Amen, Chuck Colson (by Brian McLaren)
I have had some respectful debate with Chuck Colson in the past, but I can't help but applaud - with a standing ovation, actually - his recent statement about the environment. True, his statement could be cynically judged as an attempt to help certain evangelicals save face - in particular, evangelicals who have been anti-environment on the basis of not believing the growing scientific data about global warming - too often supported by truly sketchy biblical proof texting. But in the interest of saving the planet, and saving millions of lives in it, I'm all for anyone saving face who needs to do so. We are, after all, in a faith that is all about saving love.
But for Christians, the question of global warming should not stop us from identifying a critical worldview issue here—one on which every Christian can, or should, agree: and that's the importance of good stewardship toward the rest of creation. There are things we can do now to be good stewards that do not require us to get all of the answers that are going to come on global warming.
Later, he asks:
Can you think of one instance where Scripture praises excessive consumption or waste?
And concludes:
I can't ... Working with institutions to reduce their energy usage ... is good stewardship. And it does not depend on what the scientists eventually can prove about global warming. It is all laid out for us already in the scriptures.
Chuck is spot on. The truth is, large sectors of our religion have become "worldly" in a subtle but powerful way: we have been guilty of an unholy but socially acceptable syncretism between our faith and consumerism. One can't help but applaud Colson's desire to address this compromise.
In my recent book, Everything Must Change, I describe our consumerist system as "insane and suicidal," tempting us to:
act as though the resources we consume are infinite and the wastes we produce are invisible. Just as our bodies consume food and produce excrement, in this economy we consume trees and produce smoke, consume clean air and produce smog. ...Socially ... we consume time and produce fatigue; consume art and talent and produce entertainment and amusement; consume work and leisure and produce paychecks and heart attacks. And ultimately we consume communities and produce extended families; consume extended families and produce nuclear families; consume nuclear families and produce individuals; consume individuals and produce consumers; and finally, consume consumers themselves and produce disembodied fragments called 'wants' and 'needs' and 'markets' and segments' and 'anxieties' and 'drives' that the economy consumes and excretes and reconsumes in a kind of cannibalistic ferment or rot.
A social system thus based on consumption and excretion, I conclude, can aptly be described as an "excrement factory." One can only thank God that Colson is adding his voice and influence to a call for a better way of living - a life of careful stewardship rather than careless consumption and excretion. May we, as Colson says, "stop arguing long enough to start being good stewards today." Amen, Chuck Colson!
Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is board chair of Sojourners, and author of Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope.
Add to:
Category: Consumer Ethics, Environment, Evangelicals, Global Warming
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I remember, and confess with some embarrassment, my own suspicion when Mr. Colson met Christ while in prison for his complicity in the Watergate mess. I thought: "No way this man of secular power has seen the Light. We're being conned."
My profound apologies to you, Mr.Colson. Please forgive me. I sinned against you.
Colson is a great 20th-21st century example of a Damascus Road conversion, and Jesus has used him very well in the years since. And again now, with this reminder to us all that God has already spoken on the sacredness of His creation, and our need to use it and care for it wisely. Whatever the scientists say, we are called to care.
Thanks, Mr. Colson.
Posted by: joekc | November 7, 2007 2:27 PM
Read 'Conservatives Without Conscience' by John Dean
for an insight into the character of Chuck Colson, before AND after his Damascus Road conversion.
Posted by: justintime | November 7, 2007 2:51 PM
Brian ,
I think your a little late to this game . Before the Boy Scouts were a far right organization they use to be know for teaching kids to put the camp site back the way they found it .
The knowledge of stopping fossil fuel energy production before you find a substitute which many in the global warming crowd advocate would throw industraalized economies into a recsssion , some into depressions .
Gore wants 90 percent reduction by mid century , if population increases on the same level , just to keep the status quo energy demands will double some say .
The global poor that this organization so often talks about would be worse off then they are today .
Techonology is needed , substitute methods are needed for fuel, if you need to believe conservatives are just coming around , that is good . Welcome to the world of ideas .
I would like to see a President say in 10 years our country would be energy independent and put all resources into that program .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 7, 2007 3:26 PM
Mick - Let's not turn this comment section into another debate about global warming; we've had a few of those. Try to keep it on topic...Colson, waste, consumption, etc. Colson and McLaren make excellent points about the mass consumption and waste that goes on in our society. We do need to change regardless of whether global warming is a fact or myth.
justintime - What does Dean say about Colson in 'Conservatives Without Conscience'?
