New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Home arrow News arrow Merritt, Gushee: On creation care, evangelicals must move toward 'we'
 
Merritt, Gushee: On creation care, evangelicals must move toward 'we' Print E-mail
By Mark Vanderhoek   
Tuesday, November 03, 2009

MACON, Ga. (ABP) -- American Christians must move beyond a theology of “me” to a theology of “we” in order to play a meaningful role in creation care, according to speakers at a two-day conference recently held Oct. 29-31 on the campus of Mercer University in Macon, Ga.

Dubbed “Caring for Creation: A Scientific and Theological Response,” the meeting was the second in a series jointly sponsored by Mercer and Harvard Medical School’s Center for Health and the Global Environment. The first was held on Mercer’s Atlanta campus in February.

The latest gathering included sessions where speakers focused their messages on inspiring those of faith to engage with science, and scientists to engage with the faithful, on caring for the Earth.

At the conference’s opening session, two prominent Baptist leaders outlined trends that are changing the debate on caring for the environment among Christians. David Gushee, a Mercer Christian-ethics professor; and Jonathan Merritt, author of the forthcoming book Green Like God and son of a former Southern Baptist Convention president, addressed the gathered.

Adding creation care to the agenda for Christians will take new theology and a new outlook on caring for God’s creation, Gushee noted (as he did in one of his recent columns for Associated Baptist press). The theological narratives of current American evangelicals are almost entirely personal -- “God and I,” he noted.

David Gushee (right) and Jonathan Merritt answer questions following their session at Mercer University’s Caring for Creation Conference, on Oct. 29. (PHOTO/Mercer)

Moving from individualistic faith

Using the analogy of a fictional “Billy Christian” -- a typical white evangelical Christian -- Gushee highlighted the obstacles in moving Billy from his individualistic faith in Christ to a more cosmic and holistic view of faith. “God’s redemptive purposes go beyond human beings. They extend to the whole created order,” Gushee said, and Billy must be swayed by the realization that “the God who made the whole world has intentions for the whole world.”

Billy must also be persuaded to read about God’s call to care for creation while he is on Earth, Gushee said. By focusing his faith on his own time and place rather than heaven, Billy will be inspired to a more global vision.

“We must help Billy transition to a social and global moral vision, not just a personal or interpersonal one,” Gushee said. “Maybe when the other theological work is done, Billy will come to see that what God is looking for in followers of Christ is a global Kingdom-of-God vision, a vision of comprehensive love of neighbors and of self, a vision of doing unto others as we would have ourselves done by. And if you think about the world as it is, this is about more than being a nice person and being honest at work. It’s about caring that others can’t breathe clean air, can’t drink clean water, can’t eat safe food, and can’t feed their babies safe breast milk because we have been bad stewards of God’s creation.”

Merritt's creation-care journey

Merritt began his quest to do just that while still in seminary, inspired by the realization that God’s creation is part of what theologians call “general revelation,” and the idea that the destruction of creation was akin to tearing pages from God’s specific revelation, the Bible.

As a result, Merritt had a change of heart, and felt called to alter his habits and his faith. He worked with others to draft the “Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change.” The declaration was simple and had a number of prominent signatories. It called on Southern Baptists to refocus themselves on urgent environmental problems as a natural outgrowth of their doctrinal stances.

Jonathan Merritt delivers an address at Mercer University’s Caring for Creation Conference on Oct. 29. (PHOTO/Mercer)

The release of the document was followed immediately by silence and even strong denunciations from some prominent Southern Baptists, as well as personal attacks, Merritt said. The criticism was stunning, he said -- but it also confirmed that he was doing the work he was supposed to do.

Merritt set out to examine the obstacles to creating a more creation-focused evangelical message. Among the three most prominent barriers, he said, are misguided theology, a misinformed constituency and misplaced hope.

“Many teachers and pastors are simply not responding. Some are doing nothing. Churches that claim to teach the whole Bible sheepishly avoid or brush over the many passages that we’ve heard tonight that reveal God’s intentions for this Earth,” Merritt said.

On the misinformation side, he said the explosion of communications technology can elevate “experts” in every field who are far from expert. He urged Christian leaders and scientists to maintain “occupational integrity” and to beware of those who would spread misinformation about things like climate change.

“Neither viewership of Fox News nor ownership of a copy of An Inconvenient Truth makes you an expert,” Merritt said. “We have to do the hard work. We have to sometimes trust the experts, because a lot of us don’t have time to be experts. Christian communities should be places of honesty and integrity. Christian people should be the last people to accept contrarian information without doing the hard work of researching the validity of the claims being made.”

