The Southern Baptists Go Green
March 10, 2008 — Brian McLaughlinI did not realize this until about 8:45 am this morning (see MSN article), but many Southern Baptists are going green. Specifically, many Southern Baptist leaders, such as Danny Akin (Southeastern Seminary), Timothy George (Samford University) and David Dockery (Union University) have all signed a declaration encouraging Southern Baptists to to do more about global warming.
In fact, the Southern Baptists have a Southern Baptist Environment & Climate Initiative. Here is a part of the declaration:
We have recently engaged in study, reflection and prayer related to the challenges presented by environmental and climate change issues. These things have not always been treated with pressing concern as major issues. Indeed, some of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that these are real problems that deserve our attention. But now we have seen and heard enough to be persuaded that these issues are among the current era’s challenges that require a unified moral voice.
We believe our current denominational engagement with these issues have often been too timid, failing to produce a unified moral voice. Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed. We can do better. To abandon these issues to the secular world is to shirk from our responsibility to be salt and light. The time for timidity regarding God’s creation is no more.
Therefore, we offer these four statements for consideration, beginning with our fellow Southern Baptists, and urge all to follow by taking appropriate actions. May we find ourselves united as we contend for the faith that was delivered to the saints once for all. Laus Deo!
Without commenting on global warming specifically, I’m encouraged to see the Southern Baptists so focused on God’s creation. Perhaps I’m naive, but I haven’t seen most Baptist groups promote the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:26-28 which exhorts us to care for God’s creation.
On the other hand, their website has a brief presentation of the gospel which states: “You may be asking, “So how can I receive eternal life and find God’s purpose for me?” The answer is simple. The Bible tells us that if we will ask God to forgive us for our sins, make a commitment to turn from those sins and surrender to the leadership of Jesus Christ, we can live with Him in heaven after we die.” I agree with this presentation as far as it goes, but it is incomplete. The gospel is not simply about “heaven after we die,” the gospel is good news for today and presence in a new earth for eternity.
I wonder if we are seeing the impact of theology on creation care. Allow me to make a gross generalization (it is a blog afterall): but it seems that dispensational theology leads to little concern for the present creation because it focuses on the future kingdom of God. This leads to an underemphasis on environmental issues. On the other hand, theologies with an over-realized eschatology (which I believe exists in many emerging church practitioners, including Brian McLaren. See my previous blogs on ECM and the Kingdom of God) leads to high concern for the present creation because it focuses on the present kingdom of God. This leads to an overemphasis on environmental issues. Both groups have good points and bad points, but together they illustrate the impact of our theology on everyday issues.
My conclusion: preach more systematic theology!!
March 10, 2008 at 8:42 am
I think you’re right in this analysis of dispensationalism’s impact on our worldview. “This world is not my home,” and all of that.
You can see the impact of one’s eschatology on worldview from other directions too. Did post-mill thinking resulted in some extremes around the Civil War? So, you have the Battle Hymn of the Republic about the Civil War wreathed in Kingdom Language as a Kingdom cause, “he is (present tense) trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored,” in the midst of the “coming of the Lord.”
So, I agree with your point. Wherever one comes down eschatologically, it may be more important to work out the impact of that system on our worldview than to be “right.”
It might not be too extreme to say that in each of the major positions: (1) Pre (2) A-Mill and (3) Post-Mill there are emphases to learn and extremes to avoid.
March 10, 2008 at 11:30 am
I’m not sure naive is the word. I’d just say that you haven’t paid attention. Pretty much every major Baptist body except the SBC have been promoting Genesis 1:26-28 and more specifically most groups have taken a stand against global warming. The CBF/ABC-USA/PNBC have been leaders in this area. The recent New Baptist Covenant (which featured Al Gore) addressed the environment as a central concern of our Baptist witness.
March 10, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Yes. Theology really does affect every area of our lives. I think, as a result, that we have to be careful how quickly we make such theological statements.
March 11, 2008 at 8:21 am
Big Daddy…it is true that I don’t pay much attention to what is going on nationally with Baptists (even though I serve in a Baptist church). I’m sure you are correct about their promotion of the cultural mandate. Let me rephrase my observations: in my experience with baptist and independent dispensational churches, they give verbal assent to the cultural mandate but their dispensational theology keeps them focused on “this world is not my home, I’m just passing through” theology. I think this is changing, but most dispensational churches, in my experience, do not have the type of creation theology you would find in a Reformed church…it is often lip-service. How does that jive with your more extensive experience?
Again, these are just based upon my limited experiences and gross generalizations! Thanks for your insight!
March 17, 2008 at 9:22 am
The Global warming crowd is creating its own counter religion. God put us here to live on this earth, to use it, to take care of it and I think for the most part that is what we are doing. Too often the Global warming crowd is on the anti America side, portraying us as the bad guys yet our technology has done more to clean up the environment than all the rest of the countries of the world combined. Al Gore couldn’t be president so he has found a new following in skewed science, i.e. Global warming.