Posted by: Eric | November 7, 2007 3:44 PM
With oil booming past $100 a barrel from $16 just 8 years ago, fossil fuel consumption will be curtailed by those of us who simply can't afford it.
We no longer heat our home. We have managed to obtain logs to burn in a fireplace, and our furnace thermostat is set to 50 degrees. Last year, with oil prices half what they are now, the cost of heating our home became unsustainable.
We ride bicycles even in winter and start the van only to travel to other cities when necessary.
Inflation is about to surge. We are entering a new era of stagflation and people are going to be asking, are you better off today than you were four (or eight) years ago?
No.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2007 4:00 PM
Another way to put it would be to say that many in our society are Lockean liberals, even though these days they are called conservatives. They believe in maximum individual freedom, particularly in the economic sphere, on the assumption that individual prosperity will ultimately contribute to the public good and redound to the benefit of everyone. As both Colson and McLaren point out, this is not scriptural. That doesn't automatically invalidate it, of course, but it should make us a bit nervous given some of the fruits it's bearing.
The real issue is not the environment: it's whether liberal (i.e. conservative) economic theory, derived from people who made little or no room for God in their worldview (e.g. Adam Smith) should be the primary angle from which Christians approach any question of fundamental importance. Bravo to both C and M for pointing this out.
Posted by: Another nonymous | November 7, 2007 4:02 PM
Powerful stuff, your paragraph, Brian. However, the syncretism you speak of (so rightly) is filled with ironies. For example, after reading that paragraph, I was thinking "I HAVE to buy this book" and then stopped myself. Do you see what I mean? I agree with you, but it's complicated.
Posted by: splinterlog | November 7, 2007 4:05 PM
Eric said
Mick - Let's not turn this comment section into another debate about global warming; we've had a few of those. Try to keep it on topic.."
Lets try and be somewhat consistent then Eric , I suggest you keep Brian McLaren on topic ? Whats the one sighted attacks for ? I never stated anything about global warming being real or not .Try leaving your judgements out of reality and what actually has been said , OK ?
This is what I was replying to , from his original comments . Could it be that saving the lives of all those people in third world countries are more important then liberals reducing their ability to farm animals and crops ? My point is we need new techonolgy , and it was a valid point if your concerned about global warming and/or feeding the poor .
Brian mcLaren Said
True, his statement could be cynically judged as an attempt to help certain evangelicals save face - in particular, evangelicals who have been anti-environment on the basis of not believing the growing scientific data about global warming - too often supported by truly sketchy biblical proof texting.
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 7, 2007 4:10 PM
Eric,
It's in the introduction to 'Conservatives Without Conscience'.
To summarize Dean's observations about Colson: Colson's basic character wasn't changed much by his Damascus conversion and Dean gives examples from his direct interactions with Colson.
Posted by: justintime | November 7, 2007 4:23 PM
"Read 'Conservatives Without Conscience' by John Dean
for an insight into the character of Chuck Colson, before AND after his Damascus Road conversion."
--Sounds like an invaluable, unbiased resource. Colson has done more for the needy than Wallis, McLaren, or anyone else here combined (see Prison Fellowship). I've had direct interactions with Colson, also, and was very impressed with the man. Maybe I should write a book called "Conservatives with Conscience."
Posted by: jesse | November 7, 2007 4:45 PM
Mick Sheldon
You said
"I would like to see a President say in 10 years our country would be energy independent and put all resources into that program"
There is and his name is Mike Huckabee. I believe those were almost his exact words. You should check him out!!!!!
mikehuckabee.com
Posted by: anonymous | November 7, 2007 4:54 PM
jesse,
That title was already used by Barry Goldwater.
Not much to add to Goldwater's book.
Very few conservatives with conscience around these days.
Posted by: justintime | November 7, 2007 5:17 PM
Very few conservatives with conscience around these days.
Posted by: justintime
Whats the matter Eric , where your intervention , or is this on topic .
.
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 7, 2007 5:39 PM
Brian - ever since reading your book, I remind our teenagers when they gripe about what's being served for dinner that all food looks the same 24 hours later. My wife gets annoyed with me and says, "that's rude!"
