I will return to that, but first let me lay a little background. Before that turn of events my relationship to the lord had been touch and go for quite a while. In high school I was a football player and typical jock. I had discovered beer drinking and women. I carried this affliction with me to OC and with me everywhere for years.
One reason this happened was because I had never been comfortable with the conception of God that I had been raised on.

For starters, I am half Cherokee. Thus, the official version of American history I was presented with at school and even church did not match the political, cultural history of the American Indian as I knew it as a tribal member. At school I was told all about the glory of the U.S. and manifest destiny. At church I was told how God adored the US and had blessed its Christian forefathers and “gifted” them with this land. As a Cherokee I was taught about the other side of the story…The Trail of Tears and the treaty breaking mendacity and graft of these allegedly Christian forefathers. When I visited my Cherokee kin folks I saw the poverty, bitterness, heartbreak and ongoing oppression. It was very difficult for me to understand how God could allegedly condone this situation. I myself harbored confusion, bitterness and rebellion over this. I had also developed a taste for alcohol to fill in the void, so when life got tougher and more disappointing… I drank more. Substance eventually became a real problem.

As I was saying, the Christian God I had been raised on and learned about in school did not hold all that much attraction for me. As I am sure you know, the Church of Christ has in the past been known for its legalism, ultra conservatism and intolerance. In Del City where I grew up there was at the time one the largest Southern Baptist Churches in the country. If you’ll remember, the early eighties saw the rise of the Christian Right and the “reconstructionists” as a political movement with the Southern Baptists leading the charge. As a Cherokee, this reminded me a little bit too much of the politics and policies that led to the near genocide of my Native ancestors. Its also worth mentioning that there is a large Air Force base nearby Del City. As you know, the rise of the “reconstructionist” movement in the Church and American politics and the pro-military-industrial- complex mindset of the Christian-right political movement has gone hand in hand for quite some time now. Add to all that the constant tension between the Church of Christ I attended and the local Southern Baptist crowd and it was a recipe that I was simply not interested in imbibing in. Nowadays, in the toxic political environment that has grown out of all this, when I discuss these matters I am typically labeled as a liberal. I find this ridiculous. The truth is that I am so gospel oriented and biblically orthodox and conservative that people simply think I am liberal because I dare to challenge some of the notions of the so called “Conservatives” that have held sway for 25 plus years now. Enough about that. Simply put, the labels don’t fit.

It was my Cherokee grandfather that eventually pointed me back to Christ- believe it or not. I had always known him as a full blooded, traditional minded Indian. He was also an alcoholic that was abusive to his family and my father in the past. He had also been a “Medicine Man” since the 1940’s. Before, he would never set foot in a “White man’s Church”.

By 1989 my life was out of control and I was exceedingly unhappy. I was estranged from God because of the dynamics and events I wrote about above. Yet, my conscience kept pointing me back to God and telling me I was missing something about Christ and the Church. Then the paranormal activity began. For the sake of brevity I won’t go into all that- but let’s just say some things started happening around me that I did not understand. I eventually learned that it wasn’t just going on around me, but also other members of my family. It wasn’t my imagination. I finally decided to go and talk to my Cherokee grandfather that I had not seen in five years. I knew that he was a Medicine Man and supposedly a spiritual leader that was supposed to know about all this paranormal stuff. I told him stories and poured my heart out to him…looking for answers…looking perhaps for the back door to Christianity and the doorway to Native spirituality. When I was done talking I just looked him in the eye with one question burning on the tip of my tongue.

“What do you know about the spirit world?” was that question.

Before I even asked, he reached into a drawer beside him and pulled out a worn out copy of the Bible. He held it up and said, “The answer to every question and concern you have is in this book.”

That is NOT what I expected to hear. So began my journey back to Christ and my education in spiritual warfare. Reaching my present state of mind, spiritual understanding and relationship with the Triune God has been a long process fraught with many trials and personal weaknesses, but by now, I can keep it to myself no more.

My grandfather went on to tell me how this transformation had come about in him. Due to the years of hard drinking he had had an aneurysm in his esophagus. When it bursted, he had died.. or had one of those near death type experiences. He had been “dead” for several minutes. When he recovered and was aware after a time he asked to see my dad and his half brother, my uncle. Both of them have their own stories and had become Christians many years before. Grandfather told his sons that he wanted to hear more about this Jesus because he had just met him. He said Jesus had told him that he was very sorry about the plight of the Cherokee and all the other Native races… that this had NOT been the will of the Father. He went on to tell him about how Indian people had always known the Father and been loved by him but that now they must “Come through me” to the father.
Grandfather was basically given the same message as in John 14:6-7

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

Grandfather was further told to return to his life and begin to teach other Indians about Him. He was given some tasks to perform and told to instruct his people that they did not have to stop being Indians to follow him and to pray in the name of Christ from now on. I know this is a bit of a fantastic story, but, I have to acknowledge the profound transformation in my grandfather and the results it