Evangelicals and Climate Change: What Does the Future Hold? (Pt. 1)

When it comes to the issue of global warming, the label conservative and liberal won't necessarily help you determine if an evangelical Christian is a proponent or skeptic. Why? Because even within the inner core of conservative evangelical circles people are divided over the issue, with both sides asserting that science is clearly on their side. Take The Christian Post, for example: Dr. Richard Land, CP's executive editor, is among those who are skeptical that humans tip the scales toward global warming, while Dr. Joel C. Hunter, CP's senior editorial adviser, believes controlling human behavior may be in order.

Moreover, the prospects for a global decision to control carbon because of warming have dropped precipitously over the last three years because of a worldwide economic downturn, much to the consternation of evangelical and secular activists alike. Skeptics are delighted. But activists also point to a recent article in The New Yorker, which reports that President Barack Obama will make climate change a priority if he gets elected to a second term.

So which side is correct? And how should Christians view the future of the global warming debate, both inside the Christian community and out?

The Christian Post will publish a multi-part series on evangelicals and climate change to look at both sides of the argument, and, more importantly, to look at the science underlying the debate.

Causes of Global Warming

Before one can properly understand the dynamics of the debate, a proper understanding of what science can and cannot determine is essential. When fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – are burned, they release carbon (mostly in the form of carbon dioxide, but also as carbon monoxide) into the air. Carbon dioxide is an essential component of the atmosphere. Plants need it to grow. Humans and animals release carbon dioxide every time they exhale or pass gas. Plants use the carbon dioxide for photosynthesis and return oxygen to the atmosphere for animals to breathe.

With the burning of fossil fuels, however, humans are increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Changing the atmosphere in this way is causing the Earth to get warmer. The debate is over whether this additional carbon is actually affecting climate negatively enough to warrant regulating carbon emissions.

Molecules in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, trap some of the heat from the sun while the rest escapes back into space. If the amount of heat-trapping molecules is increased, then the Earth's natural "greenhouse effect" will increase, thus trapping more heat than usual. There are also some "multiplier effects" that further contribute to the greenhouse effect, such as additional water vapor in the air caused by warmer temperatures and less heat reflected into the atmosphere because there is less white (snow and ice) on the Earth's surface.

Cyclical Change to the Earth's Temperature

But there is debate over whether humans are taking the earth out of balance. The Earth's temperature has not been steady, even before industrialization. The 10th-14th centuries, for instance, are known as the "Medieval Warm Period." Temperatures in Europe were about one degree Celsius warmer than they are today. This led to greater harvests, which contributed to a flourishing of art, literature and science.

The Medieval Warm Period was followed by the "Little Ice Age" from about 1300 to 1870. Average temperatures during the coldest part of the Little Ice Age were about one degree Celsius colder than they are today. (For more information, see the website of Dr. Jan Oosthoek, an environmental historian at the University of Newcastle in England.)

Part of the debate over global warming has to do with whether the current warming period is mostly due to another warming period in Earth's natural warming/cooling cycles, or if the changes that humans have made to the Earth's atmosphere are pushing the planet beyond its ability to regulate itself. Those who believe the latter argue that the amount of warming taking place warrants considerable action to reduce the amount of carbon humans are putting into the atmosphere. For this series, this will be called the "global warming activist" position. Those who disagree will be called "global warming skeptics." Not because they are skeptical of global warming caused by atmospheric carbon, but because they are skeptical of the need for significant action to reduce atmospheric carbon. This will be discussed in more detail in part 3.

Global Warming Activists

A 2009 survey conducted by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life showed that white evangelical protestants were less likely than any other major religious group to say that the Earth is warming because of human activity (34 percent), followed closely by black protestants (39 percent). By comparison, 58 percent of the unaffiliated, 48 percent of white mainline protestants and 44 percent of white non-Hispanic Catholics said that the Earth is warming because of human activity.

Among evangelicals, there have been two main groups representing either side of this debate. The Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) represents global warming activists while Cornwall Alliance represents global warming skeptics.

The ECI issued a statement, "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action," in 2006 expressing the view that global warming will have significant consequences warranting immediate action to greatly reduce the amount of carbon entering the atmosphere. It called for legislation that would limit carbon dioxide emissions.

"In the United States, the most important immediate step that can be taken at the federal level is to pass and implement national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through cost-effective, market based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade program," the ECI statement reads.

Many evangelical leaders have signed the statement, including Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals (he was not with NAE at the time he signed) and senior pastor of Wooddale Church, Eden Prairie, Minn.; Rob Bell, former senior pastor of Mars Hill, Grandville, Mich.; Andy Crouch, editorial director of The Christian Vision Project for Christianity Today; David Gushee, professor of ethics, Mercer University, Atlanta, Ga.; Joel Hunter, senior pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed, Longwood, Fla. and a senior editorial adviser for The Christian Post; Brian McLaren, Emergent leader; Ron Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action; Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners; and Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church, Lake Forest, Calif.

Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) also represents the global warming activist position. Founded in 1993, EEN publishes Creation Care magazine and speaks broadly on environmental issues. Its executive vice president, Jim Ball, has written a book on climate change called Global Warming and the Risen Lord: Christian Discipleship and Climate Change.