Could you please send me some $$ from your book royalties for marriage counseling?
Posted by: canucklehead | November 7, 2007 5:45 PM
It is to bad that Brian judges those who don't agree with him on man made global warming as anti-environment. I and most believers in my circle of friends have been pro-conservation long before the Global Warming movement. We welcome the libs. who have now joined us. But I can't help feeling like the natives who welcomed Christopher Columbus when he "discovered" the West Indies.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | November 7, 2007 5:46 PM
The evolution of the Religious Right's perspective on climate change is predictable.
1. Deny the change is occurring, and accuse the "other side" of using scare tactics, playing politics, etc.
2. Once denial of climate change is no longer feasible, deny that humans make any contribution to climate change, and label it a "natural process".
3. Once denial of human contribution to climate change is no longer feasible, deny that climate change poses a serious threat.
4. Once denial that climate change poses a serious threat is no longer feasible, just say that Jesus is returning soon so it doesn't matter.
Under no circumstances will the Religious Right admit they were wrong or admit the other side was right. They'll just claim to have been on the correct side all along.
Posted by: D4P | November 7, 2007 5:58 PM
I saw a reference & to Colson's article today in the PRISM e-pistle, the newsletter for Evangelicals For Social Action. I thought it was a good thing. Justintime, give it a rest. Colson isn't exaclty my guru of Christianity applied to social issues either, but can't we all get along for a moment?
Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 7, 2007 6:17 PM
D4P,
We'll see. Time will tell.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | November 7, 2007 6:42 PM
Certainly there was a lot to agree with in that piece. It is rather stating the obvious - that we are to be good stewards and not wasteful.
But the statements by others here are also accurate - there was no Damascus Road conversion by Colson. For the most part, he has continued to stand for the same things as he did as a cynical, secular politician.
Colson is zealously pro-war - at the beginning of the Iraq War he rushed to give Bush cover by proclaiming it a "Just War" - although by no stretch of the imagination did it meet classical Christian just war criteria. And he continues to defend his position yet today. He doesn't seem at all open to a Christian world view. Instead, he peddles his pre-conversion political ideology as a Christian world view. He is a Constantinian par excellence.
And what actually poses the greatest threat to the environment? War, although the politicians who claim to oppose global warming won't admit it, since almost all of them are staunch advocates of the war system.
We are at a time when the right which claims to be Christian is on the defensive. A number of them are responding by trying to show they are reasonable and moderate, without having the substance of that. We have Colson coming out for stewardship and against waste - sort of motherhood and apple pie - to prove he's a reasonable guy. And Pat Robertson endorses a candidate who is virtually a poster child for opposition to family values to prove he's not really an extremist.
It's an Orwellian picture.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | November 7, 2007 8:03 PM
Who did Robertson endorse?
Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 7, 2007 8:43 PM
A few observations:
1. I don't know if Colson would accept all of McLaren's conclusions about the environment. Most of the examples Coson gives of good stewardship have very little to do with global warming and everything to do with saving money.
2. I think McLaren goes off the deep end with the "excrement factory". Mankind has always engaged in industry and industry always has waste. The pollution risk today is not unprecedented, only better understood. The air may or may not be warmer, but by any reasonable measurement it is cleaner than it was 20 years ago.
3. One particular section I thought was particularly clunky:
Socially...we consume time and produce fatigue;
Our days on earth are numbered. Work can be demanding. People get tired. This is hardly new.
consume art and talent and produce entertainment and amusement
So if something is entertaining or amusing it cannot be art? (Note to Brian: Hey, any intelligent person is going to get into one of these everything-is-crap moods. An old Simpsons episode usually snaps me right out of it though. You might want to give it a try.)
consume work and leisure and produce paychecks and heart attacks.
See earlier comments re fatigue. Also: men have worked for wages since Biblical times, if it's so awful now it was no better then.
4. Okay, time to look for some common ground, and we don't necessarily need to look all that hard because hyperbole aside, I do think that materialism in American society has gotten out of hand. It does seem to me that Americans have become more prone to be manipulated into pursuing material goods they neither need nor enjoy, with sometimes unfortunate results.
"Everything Must Change"? No, there is much in American life that is still good. "A Lot Of Things Must Change"? That I could agree with.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | November 7, 2007 8:47 PM
And what actually poses the greatest threat to the environment? War, although the politicians who claim to oppose global warming won't admit it, since almost all of them are staunch advocates of the war system.