Evangelicals' political alliances

The final obstacle is misplaced hope in a political form of religion, Merritt noted. The morphing of Christian faith into a political movement in the late 20th century has had ramifications for the climate-change debate, he said.

“Americans began to choose sides. So the Right stole God and the Left stole green,” Merritt said. “And you almost never, until recently, saw those two words in the same sentence. One side did a lot of talking about green and the other side did a lot of talking about God, but you had to wonder sometimes, does God have anything to say about green? They were totally separated, entrapped.

“The way Christians started to talk about God began to change. Instead of God being a loving being who wrapped himself in flesh in order to bring peace to the entire cosmos ... many spoke of God as an American patriot who has a disproportionate stake in our federal government’s success. This God was not building a global kingdom on Earth, or an other-worldy kingdom beyond Earth. This God was building and blessing an American kingdom.”

A new generation of young evangelicals is realizing the paradoxes of the past, Merritt said, and is taking these challenges head on. He encouraged the audience of more than 800 to take this challenge on as well.

“At the intersection of faith and facts we sit at the feet of a green God who has placed the burden of action squarely on our shoulders,” Merritt said. “So don’t give in to the temptation to get angry or haughty. Stay humble. Constantly confess the intellectual and theological arrogance in your heart. Open up your mind to these conversations. Rest assured that inside each of us, beginning with me, there is a bulbous cyst of egotism yet to be brought under the lance of God’s grace. Don’t become callous or bitter because of those who disagree with you. Don’t be discouraged. I can tell you -- because I’ve traveled around the country and talked to people about it -- God is on the move, God’s people are on the move, transition is occurring, people are waking up to these issues, we are engaging them, and in some cases now leading these conversations.”

-30-

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it   is director of media relations at Mercer University.

 

Previous ABP stories:

Mercer conference calls Christians to 'creation care' (3/3/09)

Leaders’ statement on climate change suggests Southern Baptist divide (3/11/08)

 





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (10)Add Comment
response
written by Dr. J, November 03, 2009
More social gospel dribble from Gushee (and Merritt). I thought I read somewhere this world will pass away. Also, I don't remember reading anywhere in the Scripture that Jesus died to save the earth. Maybe we should build a place to worship the creation. But of course, we would need to take care not to harm the environment during our construction efforts. Then we should all stop eating meat. Methane gas is much more destructive than CO2. Merritt made a very disgusting statement: "we sit at the feet of a green God".
Long way to go
written by iangpacker, November 04, 2009
Thanks for the summary of the conference, Mark.

Gushee and Merritt have a long way to go in their endeavours in the United States if the response by 'Dr. J' is anything to go by. 'Dr. J' is at least to be congratulated for drawing together in one short response almost every cliche, slur or absurdity one hears in response to a biblical theological approach to these issues.

'Social gospel' name-calling is used to anyone who imagines that God's revelation to humanity might actually speak to the whole of our lives... or perhaps anyone who thinks that such revelation doesn't somehow match up with a particular neo-conservative agenda?

Quoting 'passing away' phrases with no sense of context are easily countered by earth's "foundations stand forever". Apocalyptic language, regularly employed by the New Testament, refers to the passing of the present order of things--the "present evil age". 'Dr J' might want to consult Paul a bit closer, who sees Jesus as fulfilling the promises to Israel and these include the healing of creation, not its obliteration - so see Romans 8:18-25

Regarding the death of Jesus - well, any Evangelical worth his or her salt knows that it is the death and resurrection of Jesus that saves us (if Christ is not raised... there's no salvation) and the resurrection of Jesus is the beginning of 'new creation' - resurrection is the paradigm of our salvation. But Jesus' death involves so many things, including the reconciliation of all things tthrough the death of the one through whom all things were made (Colossians 1). It's a shame that 'Dr J' needs 'a verse' to spell it out for him.

Then the absurdity - concern with the creation we were made to inhabit and express God's loving dominion over can only be interpreted as idolatry by wresting Paul's comments in Romans 1 out of context. God forbid that 'Dr J' loves his mother, likes a dog or waters plants - idolater!

Merritt made a "very disgusting comment"? How so?