Some politically liberal evangelical organizations, such as Sojourners and Evangelicals for Social Action, can also be counted among the global warming activists.

Global Warming Skeptics

On the global-warming-skeptic side of the debate, The Cornwall Alliance began in 2005 as The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance. The name was changed in 2007 to reflect its founding document, The Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship. The Cornwall Declaration was first drafted by Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, the current spokesperson for the organization, in the fall of 1999 and was initially signed by 35 scholars who met in Cornwall, Conn.

Cornwall Alliance agrees that atmospheric carbon is warming the planet, but does not believe that the warming will be significant enough to warrant efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Further, it argues that those efforts would be harmful to the poor and vulnerable.

In 2010, Cornwall Alliance published its own statement, "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming," which was initially signed by over 450 evangelical scholars, pastors, theologians and ministry leaders. The signers include David Barton, president of Wallbuilders; Joel Belz, founder of World Magazine; Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and executive editor of The Christian Post; Tom Minnery, executive vice president of Focus on the Family; Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council; and R. C. Sproul, Jr., president of Highlands Ministries.

Among evangelical denominations, the Southern Baptist Convention has passed resolutions on climate change that reflect a view similar to the Cornwall Alliance. The Southern Baptist Convention is the nation's largest evangelical denomination but is not a member of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Part two of this series will take a closer look at the activist position and discuss a debate among some of the activists on the best way to present their views. Part three will explain the skeptic's position.

FIND THIS ARTICLE AT: http://www.christianpost.com/news/evangelicals-and-climate-change-what-does-the-future-hold-pt-1-75935/

How the Church Should Respond to Same Sex Marriage

Last month President Obama publicly acknowledged his support for same sex marriage in an interview with ABC News. Shortly before the interview, the president called Dr. Joel Hunter, pastor of Northland Church near Orlando and a spiritual adviser to the president, to tell him about his decision. Hunter told the president that he disagreed with his view on marriage, but the decision would not fracture their friendship.

I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Hunter and his wife in April at the White House Easter Prayer Breakfast. As we walked along the grounds of the White House and West Wing, I asked Dr. Hunter about his friendship with President Obama. He told me what he said to NBC News last week: “I love him and he’s a friend.” We also discussed how his church members have responded to their evangelical pastor being so close with a Democratic president. His response was both wise and full of grace.

So when news broke about President Obama’s “fully evolved” position on same sex marriage, I decided to contact Dr. Hunter about it. Specifically, I wanted to know what he was saying to his congregation about the matter, and how he thinks other Christians should react to the rapidly shifting cultural views on marriage. Once again, his thoughtful remarks struck me as both wise and gracious.

What are you telling people in your church about the President’s announcement last week that he supports same sex marriage?

First, it gives us a wonderful platform to reemphasize the definition of marriage as God has laid it out in Scripture. We are not free to redefine it once God has defined it. Secondly, I am saying we have to be careful not to enter into a culture war. We have gay people in our congregation. They are people made in the image of God, and we want them to come close to him in Christ and follow God. So we have to remember that this is a hurtful issue for many, many people and we have to be very respectful as we talk about it.

Third, we have to remember that this is a leadership issue. The church should not try to manage society. 1 Corinthians 5:12 says “what have we to do with judging outsiders?” Our business is the Church. We have to be careful not to expect people to follow the same values that Christians follow. Even though marriage is a sacred thing to us, that doesn’t mean it is to everybody. So as this conversation continues, we need to differentiate what is expected from a biblical, obedient Christian and what’s expected from someone who is acting from another worldview. They may have every right to make whatever legal arrangements they want for their relationships, but we have to make sure that the church is protected to do what it believes it is right and not violate its conscience.

Rather than fighting against same sex marriage, do you feel we should be working harder to protect religious liberty?

I think the conversation needs to be extended to include protecting religious liberty. Right now the conversation is only about the civil rights of gay people, but let’s also lift up the rights of those who want to practice their religion without being afraid of lawsuits. If gay marriage becomes civil law, then we need protections for the churches that choose not to marry gay couples. We need to know we will not be open to lawsuits. We do not want to be forced into something that would violate our conscience and our faith.

Was that part of your conversation with President Obama?

When the President called me, I told him that his support of gay marriage is going to be perceived by some Christians as a war on religion. I don’t agree with that, but we’re talking about perception here. I also told him there is an opportunity to lift up both sides--respect for gay people and respect for religious practices that limit the covenant of marriage.

How did the President respond?

He is there. The President is a Christian, and he gets it. He knows what we believe about traditional marriage, and he doesn’t want to violate religious conscience. But there is still a lot of conversation that needs to happen to see how this will actually work out. Until we hear statements and see policy that protects churches and religious liberty, then I’m not sure everyone will be reassured.

Are you concerned that this announcement will spark a new round of culture wars?

Yes, I am. It’s starting right now as people are beginning to organize a response, and given the history of some of these leaders it could become another culture war. But we need to be a third voice saying we don’t need to go there.

What advice do you give pastors who are scared to address marriage or gay rights issues because they’ve become so politicized?