Posted by: Bill Samuel
Liberals promote an extreme position on the envirnoment that if implemented will have a terrible effect on the poor .
We are at a time when the right which claims to be Christian is on the defensive.
Posted by: Bill Samuel
We are at a time when those who at one time used Unions for their socialist and communististic beliefs , have moved on to the envirnomental lobby .
The left has no Christian base to be defensive about . They see belief in a God over government as a detriment to their agenda , always have .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 7, 2007 9:45 PM
"No unions" is about to give you nothing but McJobs without benefits or retirement and the inability to afford to buy what you produce while working for less for all those elites who are so wonderful because, like the southern plantation owners, they create work and allow you to go into debt to them.
Look around and wake up.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2007 11:11 PM
Whatever differences many of us may have with Colson, it's good to hear him making the right kind of noises.
My concern is that lots of people make the right kind of noises without actually doing anything to reduce their CO2 footprint. Sorry to put you on the spot, Brian, but you've sort of asked for it by posting this article - Brian, what have you done lately to become a better steward? And (this is a question for everyone) what do you think you need (resources? education? more understanding banks? something else?) to reduce your negative impact on God's earth?
Mark
Posted by: mark | November 8, 2007 1:50 AM
If Christians realize that Progressives are just a misguided and conned group of people that have bought into the Humansit Manifesto far, far too much, and often into heresy, then, people like Chuck Colson may just help these people embrace Christ for real. Christians can dialogue with Gaia-worshipping Global Warmingists, without throwing Christ away. Just stick to the fundamentals.
Posted by: Donny | November 8, 2007 7:53 AM
If I ever needed any proof that we all are in need of a shepherd this is it. Colson comes up with a statement that simply stated says we need to be better stewards of the Earth, Brian applauds Colson's statement. Nothing wrong here. Two men, who I suppose are often on opposite sides, come to some points of agreement. Their lives are not perfect, despite the Damascus Roads in their history, just as their arguments are not perfect. Just how does that justify ours spending a lot of energy missing the point? Couldn't that energy that could be better stewarded?
I know that after I walked down the Damascus Road my character became absolutely perfect and all my actions since have been white as snow, but that happens to so few.(Personally I don't think even Paul was as perfect as I think I have been.) I was just lucky I guess.
The reality that both sides on this issue are coming to some agreement is not a reason to attack someone's character.
Wolverine, just where is the air cleaner, Los Angeles? How about Beijing, Mexico City, or anywhere in India?
Industry has always produced waste so does that mean it always must do so? If it must be wasteful does that mean we shouldn't press for it being so on an even lesser scale?
Being tired at the end of a long day's work is not fatigue, and as far as the comment on art goes I think you understood the words and missed the meaning. I doubt very much that Brian thinks art cannot amuse. On the other hand I was amused, in a way, by your post but do not think it very "artful".
You pick this article apart when, by your own admission, you agree with most of it. Maybe those old Simpson episodes aren't working as well as you think.
Posted by: wayne | November 8, 2007 8:28 AM
How much evidence do we require?
Before we debate the implications of the “Inconvenient Truth” there is a very uncomfortable truth that, in the body of our Christian Church, people do not “experience being valued”, Tony Campolo first introduced me to the reality of the “Value of the Person” in one of his books in 1993.Over the intervening years I have been on a journey that has taken me on journeys from “Pittsburgh in the USA to Kigali, Rwanda” and many places in between! From Silicon Valley to the streets of Tirana in Albania the message is the same “only the person who receives the experience of being valued can give the best.” and “only the person who gives the experience of being valued can receive the best”.
In the workplace organizations such as Gallup has made this discovery based on huge research and have translated it into processes and products to enhance the effectiveness of organizations.
We claim to be followers of Jesus yet how often do we miss out on His riches of Grace when we don’t give others the experience of being valued.
Marcus Buckingham the high profile author and speaker on issues of talent management has been quoted as saying that there is a better rule to the “Golden Rule” i.e. “to do to there as you would have them do to you”. Buckingham argues that what the others really want is that people do to them what they want, which might be different from what you want! In the context of talent management perhaps he is right but misses out, as so many of us do, on the full meaning of the “rule”.
