Having dipped my toe back into the P&P waters without getting myself scalded too much, it is time to wade in a bit further…maybe up to waist height!!

Once more, well said Minnow…maybe one of the many reasons why people are “leaving the faith” at an alarming rate is that they find themselves having more in common with those on the outsie of the wall than with those who are within it.

Before I start though can I just place on record my delight that these sort of issues are being posted on a theology site. Our theology has to be rooted and earthed in the day to day nitty-gritty of everyday life and not just in the ethereal world of the chatroom. I for one am delighted Micheal that you have submitted three postings recently on “world issues” ie the Green/environmental issue, the Presidential race and the capitalism v socilaism debate. Not that I agree with you on every issue..in fact far from it as I shall explain shortly but I greatly admire your attempts to encourage us to not just think theologically but to apply our theological reflections to the reality of everyday life.

With regard to the Green issue, please let me begin with a disclaimer. I am not a card-carrying member of the UK Green party. I should be, given that Green is my surname, but I am not! However, there was something that was bothering me as I read your posting, and also the results of the Barna survey which initaited your posting, on the environmental debate. For couple of days, something was bugging me but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. Gradually I began to realise what was causing my unease.

Now I may upset my friends Stateside, but I shall try (and probably fail) to be as irenic and reasonable as I possibly can.
It appears to me that the usage of the term “evangelical”, both in the Barna research and Michael’s posting has a really blinkered feel to it. What should have been made far more clear, and hasn’t been, is that the research and the viewpoints espoused are solely from the perspective of American evangelicals. Since when have American evangelicals being given permission to represent the viewpoint of the worldwide evangelical constituency, especially given the fact that modern day evangelcialism has its roots in the Reformation, whose origins were not American but European. Inded if it had not been for the Pilgrim Fathers travelling from the UK to America, it may have been much longer before evangelcialism took root in the USA.

Yes, I concede that there maybe some, if not many non-American evangelicals who share the outcome of the Barna survey, but my guess is that if the research was conducted in other parts of the world a very different picture would emerge. If you were to interview evangelcial Christians who reside and serve God in the floodplains of Bangladesh you might just get a different response regarding the issue of global warming (yes folks…I hate to say this but God loves Bangladesh and Bangaldeshis equally as much as he loves America and Americans and othe nations of the world).

The sooner we wake up and realise that it was because God so loved the world (yes, the whole wide world) that he sent his Son, and not just the more prosperous corners of it, the better. I actually think that the research undertaken by the Barna organisation is valuable but is it too much to ask that they open a few satellite offices in Euope, Asia, Africa, Australasia and Latin America in order to obtain a more accurate, balanced and less US-skewed evangelical worldview re contemporary issues.

The other thing that slightly concerns me is the assent that is given that we should be “responsible stewards of God’s creation” but that is as far as it goes! It appears to me that such assent is skated over without unpacking what this actually means in practice. It si very easy to give lip-service, especialy to an established Christian doctrine, and to knock and criticise those who may espouse what they consider to be a more ethically and socially responsible approach, without ever laying this cards on the table and saying what mean by being “responsible stewards” of God’s creation.

Finally, I find the research findings that a large number of American Christians (almost half those interviewed) are taken in by the rhetoric that solutions to global warming will hurt the poorer people of the world to be one of the most depressing outcomes of the reseach. I take it then that not too many of those interviewed were from Los Angeles and the surrounding environs. It was good to see the Republican Party cancel a number of events at their Convention to formally nominate John McCain in order to focus on making sure that this time there was a proper and approriate response to the recent hurricanes as opposed to the disgraceful and shambolic response to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. But then again, would they have done so if it not been election year and all eyes were on them to see how they would respond this time.

In conclusion, I would contend that you can have a considered, active approach to environmental isasues without “going green” which is far too simplistic a label to attach to what are very serious issues which, as with all things, require a Christlike response.

Even though I understand the reason you suggest this (to stimulate conversation), and even though I do see your good intentions from your post, at some point and time, almost every post will be polemic to someone, don’t you think?

If it’s true that Jas 3:17 ….the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere…..then ought we not practice peaceable conversation?

Titus also reminds us to avoid foolish quarrels and endless controversies. Since a partial definition of polemic is ‘the practice of controversy’, this goes against what we really should be practicing, in my opinion.

I like that Michael more often than not takes an irenic position. This is why I like his blog – it isn’t necessarily “controversial” — it is conversationally stimulating and culturally educational. I think we’ve gotten so used to controversy as the “norm” in our society that we sometimes fail to see the benefits of maintaining a constant irenic conversation.

Edification is important when it is genuine. Nothing wrong with that. I appreciate that Michael speaks truth from his heart as he sees it…..and I’ll tell him so when his post moves me.

*The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming* by Christopher C. Horner is a good resource, which has been discussed on the program.

I think you do a great job of writing irenic, balanced posts – I really admire them as a great template for how to deal with difficult issues. Its a skill I need to really develop. However, the problem with irenic posts is that these posts only generate a few fawning croons of admiration at how well-balanced the post has been. Its just not good for the well-being of the blog.

I would probably describe myself as more of a sniper than a lurker. That is, I only ever comment when I am moved with great choler to disagree with something that is said – usually when the comments thread has been hijacked by the evolution/creation debate (usually by people who demonstrate only that they don’t have the least bit of familiarity with the published ideas, arguments and research of creationists). But, of course, I have other pet peeves.

Therefore, I think you need to maintain a better balance of polemic posts (to draw in and build up readership) and irenic posts (to show how internet discourse should be conducted). That means engaging in more fighting talk like this, even though it can get messy.

I also wholeheartedly agree with your statement – “the ills othat we experience in this world are but symptoms of a greater problem – a world without Jesus Christ.”

So well said!

I hear what you are saying about relative volumes. But then my question is why are evangelicals (of which I am one) so concerned about abortion, when the Bible has so much more to say about taking care of the poor and the oppressed? I have also found that the volume of noise concerning abortion (and/or homosexuality) is even drowning out the salvation message.

Don’t get me wrong. I was involved in the pro-life movement in Canada for quite some time. I helped defeat a pro-choice politician. I was even one of the organizers for Canada’s first National Rally for Life. But I became convinced that the ills that we experience in this world are but symptoms of a greater problem, a world without Jesus Christ.

Let’s focus on treating the disease, and worry less about the symptoms.

Now where was I… Oh yes, banana peel to the green compost bin, rinsed Peanut butter jar to the blue recycle bin, Newspaper to the other blue recycle bin.

Check out this new ad from CatholicVotes.org. Very VERY powerful pro-life message:

http://www.catholicvote.com/