I absolutely understand why pastors are reluctant. Some pastors live in fear of upsetting people because they don’t want to lose their jobs, but many of us are also concerned about dividing the congregation. But we still have to talk about God’s “Plan A” for marriage and raise up examples of exemplary marriages. We don’t have to approach this as a culture war and say the nation is going to hell in a hand basket. We can talk about the positive principles of Scripture without attacking those who disagree with us. I think more pastors feel equipped to do that.

What about critics who say the divorce rate within the church is doing more to harm marriage than anything else? Have we lost moral authority on this issue in the culture?

They certainly have a point, and they can point out our failings. But our platform will always be Scripture. We must stand on Scripture with an understanding that what it says is very difficult for people.

FIND THIS ARTICLE AT: http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=87188c8737bc50c1a2fb8e2c9&id=5696f25902&e=d3ef06aa8b

Government Is Not the Enemy, Nor the Only Answer

Last December, the Gallup organization published the results of a poll about what Americans think “will be the greatest threat to the country in the future.” Sixty-four percent of respondents named “big government” as the greatest threat. Almost immediately a conservative blogger declared, “It is official. Government is the enemy.” Commentary’s Peter Wehner read the numbers as “good news for conservatives.” “They re-confirm,” Wehner wrote, “that this remains a center-right nation, one instinctively committed to limited government and the free market.”

Vigilance about government overreach is always wise; it also has its dangers. The problem with jumping from a normal concern about government intrusion to a far-flung conclusion that all governmental growth is bad is that it falls short of logic, practical solutions, and, for Christians, the foundational place of government in God’s design.

A biblical overview stands in contrast to the simplistic but popular objectification of “the government.” Objectifying the government as beneath us is as intellectually lazy and dismissive as objectifying women or races. The government is people. And most of the people I have met who serve in governmental capacities are working hard to fulfill their responsibilities of office. We can argue whether their office is truly needed, but we cannot simply lump them all together as “the enemy.”

The beginning verses of Romans 13 summarize God’s design to use and shape governments. He always had believers involved with government as agitators or advisors. Some of the prophets in both the New Testament (John the Baptist and Paul) and the Old Testament (Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos) offered corrective rebukes to those in power. Others (Joseph, Nehemiah, Esther, Daniel) offered guidance inside the halls of power to both non-Hebrew-God believing leaders and to Hebrew-God believing leaders.

God has instituted government for our well-being. If government policy or leaders are bad, we are to oppose what we deem to be hurtful rather than helpful. But Romans 13:1-7 reveals that government is of God, government is a minister of God, and rulers are servants of God. Spiritually, government is not the enemy.

Logic also declares, “Government is not the enemy.” Jesus taught us that loving our neighbor involves practical help for those in need (Luke 10:30-37). The problems are too big for one faith community or even all faith communities combined to solve—extreme poverty, the ravages of climate change, the horrors of human trafficking, the financial bankruptcy of long-term medical conditions, et al. Logic would tell us that we must enlist various kinds of partners to help with a more comprehensive effort to effectively love our neighbor. Government funding is a necessary and welcome support for those who have no other effective safety net.

It is naive to believe that if the church was doing its job, the government would not have to be in the business of taking care of the needy. Would the church, or all religious institutions together, ever replace government aid? Practically speaking, and even faithfully believing, I say the answer is no.

A small church pastor, Chuck Warnock, summed it up quite nicely. He pointed out that according to figures from the Cato Institute and the Center on Policy and Budget Priorities, the average church would have to double its budget and funnel all its extra giving just to replace the government’s Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program—aka SNAP (formerly called food stamps). What makes this idea surreal is that almost every church is struggling to meet its week-to-week expenses. And these figures do not even address the additional provisions of government assistance: transportation, job training/education health care, et al.

Our church in Longwood, Florida has experienced firsthand the value of partnering with government agencies. For example, last March, when 60 Minutes did a segment on the challenge of homeless school children in our own county, the show highlighted how the school board and local faith communities banded together to set up a food bank at every school in the county. School-church partnerships mean needy kids don’t go hungry on weekends or during breaks when they are away from reliable food sources at their schools. Additionally, in order to break the cycle of homelessness, churches can do what the school and government cannot. In our church we provide a caseworker, often trained with government funds, for each family that wants personal support to work towards financial independence.

In the traditional Christian understanding of government, government is not the enemy; neither is government the answer. Government is a possible partner in completing faith communities’ mission of loving and serving our neighbors in practical ways. In God’s economy, government agencies and faith communities cooperate to maximize what each can provide for the community. God uses governments to provide material support for the well-being of those in need. He uses faith communities to promote the well-doing of those struggling due to circumstances or choices. He intends the right mix of faith communities and government to create a healthier, more loving society.

President Obama Addresses Q Conference

President Obama Welcomes Q from Q Ideas on Vimeo.

Evangelical activism takes different shapes at Q Conference

Gabe Lyons thinks Christian culture warriors are on the wrong path.

His sixth annual Q Conference, which opens Tuesday in Washington, D.C., is an attempt to do things differently. With 700 participants gathered in a stately downtown auditorium, Lyons will play host to a distinct kind of Christian conference, one that seeks a respectful, constructive conversation on a host of issues confronting the nation.

Q, which stands for "question," will allow 30 different culture leaders — from New York Times columnist David Brooks to Florida megachurch pastor Joel Hunter— to present their ideas for the common good during a two-and-a-half day confab.