John Stott said that “We are not worthy of Gods love but we must be “worthfull”.
If we believe that each person is made in the image of God, fearfully and wonderfully made, if we believe that Jesus really died for us, yes you and me, then why do we have such a problem receiving and giving “the experience of being valued”?
Whether it is the inconvenient truth of global warming, the so called war on terror, the insult of global poverty, whatever issue of the day dominates our thinking we cannot escape from the reality that we have not given a priority to the uniqueness and value of each person.
We could spend hours debating the cause and effect of each problem and that can be healthy but often unproductive.
However In the Christian community can we, at least, agree that everything good is “Cross and effect”?
As believers we have a great opportunity and indeed a command to re-examine the magnitude of the value of each person.
Having made this my life study I believe that we can discover new ways how to value others.
Asking a friend recently what he thought was his best “gift” he said “Listening to people, understanding them, and then helping”. That’s it! Intense listening and deep understand needs to take place before we help.
In the UK the average time a doctor has to diagnose and prescribe for a patient is eight minutes. We all think that is too short, but, how long do we take to “diagnose” the needs of others before we help them?
How much evidence do we require?
Posted by: Gavin Cargill | November 8, 2007 8:41 AM
Wayne,
Brian McLaren's article can be roughly broken down into two parts. In the first part he tries to leverage Chuck Colson's essay about stewardship into an environmentalist tract when there is precious little in Colson's actual article to indicate that's where Colson wants to go. In the second half he descends into a dreary everything-around-me-sucks bleat that would best be described as self-pitying except that McLaren shows no awareness that other rational people might feel differently.
The two parts are held together by two themes, one utter nonsense, the other containing an important truth albeit wrapped up in hyperbole. The nonsense is the assumption that there is anything wrong with modern life that is unprecedented. The truth -- or at least the part that rings true to me -- is that we have become too materialistic.
In short, I don't agree with most of this article. There is one theme that I do happen to sympathize with, and I thought it was important enough to point out.
And yes, Brian McLaren would benefit from watching more Simpsons reruns.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | November 8, 2007 9:35 AM
"Brian applauds Colson's statement."
Nobody has any problem with him applauding Colson's statement. Brian goes further to suggest that Colson would also agree with his statements regarding consumerism.
The latter portion rings utterly hollow to me, considering that McLaren is himself a consumerist (and wouldn't deny it). McLaren bemoans a system that has benefitted him immensely, and from which he continues to benefit.
If he is taking the self-loathing tact, and concedes that his output constitutes excreta, what does this say about his latest book, from which he quotes favorably? There is a conceit here, with McLaren welcoming Colson into the fold, while living a life that is not substantially different from Colson's from a consumerist standpoint. There is no Biblical precedent for this.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 8, 2007 11:27 AM
Hey everyone, Robertson just endorsed Rudy G! Think if we goad the Right-wingers on here enough, they'll waste time with their hollow rhetoric instead of being out campaining for thier favorite candidate, and we can cause their crack-up to go even further?
Judging form the non-responses Wolv & Kevin S. have just offered us, I'd say so. :)
Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 8, 2007 11:50 AM
Justintime - It's hard for me to believe that Colson's conversion didn't change his character. He went from devoting his life to seeking power in Washington to devoting his life to helping those in prison know the saving grace of Christ as well as being an advocate for them in Washington.
What does Dean say about Colson?
Posted by: Eric | November 8, 2007 12:21 PM
The perfect example of an oxymoron:
"Conservatives with a conscience."
Posted by: Lonnie | November 8, 2007 12:22 PM
Brian McLaren says,
"But in the interest of saving the planet, and saving millions of lives in it, I'm all for anyone saving face who needs to do so. We are, after all, in a faith that is all about saving love."
This is an extraordinary example of the disingenuousness of the religious right, evangelicals included. McLaren, so it does not really matter to you whether Colson is sincere or not? All that is important is to “save face”?
If you this is how you navigate through life, your true character is showing, and it is not something I wish to emulate. Why is it the religious right finds it acceptable to compromise on ethics when it comes to matters of economics, human rights, race, military imperialism, etc. but is so sure of itself on issues of abortion and sexual orientation?
Maybe all of their stances are taken just to “save face”.
Posted by: Lonnie | November 8, 2007 12:42 PM
Unless you are committed to follow the Lord, theological exercises are just in pursuit of justifying whatever ideological, political or personal interest trend you've decided serves you best.