A long way to go indeed...
response to iangpacker
written by Dr. J, November 04, 2009
I agree. You have a long way to go to convince evangelical conservatives that we are to adapt our Christian belief system to include voodoo science and demeaning characterizations of our Lord- "Green God"-; oh and worship mother earth. Please don't spell anything out for me or suggest I consult anything you suggest. I know you are wiser and more intelligent than me. This is made clear by your ability to obfuscate the Gospel. I prefer to reach my own conclusions- as inadequate as they may be.
My God is capable of creating a new earth in a moment of thought. I don't really believe his Son would die on the cross (and resurrect- I want to make sure I am clear to the much wiser) in order for his followers to promote a Gospel of save mother earth by green initiatives and sitting at the feet of a green god. Of course, you are welcome to your opinions and interpretations as am I. And I do find your attempts to characterize me as an evangelical not worth my salt as pathetic and destructive.
re response to iangpacker
written by iangpacker, November 05, 2009
'Dr J'

As an Evangelical who is theologically conservative but not a 'neo-conservative' nor 'a liberal', I find no need to "adapt our Christian belief system" to anything.

Whether or not the science you refer to as "voodoo science" is just that (or not) is a matter for the scientists to conclude in their field of expertise and has nothing to do with the essence of Christian faith. But it is a shame you seem to be unable to say anything without that kind of dismissive language. That sounds more like ideology than science to me. Whatever the outcome, we must be prepared to act ethically, and that transcends our private concerns and has implications for our way of life, like it or not.

Why on earth you get worked up over the characterization of our Lord as 'green' in a discussion of whether God cares about our treatment of the earth is beyond me. It is simply an attention-getting point about our dominion and stewardship responsibilities rather than something you might add to a creed or a systematic theology.

It is your equation of concern about how we live in God's world with "worship [of] mother earth" that is "pathetic and destructive." And with each reiteration of such wilful lies, I indeed will spell out an alternative that is grounded in Scripture and the Lordship of Jesus Christ. How is anything I said an obfuscation of the Gospel? Who knows? Perhaps you, O sarcastic one, are wiser and more intelligent than me. Perhaps you will enlighten me with information rather than defamation. Yes, you can reach your own conclusions, inadequate as they are. But if you wish to make slurs and misrepresentations in public, you will get responses.

My God is also capable of creating a new earth in a moment of thought. The question is not about what God is capable of doing but what God has promised to do. But you've clearly missed the point about resurrection, too caught up in being offended. And I don't see anyone suggesting that the followers of Jesus are to "promote a Gospel of save mother earth by green initiatives." More lies.

You are probably just a good American conservative evangelical after all, unable to constructively deal with a different point of view.
We could go on all day arguing about this...
written by fgluck, November 05, 2009
And we do! I would recommend that each of us as believers ask ourselves the following questions:

1) As a follower of God, do I love the things that He does? If I believe that he created the earth, shouldn't I care for and love His Creation?

2) Is what I do to the God's creation (the earth) -- how I live, what I consume -- an illustration of how much I love my neighbor? To put it another way, what if everyone on earth lived like I do would that be a good thing?

3) Lots of things we have "pass away". My car, my house, my body and even my children will eventually pass away. Does that mean I treat these things poorly during the time that God gives me stewardship over them or do I steward them with care and love and respect.

4) Are things like they were back in the Garden of Eden when we had complete relationship with God, complete relationship with ourselves, complete relationships with others and complete relationship with the earth? (Gen 1-3) If they are not, how do we work to restore and reconcile these relationship? Can we address only a few of them or to be completely reconciled to God, must we reconcile all the relationships.
response
written by Dr. J, November 05, 2009
You guys have all the answers. You bet! I just don't agree. My reconciliation with the Lord has nothing to do with my views regarding climate change. I've tried to base my theology on Scripture and to not be distracted by extraneous item. Also, my love for my neighbor compels me to object to nonsensical CO2 reduction measures that will cause my neighbor to be unable to afford monthly power bills- especially when the climate is getting cooler- those bills will skyrocket with the global warming thing going on. I sure hope you guys come up with a process to reduce volcanic eruptions- or maybe make countries with active volcanoes pay for carbon offsets. Is it tough to love volcanoes? One good volcano will cause more CO2 than a generation of SUV drivers. If you really cared about climate change, you would quit eating meat. Methane is more destructive than CO2. Thank goodness we can disagree without being disagreeable.
loving god by loving our neighbor
written by zdbu, November 05, 2009
I just came across this article and was a bit disheartened by the comments. Not because of the disagreements, but the caustic rhetoric. I would hope that we could debate and disagree in a more loving manner, but I know I'm overly idealistic.

Regarding the issues, I would like to respond to a comment made by Dr. J in his last post: "My reconciliation with the Lord has nothing to do with my views regarding climate change." I hope this comes across as an effort at constructive dialogue.