"We feel we have a role to play in renewing the culture and holding back the effects of sin," said Lyons, founder of Q, a nonprofit organization based in New York City. "We're not to do it in an antagonistic way. We hope to do it in a hopeful way that gives witness to the rest of the world in how things ought to be."

Part Clinton Global Initiative, part TED Talk, the conference is designed to highlight the best ideas rather than condemning the nation's ills. Presenters are allocated three, nine, or 18 minutes to talk. Participants sit at round tables instead of rows, and time is built in for participants to reflect and talk about what they've heard.

That kind of format allows Q to include both Richard Land from the religious right and Jim Wallis from the religious left; both will share the stage Tuesday to discuss areas of potential agreement.

Lyons, a Liberty University graduate, said he realized nine years ago how little most Americans respected Christianity. That realization prompted him to acknowledge that the nation's religious pluralism was here to stay, and that if Christians wanted their views to be given a thoughtful hearing, they had better quit resisting and start creating a culture that allows God's love to break though.

His 2010 book, The Next Christians: The Good News About the End of Christian America, was a kind of manifesto calling Christians to quit cursing the darkness and start lighting a candle.

Land, who heads the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said he appreciates Lyons' point, but thought it was overly simplistic. "Jesus called us to do both; He called us to be salt and light," Land said. "We can walk and chew gum at the same time."

Land said his own denomination, which is often cast as a judgmental culture agitator, is also among the nation's largest providers of emergency disaster relief. In addition, its members give a higher proportion of their incomes to charity.

But Q participants are not about to compromise their evangelical convictions. On Thursday, participants will fan out across Washington to press Congress, the White House and the State Department on issues they deem important.

The difference, Lyons said, is the tone.

"It's more civil, less fear-based," he said. "There's more appreciation for the intellect and a commitment to let the best ideas win out."

The Q Conference will provide a free video stream of its opening day sessions from 9 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. and from 7 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. at www.qideas.org/live/

FIND THIS ARTICLE AT: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-04-09/q-conference-christian-evangelical/54135672/1

Excerpt From "The New Evangelicals: Expanding the Vision of the Common Good"

Joel Hunter is an ordained minister and has a doctorate in Culture and Personality in Pastoral Care. He is presently senior pastor at Northland Church, in Longwood, Florida and in 2009-2010 sat on Obama’s Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Northland is “a church distributed,” meeting in several locations in mid-Florida to serve a widely dispersed community. This requires several pastors to work together, among them the soft-spoken Amer-Indian Vernon Rainwater, who after time in the military, got a degree in social work, then was ordained, and came to Northland in 1990.

The church was originally built in an old roller-skating rink. The growth of the congregation has allowed it to build a larger building next door, with airy hallways, offices, classrooms, conference rooms, café, book store, and sanctuary that seats 3,100 ... in addition to the thousands who attend online. Several screens throughout the church project the pastor as he preaches and they scroll the words to the songs that have replaced more traditional Protestant hymns—which creates something of a church karaoke. A twelve-voice choir and eight-piece band accompany. Additional services are offered on Saturday night and Monday evening, with about one thousand attending each.

The Sunday after Sept. 11th, Northland held a joint online service with a church in Egypt as a protest against polarization between Americans and Arabs. The church also provided volunteers to protect Muslim women from anti-Muslim attacks as they went around town.

In 2009, Becky Hunter, Senior Pastor Joel Hunter’s wife, stepped down from the presidency of Global Pastors’ Wives Network, where, “We get everything, from training women as public speakers to Muslim women who converted to Christianity and need to know what they should study--quickly.” About Northland she says, “No one is obliged to have any particular confession to pray or become a member at Northland--no denominational version--but agreement to historic creeds of the church are required. But if you do join, you are committing to have a ministry aspect, a service aspect, in your life. There’s no ‘pew gum’ here.”

Northland has ministries in: marriage counseling, divorce, grieving, substance abuse, cancer, applying Scriptural values to business, orphans, foster children, the homeless, free food and clothing distribution, the elderly, the deaf, and “people struggling with homosexuality.” Its prison ministry ranges from running prayer services to helping prisoners develop plans for their lives after release. The church has an employment network, several men’s groups, groups for both men and women post-abortion “without judgment,” and discussion groups on faith and science. One Heart, a Northland partner, works with city and county agencies to repair the homes of the area’s poor. The church also has a bowling club, soccer games, a motorcycle group, and classes for children, including a course in Mandarin.

Overseas, the church works with national and international organizations in Egypt, South Africa, Brazil, Sri Lanka, Argentina, China and the Ukraine. For Catholic or Orthodox Ukranians, the appeal of evangelicalism stems, according to Northland co-pastor, Dan Lacich, from evangelical hope and optimism. “The Ukrainians I’ve met view the Orthodox church as defeatist; it just hung on during the Soviet years—‘we’re going to circle the wagons’ rather than ‘we’re going to make a difference.’”