That's why it's mostly ranting here and tossing up tired propagandistic "talking points."
When that fails to move anyone, then it turns to insults.
We need less of desperate attempts to shore up our own misconceptions and more attempts to see if there is anything that actually might lead to mutual understanding and growth.
Mostly, I see knee-jerk attacks and attempts to discredit the main posts, whatever they are, and to impugn the character of those who write them.
Perhaps such people feel they are fulfilling some sort of mission in life by trying to "shut up" those with whom they disagree with so firmly, just on the basis of what they suspect to be their political heresy.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 8, 2007 1:18 PM
N.M. Rod -- amen to your post (beginning "Unless you are committed ..."). Specifically, amen to the last two paragraphs.
I generally see more respectful give and take on secular boards, flamers notwithstanding. And these are Christian sisters and brothers here? Sharing a common Lord, sharing at least common outlines of a biblically based vision of a just society?
I for one need(ed) -- desperately -- to come out of spiritual isolation where I serve, and be in a constructive dialogue with sisters and brothers about these issues. I didn't expect to agree with everyone, and I certainly didn't expect everyone to agree with me. I did expect some civil, courteous curiosity in exchanges -- a willingness to learn from one another, even from (in fact especially from) those with whom we disagree vehemently -- without cynicism, sarcasm or personal diminishment. I need to know I'm not alone in these concerns, and frankly these growing fears of mine, and that those who in at least some ways share them with me are also coming from a common starting point (our Lord). And I need to learn learn learn learn.
Wow. What a surprise. What a nasty surprise. Cads and Moderatelad (sp?) had it right, and honestly were probably entirely too gracious in setting next month as a deadline.
"Engaged Buddhism" does infinitely better than this. Heck, my non-church-door-darkening social worker activist friends do better than this. I wonder if the engaged Buddhists will take in a Christian brother who still loves Jesus. Well, only one way to find out.
godspeed and farewell,
bro. steve
Posted by: bro. steve | November 8, 2007 4:10 PM
Mostly, I see knee-jerk attacks and attempts to discredit the main posts, whatever they are, and to impugn the character of those who write them.
Perhaps such people feel they are fulfilling some sort of mission in life by trying to "shut up" those with whom they disagree with so firmly, just on the basis of what they suspect to be their political heresy.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 8, 2007 1:18 PM
I think you have a pretty good asessment, NMR. I might add that what I said before looks supiciously true here: Their own base is crumbling and disolving all the while, and to salve the wounds, they come on here and engage in pointless rhetoric instead of getting out there and doing something about it.
Reading who Robertson endorsed and seeing the negatory posts here today only confirmed that suspicion.
Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 8, 2007 4:10 PM
Kevin Wayne,
You said "they come on here and engage in pointless rhetoric instead of getting out there and doing something about it." How can you know this is true?
This is slander that goes beyond what you have accused (falsely) the conservatives on this site of doing. Lets focus on the article instead of personal attacks of those you disagree with.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | November 8, 2007 4:44 PM
Jeff:
I'll put this one up for genral comments from the reading public. Anyone esle see what I see?
Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 8, 2007 4:52 PM
Kevin Wayne,
Once again you said,
"they come on here and engage in pointless rhetoric instead of getting out there and doing something about it."
How do you know this is true?
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | November 8, 2007 5:11 PM
DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. There is a company which is addressing fuel consumption in an intriguing way. They have found an additive which saves transportation companies 6-7% on their diesel fuel usage by increasing the efficacy of the fuels, decreasing pollution and extending the life of engines. The Science and Technology Director of the company, International Fuel Technology, was a member of an organization which recently won a Nobel Prize for innovative thinking/action on environmental problems.
I recently became aware of this technology and
regret that I see so little news or information about practical ameliorative solutions for the energy problem, which solutions come from sources other than drilling and pumping.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 8, 2007 6:38 PM
DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. There is a company which is addressing fuel consumption in an intriguing way. They have found an additive which saves transportation companies 6-7% on their diesel fuel usage by increasing the efficacy of the fuels, decreasing pollution and extending the life of engines. The Science and Technology Director of the company, International Fuel Technology, was a member of an organization which recently won a Nobel Prize for innovative thinking/action on environmental problems.