When asked what are the two greatest commandments, Jesus said it is to love God and to love our neighbor. Which begs the question, how do we show that we love God except by being obedient to God's commandments? To put it another way, how do we show love for God except by loving our neighbor? 1 John 4.20 seems to support this idea that we can only demonstrate our love for God through out love for our neighbor: "For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen."

If we look at the creation care issue from this perspective, I believe it allows us to move beyond the disagreements so prevalent over interpreting the scientific data. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of scientists agree that the earth is going through a period of warming. We could debate the causes endlessly, or we could ask whether our present actions in relationship to the environment are showing love toward our neighbor (defining neighbor in this context, as the future inhabitants of this planet after we are gone). This seems a more constructive dialogue.

In my view, we have a global system that is outstripping the carrying capacity of the world. Our usage of the world's resources is outstripping the renewal processes of the world. Like a farmer who over plants the fields, over time we will destroy an otherwise fruitful resource. We have to scale back our use of the natural resources to fit the cycles of renewal that God created. Our commission as human beings in Genesis is to take care of creation not exploit it to our own ends. Putting this in the context of the two greatest commandments, I believe that we are failing to love our neighbors by perpetuating this system that is not sustainable long term and will ruin the earth for future inhabitants. The debate, then, does not have to be about global warming or any other scientific discussion, it can be one of justice and solidarity and love. This is what Gushee and Merritt seem to be trying to accomplish by reminding people that our reconciliation with God is influenced by and predicated upon our reconciliation with our neighbor. Isn't this what Jesus was getting at in Matthew 25 when our eternal destiny is determined by how we treated our neighbor, the least of these?

So, I would agree with Dr. J in that reconciliation with God doesn't related to one's views on the data regarding climate change, but our role in degrading the world for its future inhabitants has everything to do with our reconciliation with God. Because salvation is about a holistic redemption, a renewal of creation not destroying this world and starting all over again. This is why the apostle Paul speaks of the creation groaning for its coming redemption in Romans 8. Why would it groan awaiting the coming healing of all things if it will be destroyed. I think we find a way forward by moving the discussion from debates about science to a discussion about loving God by loving our neighbor by implementing more sustainable practices.
Censors, Hypocrites, Liberals...
written by Mark Osgatharp, November 05, 2009

Well, I guess the censors didn't like my comments so they removed them. Just another example of the wanton hypocrisy of the Baptist left.

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
...
written by Big Daddy Weave, November 06, 2009
Mark Osgatharp,

Remind us all of how many Baptist blogs, websites and message boards you have had been banned from or had your comments deleted? I do bet you hold the record. Instead of blaming "Liberals," you might oughta look in the mirror, Moz.
more localism and clearer property rights needed
written by Xenophon, November 06, 2009
I completely agree with Dr. Gushee and Mr. Merritt that we do need to take active steps to conserve our natural environment, and, I would add, our social environment as well. Conservatives should not be afraid of entering this arena and speak up in favor of natural conservation.

I do, however, believe that Dr. Gushee and Mr. Merritt are taking the exactly wrong tack in approaching environmental issues. What we need is not more statism and internationalism, but rather more localism. When people see that they must live in the filth that they have created for themselves to live in, then they will be more likely to become supportive of efforts to control pollution. When property rights for the air and water can be established, then people who are doing the polluting will have to bear the cost of pollution and thereby create less of it. This is the advantage of the "cap and trade" proposal that establishes property rights to air and water that previously were not as clearly defined. This proposal also has the advantage of building in the flexibility of allowing the businesses to trade their pollution allotments, which are held to a manageable level overall, so that the firms best able to control their pollution can sell their allotments to those firms that find it more costly and difficult to control their emissions. Such trades minimize the inefficiencies and costs inflicted on production while rewarding, and hence, encouraging innovations in controlling pollution.

While I certainly believe that conservatives should support efforts to conserve nature, I am very dubious of the appeals made by Dr. Gushee and Mr. Merritt that rely upon collectivism, internationalism, and meliorism. Reading about Billy Christian is nauseating to my sensibilities. Of course, salvation is individual and personalistic. I do not believe that we need to move away from the clear teaching of the Gospels that salvation is a purely personal decision to accept Jesus as one's own Savior for one's own sins. Ethics is also personal and interpersonal. There is enough in the Bible and common sense to realize that God gave us the earth to care for and to preserve for ourselves and for future generations. This is not the time or the issue to import liberal theological positions and leftist political agendas into the discussion. That line of argument will only alienate and harden those of us who find such overtures threatening.

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.