In South Africa, Northland partners with the Vredlust Dutch Reformed church to build a school and do community development in a small town in Swaziland. The project is run, as Lacich put it, “by people who instead of taking a vacation at the beach volunteer for Swaziland. What started out as two camp fires and a kettle is now several classroom buildings, a medical clinic, and we’re doing micro-loans for business start ups.” The funding comes in large part from a young Vredlust couple who earmarked what they needed each year to live and donate everything else they earn to a trust for ministry. Northland contributed an additional thirty to forty thousand dollars in 2009, and overall spends roughly $1.5 million a year on social justice projects, about 20 percent of church income. “We do not tell a community,” Vernon Rainwater notes, “that we know what their problems are and how to fix them. We try to find out what the perspective of the community is, and we often learn more than they do.” Compassion International, another Northland partner, began in 1952 to bring food, clothing and education to children orphaned in the Korean War; today it serves children throughout the developing world. Another partner, With This Ring, uses funds from the sale of jewelry (and other products) to dig clean wells in Africa. It estimates that it cost “one hundred and eighty thousand dollars to save the lives of thirty thousand people in Yendi. That’s six dollars a life—the cost of a latte and a cookie.”

Hunter recalls that he was the kind of kid whose formative religious experiences included getting caught stealing a “men’s magazine” and whose first church skill was coughing loudly enough to cover the sound of opening candy wrappers. At Ohio University, he became active in the Civil Rights movement.

JH: [I] assumed, as we all did, that if we just got the right power in office, we’d be alright. When Dr. King was assassinated, I was thrown into a crisis. The volatility and polarization of that time—we didn’t have graduation ceremonies because we had eight hundred National Guardsmen on campus—could get you caught up in politics without your knowing why you were doing it. I wanted a more stable foundation for political reform, an eternal reason, a deep kind of equality where all God’s children would be cared for because He cared for them. So I committed myself personally to follow Christ as a result of that search for foundational meaning.. I thought I’d go to seminary—though I was sure they’d throw me out as soon as they found out about me. I wasn’t exactly the religious type.”

JH: Dr. King is partially why I identify with Barack Obama. King integrated faith with social policy in a way that benefits the vulnerable—which is our job. That’s Jesus’ reading of his job description in Isaiah 61. My grandparents were always broke because they were always giving their money away. On the other hand, I lived in an all-white town. So my journey was religious and social; it was part of my faith to learn to understand the common good.

In the next ten years we’re going to see more cooperation between those who form public policy from a secular perspective and those who come to it from a religious one. This is part of the maturation of the evangelical movement and in a way a going back to our roots. Christianity started out as a compassionate movement. It grew because we responded to epidemics and catastrophes. We were for abolition, women’s suffrage, and child labor laws. In maturity, you define yourself by what you’re for, by how you can cooperate with those who aren’t like you. There’s an emerging constituency that, while not leaving behind earlier concerns, is putting a major amount of energy into climate change, poverty, justice issues, health issues. You’re seeing a new evangelical maturity.

The iteration of the 1970s was a political, alarmed reaction to the perceived decadence in our culture, like abortion and the extraction of prayer from the public schools. For a couple of decades, the evangelical movement got stuck in this combative—“we have to win”—stance. There were issues where I agreed with [religious right leader Jerry] Falwell, like being pro-life, but the tone was off-putting. There was a silent majority to the silent majority. There came a time when many people started cringing. The AIDS issue—shouldn’t these people be receiving the most compassion and understanding? There are twenty-five thousand children dying every day from poverty. What are we doing about that?

MP: Is this a generational change?

JH: Younger people are less ideological, care less about Democrat and Republican. They just want to get things done. But there’s a lot now that reminds me of the 1960s—inspirational, idealistic. I have lived a long time to see this come about again.

MP: Is it a response to the Bush years?

JH: Let’s say the Bush-Cheney years. Bush went in a compassionate conservative—at least that’s who some of us voted for. But I’m not sure he had the capacity to handle the issues. So he delegated to Cheney.

There is a sense now among evangelicals that we did not think independently; we did not examine or analyze. We went along with this self-protective mentality that says, ‘let’s get them before they get us.’ September eleventh [2001] reinforced this but there already was a good deal of fodder to shape into fear. We’ve developed a consumerist, self-centered culture. That feeds into pre-emptive war because we fear that ‘they’re going to take away what I have.’ Or ‘Government programs are going to take away my hard-earned dollars.’ There are remnants of that now, in right-wing talk radio-- Limbaugh, Hannity, Michael Savage—just awful.

Here’s what I think the enemy is: the luxury of being simplistic, of not understanding how complex problems are and how much cooperation is required to solve them. Evangelicals went through a period where we formed homogeneous affinity groups. You cloister together and think everybody else is the enemy. One reason I’m thrilled with Obama’s presidency is that he likes a broad spectrum of perspectives. Out of those he will glean a practical solution good for everyone. He’s got the intellectual capacity to handle the job.

MP: Is your congregation bi-partisan?

JH: We’re nearly half and half.

MP: If you want to contribute to society but not marry a political party, how does that work?

JH: If you’re a Christian and want to make a difference in the world you ask: what is the Biblical basis for what I do? What would Jesus do? We can’t bank on winning or losing political battles. That’s not what the kingdom of God depends on.

We, being the humans we are, will always be tempted to make spiritual progress by political means--to use power in order to make others have our values. But Christians have to be careful to exemplify what we believe is right and then let it go. There three hundred million people in this country. I am one voice.