I recently became aware of this technology and
regret that I see so little news or information about practical ameliorative solutions for the energy problem, which solutions come from sources other than drilling and pumping.
Posted by: linda | November 8, 2007 6:39 PM
Kevin Wayne,
Apparently no one saw what you saw. So enlighten us.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | November 8, 2007 6:58 PM
Wolverine
I am stumped! Having read the article my opinion is that your interpretation is just that, opinion. I think it misses the point of both Brian's and Chucks statements. Maybe I should just quote Colson.
"All we have got to do is stop arguing long enough to start being good stewards today."
If that isn't clear enough then I guess I can only fall back on my opening statement of our need for a shepherd.
God help us if Global Warming is real, since it looks like all we will do about it is argue.
Makes you wonder how Noah felt.
Posted by: Wayne | November 8, 2007 7:48 PM
I don't really know if the RR's base is crumbling or dissolving, Kevin Wayne, but, given some of his outbursts over the last few years and now his endorsement of Giuliani, I think there's clearly something crumbling/dissolving in Pat R's head!
Posted by: canucklehead | November 8, 2007 8:30 PM
I hear, and share, the frequent frustrations of persons who wish to engage in more productive dialogue. I often leave these discussions.
There is no way to get there without working at getting there. This does not demand we do so in this forum; but I do think it a great exercise for some of us. A few observations:
Even when there is a lot of silly, petty negativity--when I really reflect on the substance of what writers are saying--I learn. I do think the post above regarding the worth of each person is informative. When I grant complete dignity to each writer and value their thoughts as more important than my own I can begin to hear.
I believe many of our 'sharp-tongued' responses relate to not feeling like we have been listened to. I am most inclined to post ill-considered thoughts when I feel the original article is dismissive, diminishing, prejudicial, knee-jerk, etc. Nothing like a good knee-jerk reaction to correct a wrong!
I have learned to observe my behavior around when I leave a conversation or a situation. We each have patterns in this regards that often do not serve us well; nor the others around us; nor the Kingdom purposes for which we were created.
I also appreciated the post about the necessity of being obedient to the Lord. The Truth did come to us most fully in a Person. When I fail to yield and be transformed by the Love of Jesus--I am genuinely 100% a worthless noisemaker (I Cor 13).
I would like to ask Jim Wallis and friends to carry on a dialogue (if you do not do so) as to how the original articles might better focus and further dialogue. Personally, I think when the content and spirit of the original article genuinely fleshes out the purpose of this blog then the resulting dialogue is richer.
Finally, building on NM Rod post above, let me say I was deeply saddened about age 35 when I learned that under my very 'nice-guy' facade I had many communication strategies aimed at just shutting down other people when I so desired. I was confronted with the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus' words on murder. Lord be merciful!
When you feel like leaving. Listen first. See my dignity. Consider whether there is anything in my words of value. Allow God to transform you. And speak back to me in a way that expresses the transforming power of God's love. If the Lord draws you away at that point--I will freely bless you (as I am sure many others will as well).
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | November 9, 2007 1:13 AM
""Engaged Buddhism" does infinitely better than this.
My parents are Buddhist (I'll let you guess where their political allegiances lie)... They can be pretty nasty in their political rhetoric.
"Their own base is crumbling and disolving all the while, and to salve the wounds, they come on here and engage in pointless rhetoric instead of getting out there and doing something about it."
I am a governmental affairs writer by profession.
"Reading who Robertson endorsed and seeing the negatory posts here today only confirmed that suspicion."
Negatory? Is anyone here a Robertson fan? Speak now...
I can't imagine anyone will respond in the affirmative. Negatory, Iceman, over and out...
Posted by: kevin s. | November 9, 2007 2:06 AM
I've been a "fan" of Pat Robertson.
I used to be quite inspired by him and Ben Kinchlow while a new Christian in the seventies.
Certainly he never was touched by the scandals of insincerity and financial hypocrisy that brought down Jim and Tammy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart. We even gave substantially to them on several occasions. A lot of true Christians appeared on the programs.
I do recall that human leaders have feet of clay. In the end, we have to trust our own judgment and relationship with God - they are not our conduit.
I also now know that many leaders of the Protestant reformation did unsavory things not consistent with my understanding of what Jesus wants us to be. People were burned at the stake and tortured. Martin Luther moved from a position of love and advocacy for Jews to urging them being burned out in pogroms at the end of his life.