What I saw on the religious right was a lot of religious arrogance. Those who are theocrats—the Reconstructionists who insist that Biblical mandates be law for everybody-- will always believe they’re losing if they don’t get their way. We believe we are winning if we have the freedom to give our opinion along with everybody else. We don’t need to have our way. God doesn’t call us to be “successful”; he calls us to be faithful.

MP: If you are one voice, how do you work with other voices?

JH: We have extensive partnerships in our work on poverty, medical clinics, AIDS, housing. We partner with governments all over the world. Locally, when we have convocations on torture, creation care, and poverty, I ask for broad leadership: the bishop of the Catholic church, the head of the Islamic Society, a rabbi. I ask them to explain, from the perspective of their Scriptures, why this issue is important. Everybody begins to understand that “they” have values like I do and that this issue is too big for any one group to solve.

I was on the board of Jobs Partnership of Central Florida. The state government offered the finances to train the unemployed, and individual church-people became volunteer sponsors for each unemployed person. The sponsors said, “If your kid gets sick, we’ll take him or her to the doctor. If your car breaks down, we’ll get you to work and fix the flat problem.” Since the business community was getting trained employees with backup support systems, they committed to taking the trainees into jobs where they could move into higher-paying ranks. Business people got what they needed. Church people were able to love like they needed to love. Government got people off of welfare into jobs.

Of course, there are still a lot of barriers to working together—not willful ones but we’ve gotten used to operating on our own realms. Having said that, we specifically invite the African American church, other churches and faith communities into much of what that we do. We have a few that are our long-time partners. Same is true for our missions in other countries. We want to form partnerships—long term partnerships with people who are different from they way we are. Westerners have a view of the Gospel that’s very different from someone in South America, China or Africa. We need that kind of cross-pollination.

MP: In cooperative projects, how do you handle the finances?

JH: A church cannot take government funds into the church’s general budget. So for instance, in our partnership with the county to renovate houses in poor areas, they buy the supplies and the churches bring in the [volunteer] craftsmen. The county pays for the materials; the money never comes to us.

MP: What could mess up this picture of inter-group and church-state cooperation?

JH: Militancy from one powerful group. If any group gets too much power, there is a tendency to suppress others. But as we continue listening with respect to multiple perspectives, we will begin to trust each other. I’ve been in conversations with organizations our government can’t even talk to—like Hezbollah. The enemy is never as scary or threatening up close.

What also can sabotage dialogue is a structure where voices present their case to the governing authority but never have to listen to others. If you have a president who says, “give me one group at a time,” the group comes in, presents its case, and if things don’t go down their way, they’re furious. But if all the groups sit together and hear what other people are saying, then they begin to see where others are coming from.

MP: How do you answer those who think churches don’t belong in political discussion?

JH: We could diffuse some of the alarm if we think in terms of cooperation rather than “religion against secularism.” Think more in terms of cooperation on projects rather than compromise on beliefs. We need to get away from the zero-sum game that says, if we allow them their voice, it will take away from what I have.

MP: What’s your response to those who say, “We don’t want to dialogue with certain religious groups, like those that commit honor killings.”

JH: You take care of destructive behavior by law. All law is codified values, of course. But every society must decide what protecting its citizens entails. Yet you don’t disenfranchise an entire faith group because of some of the people in it. You know the saying, you keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

The counter-intuitive wisdom here is that the very people you don’t want to talk to are the people you need to talk to the most. You start out by saying that this is going to be tough. But you never make any progress until you engage in those conversations. At least you’re building relationships and that enhances the probability of reaching consensus.

There’s a very important conversation to be had with secular authorities about Muslims not being able to wear certain types of dress or Christians not being able to wear a cross of a certain size. Dialogue is necessary no matter how tough it is. Boundaries are not just dividing points. They are connecting points. They are not where the conversation ends but where it begins.

Used with permission. By Marcia Pally Copyright 2011, Eerdmans Publishing http://www.amazon.com/New-Evangelicals-Expanding-Vision-Common/dp/0802866409

Caring for the Environment Is a Mandate From God

There are plenty of practical reasons to be concerned about the environment and unchecked growth. Sprawl leads to higher taxes. A drained aquifer could lead to water rationing and higher costs. Pollution affects all manner of living things, from plants to humans.

Still, those reasons aren't enough for everyone.

So the Rev. Joel Hunter offers people of Christian faith another reason to care for our natural resources — because God commands it. "It was our first commandment when we were placed down here: Take care of the garden." Hunter said. "Really, it's a matter of obedience." READ MORE

Whatever Happened to the Evangelical-Environmental Alliance?

In the fall of 2005, Joel Hunter, the senior pastor of a 12,000-member megachurch in central Florida, signed on to the Evangelical Climate Initiative—a landmark public statement acknowledging that human actions were causing the Earth to warm. The central message—“creation care,” as it became known—was that the biblical commandment to protect God’s creation was relevant to modern-day environmental issues. Soon, Hunter had distributed 20,000 creation care pamphlets to pastors around the country, and his parishioners were sifting through garbage to see how much trash his church produced. At the time, a slew of news articles took Hunter’s commitment as a sign that environmentalism could become an ethical rather than a political issue. “Hunter and others like him,” wrote The Washington Post, “have begun to reshape the politics around climate change.” Today, with climate change skepticism hitting a new high, the same sentiment seems laughable. Whatever happened to the evangelical-environmental alliance?

Between 2006 to 2008, creation care seemed poised to transform evangelical politics. 86 evangelical leaders initially signed the Climate Initiative in 2006—it had more than 100 endorsers by the next year. Rod Dreher, a conservative columnist for The Dallas Morning News and a frequent National Review contributor, published a widely discussed book called Crunchy Cons in 2006; its lengthy subtitle celebrated “evangelical free-range farmers” among other conservative environmental types. In 2008, 45 members of the Southern Baptist Convention signed a statement saying they had been “too timid” on the issue of climate change, Pat Robertson appeared in a commercial about environmental issues with Al Sharpton, and Mike Huckabee—initially the favorite candidate of middle-America evangelicals in 2008—spoke openly about his global warming concerns.

The popularity of creation care was also taken as a sign that evangelicals cared about the environment andthat the GOP’s stranglehold on the evangelical vote might be loosening. Amy Sullivan argued this for The New Republic in 2006, and E.J. Dionne opined in 2007 that creation care was part of a larger reformation “disentangling a great religious movement from a partisan political machine.” In The New Yorker, Frances Fitzgerald argued that creation care advocates might change the GOP “beyond the recognition of Karl Rove.” When Obama captured five points more than John Kerry of the white evangelical vote, it was seen as an additional sign of shifting allegiances.

However, in late 2008, creation care’s momentum slowed, and the evangelical-GOP alliance grew stronger. Perhaps the first sign that creation care was sputtering was the abrupt departure from the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) of its chief lobbyist, Richard Cizik, the leading force behind the Evangelical Climate Initiative. Cizik was forced out after he voiced support for civil unions between gays and lesbians, but he and his critics both traced the roots of his ouster to his strident support of environmental issues. At the time, Cizik’s departure was regarded as a mere hiccup. But, in fact, it was a sign of a backlash that would be bolstered by the rise of the Tea Party, increased scientific skepticism, and the faltering economy.

The rise of the Tea Party after 2008 was detrimental to evangelical environmentalism for two main reasons: It commanded the attention of the Republican Partyand it made room for climate change skeptics. Although it’s impossible to say if politicians instigated or reacted to the increased climate change skepticism associated with the rise of the Tea Party, by late 2009 evangelical climate skeptics were out in full force—climate change denier Senator Jim Inhofe called it “the year of the skeptic.” Tea Party senate candidates Marco Rubio, Joe Miller, Ken Buck, Christine O’Donnell, Ron Johnson, and Sharron Angle—who called manmade climate change the “mantra of the left”—all proudly advertised their climate change skepticism in the 2010 GOP primaries. Meanwhile, moderate Republican candidates, such as Illinois’s Mark Kirk, renounced their votes for cap-and-trade or were booed by Tea Party throngs for defending them. Today, polls show Tea Partiers are markedly less likely than any voter group to believe that humans were causing global warming—or that the Earth is warming at all.

A new bout of skepticism over the actual science of climate change reinforced these political positions. Creationism and a “God is in charge” belief became prominent again, along with a sense that any attempt to take climate change seriously was somehow unfaithful—even unjust. At a December 2009 Heritage Foundation event, Craig Mitchell, a Southern Baptist theologian, derided cap-and-trade as “immoral,” while other evangelical leaders blasted the evidence for climate change. Measures to address climate change were disfavored for supposedly placing burdens on poorer nations. (Ironically, concern for poorer nations at risk due to climate change had been one of the main selling points for creation care.) The Cornwall Alliance (an influential evangelical group that bills its mission as “the Stewardship of Creation”) released a declaration that claimed the “Earth and its ecosystems … are robust, resilient, self-regulating. … Earth’s climate system is no exception.” A year later, the group put out “Resisting the Green Dragon,” a 12-part DVD series decrying the environmental movement. Scientific skepticism bled into cultural skepticism. Even among moderate evangelicals, creation care struggled against general ambivalence toward environment issues—rooted in opposition to the countercultural identity that American environmentalism gained in the 1970s. As David P. Gushee, one of the authors of the Evangelical Climate Initiative, put it: To them, “it’s Pocahontas talking to spirits in the trees,” and “flower-power.”

Finally, there was the economy. Once it nosedived, it became hard for anyone to talk about policy changes with significant up-front costs. Hunter points to it as one of the main reasons why his message didn’t take among members of his own church—parishioners were just too distracted by the downturn. The circa-2006 hope that pro-business evangelicals might get behind the cost-saving appeal of conservation disappeared in the face of arguments that environmental regulations would freeze economic growth. A recent Nature article points out that the Heartland Institute, a think tank that has spent millions of dollars on coordinated attacks on climate change science, mostly focuses on the economic costs of environmentalism. “I would argue that conservation … is not a luxury, but a moral imperative,” Rod Dreher, the Crunchy Cons author, wrote to me in an e-mail. “I would also get exactly nowhere with that argument among conservatives in this economy.”

It’s true that today the optimism of 2005 is nowhere to be found. The mood has shifted so far that GOP candidates must not only renounce any environmentally friendly policies, they must also explain their past support for them. As Grover Norquist recently put it, formerly environmentally-minded GOP candidates “better have an explanation, an excuse, or a mea culpa.” Despite all the theories that environmentalism might untie the GOP-evangelical alliance, most of the white evangelical vote, for now, remains inextricably linked to the Republican Party. A glum Hunter told me that he holds out hope for the next generation, conceding that his generation probably won’t be shaking up the climate change debate like they’d hoped. The old fault lines, which Cizik told The New Republic in 2006 were “no more,” are still very much alive.

Molly Redden is a reporter-researcher at The New Republic.

Source URL: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/97007/evangelical-climate-initiative-creation-care

Saving the Earth Is New Mission at More Churches

At Christ Church Unity south of Orlando, they've replaced paper napkins with handmade cloth napkins, plastic forks and knives with metal utensils, disposable plates with china plates.

buying viagra

Leftover food scraped from the plates is fed to a church member's pig, Mr. Greengenes.

Northland, A Church Distributed is competing to become one of the most energy-efficient facilities in the United States in a contest sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In the past year, the Longwood megachurch has reduced its monthly electric bill by more than $500 a month.

Members of Winter Park Presbyterian Church grow food for the needy in a 28-plot community garden on church grounds.

In churches — and synagogues and mosques — across the country, saving the planet is becoming as important as saving souls. Nearly every religion, and almost every denomination, has added protecting the environment as a religious tenet.

"We've seen this explosion of activity at the individual and congregational level that is really a sign that this is firmly centered in terms of who we are as a religious people," said Matthew Anderson-Stembridge, executive director of National Religious Partnership for the Environment, a coalition of Jewish and Christian denominations formed in the early 1990s.

The greening of the church comes at the same time that concern for the environment is becoming a part of the cultural mainstream. Driving hybrid cars, unplugging household appliances, replacing disposable plastic water bottles with reusable metal ones, andseparating household trash into recyclables and garbage are no longer the intellectual property of hippies, tree huggers and communes.

"The surprising thing for me is there seems to be some consensus. We are seeing very conservative Protestant denominations embracing Earth care, and you are seeing some mainline, more-liberal denominations," said Darby Ray, associate professor of religious studies at Millsaps College in Jackson, Miss.

In many ways, the change in the culture has produced a change in theology — a rethinking and reinterpretation of Scripture from a belief that God intended mankind to exploit the Earth for its own benefit to mankind's obligation to protect and preserve the Earth that God created. Much of the push for going green has come from the people in the pews rather than the people behind the pulpit, said Gerald Smith, religion professor at Sewanee: TheUniversity of the South in Sewanee, Tenn.

"I think it's congregation-driven rather than leadership-driven. This is what people are bringing to the church," Smith said.

But it also has come from church leaders, such as Northland pastor Joel Hunter, who was an early convert among influential evangelists in advocating saving the Earth.

"The moral issues of our times, including environmental care, are a part of the practice of our faith and thus very important," Hunter said, but added that nothing surpasses the importance of saving souls.

At Northland, employees put into practice what Hunter peaches. Each department looks for ways to recycle, reduce and reuse.

Printer paper is reused three times before it ends up in the recycling bin. Lights and air conditioning are turned off in the balcony of the church for services that are less than capacity, and the whole building is closed on Fridays. The children's ministry has a team that sorts through the trash cans to separate the recyclable paper, plastic and glass from the garbage. The information-technology department refurbishes and recycles old computers and other electronics.

Northland is following in the footsteps of another megachurch, First Baptist Orlando, which has won Energy Star recognition from the EPA for its reduced electricity use and recycling.

Though Northland's "creation care team" is comprised primarily of church employees, Christ Church Unity's "green team" is made up of members of the congregation. Based on green-team recommendations, the church uses a custom-made, 100-gallon rain barrel to water the church grounds, recycles Sunday programs, sells metal water bottles in the church bookstore to replace plastic bottles, and reminds everyone leaving a church restroom to turn off the lights.

Because of its efforts, the congregation was recognized as the first Unity church in the United States to be designated as certifiably "green."

"It's more than a buzzword or a popular trend with us. It shows up in everything we do," said Kathy Beasley, director of pastoral care.

Since March, Orange County has been contacting religious organizations on how they can save the planet and money at the same time.

"Our goal is to encourage the faith-based organizations to simply reduce their utility bills by 30 percent and then get into recycling and reusing," said Chris Kuebler, the county's faith-based community-outreach coordinator.

One of the churches Kuebler contacted was Winter Park Presbyterian. Senior pastor Lawrence Cuthill said his church is looking at installing solar panels to save energy. But the biggest step the church has taken is a community garden, which represents the growing spiritual commitment among many faith-based organizations to cultivate the Earth instead of just taking whatever resources it has to offer.

"We are part of that movement that says we need to be good stewards of the Earth," Cuthill said. "Our calling is not to exploit the garden, but to keep the garden."

by Jeff Kunerth, jkunerth@tribune.com or 407-420-5392

FIND THIS ARTICLE AT: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-save-the-earth-at-church-20110813,0,3410208.story

Why Creation Care Matters to Our Faith

Why Creation Care Matters to Our Faith from Northland Church on Vimeo.

Dr. Joel C. Hunter speaks to Central Florida's faith community on May 4 at Leu Gardens. Sponsored by Central Florida Energy Efficiency Alliance (CFEEA).