I think maybe Pat is past his prime. There's always something to what he says but his expression of it as an elderly person is now sometimes ill-considered and not as thoughtful and balanced as it once was when his mind was sharper.
This may account for the perceived unChristlike hardening of the evangelical movement if it is identified with these elderly leaders whose expression of thoughts have become brittle along with their arteries.
In some cases, there is an element of unreality and dementia in the embarrassing pronouncements and inconsistent positions of the aged evangelical leadership.
It's not out of the question that an elderly Robertson has been as thoroughly bamboozled by a clever and ambitious Giuliani as an elderly person bilked out of their money by a sly and winsome flattering door-to-door con artist.
Have some egotistical politicians no shame?
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 9, 2007 2:30 AM
It is to be greatly appreciated that Evangelicals in the US can now see the moral dimensions of consumerism. There are two downsides to what he has said. The first may be omissions by Brian. Chuck says nothing of creation valued for its own sake - i.e. he talks solely in terms of waste, usage and stewardship as if the Earth was purely for our usage. Secondly, anthropogenic global warming is a fact. The results of the IPCC being conservative, not alarmist. The debate is over in the climate community - now focusing on how much, how fast and what the impacts will be. When Evangelicals of a particular political persuasion can get these two ideas - then there will be a leap forward.
Posted by: Mick Pope | November 9, 2007 4:58 AM
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 9, 2007 2:30 AM
"Certainly he never was touched by the scandals of insincerity and financial hypocrisy that brought down Jim and Tammy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart."
You excuse the behavior of Robertson because he is elderly? Calling for the assassination of the democtatically elected leader of a nation is NOT excusable. Period
Posted by: Lonnie | November 9, 2007 10:12 AM
I haven't read every post on this thread, but what I have read has taken the predictable turns.
1. Question the validity of Colson's conversion (as if we can judge his heart).
2. Question McLaren's motives and find something to criticize (even though everyone basically agrees with his main point).
3. Question global warming (surprisingly, no one has brought up Al Gore, yet, although as I said, I haven't read carefully).
Some have conceded that McLaren and Colson made really good points about materialism and stewardship. It's too bad that this conversation coulnd't have focused on that. I guess we would rather just ignore that elephant trumpeting in our ears and get in our personal shots and agendas. But regardless of politics and ideology, we as Christians need very much to be concerned about the materialism and lack of stewardship every one of us has personally fallen prey to. We'd rather argue than take a hard look at our own lives--an act that just might lead to repentance and change. But this, apparently, is far more fun and less demanding and requires no sacrifice or change.
So I ask every one of you--what can you personally do to cut back on your materialism and be a better steward of God's glorious creation? How can you best show your thankfulness for His glorious gift and provision to us? Shouldn't that be how this conversation should be going? Why are we arguing when we all agree on the basic point? Why aren't we working to actually come up with some solutions?
I'll start--with a very small thing, because if we all start with small things, we can make big change. I pledge to unplug my cell phone when it is done charging rather than leaving it plugged in all the time. Who's next? Perhaps someone would like to share a way of avoiding materialism now that we are coming into the most materialistic holiday season of the year?
Posted by: squeaky | November 9, 2007 10:31 AM
I've admired a lot of McClaren's writings as it has to do with evangelism, soteriology, and ecclesiology. Of late I've been a little dismayed at his new engagement of political partisanship, but this has given me pause.
Brian, your ability to see past labels and partisan ideology in this case is quite refreshing. No matter how much I may disagree with Colson on many issues, he is a sibling in Christ and he is on the same journey as so many of us. The witness of the church would do well if we could overcome these great divides of left vs. right more often!
Posted by: Matt K | November 9, 2007 12:10 PM
Here is an original idea: lets bash conservatives in the name of exposing hypocrisy. Im sorry but neither party is exempt when it comes to hypocrisy. Its laughable to think by supporting one party and bashing the other you are more enlightened then say someone that believes differently. its like bashing Fox News b/c you watch CNN. Neither has a monopoly on the truth. same goes with our wonderful political parties. "I believe the puppet on the right is correct." "I believe the puppet on the left possesses the truth." then you realize the both puppets are held by the same person. Love u all regardless.
Posted by: jason | November 9, 2007 2:57 PM
Kevin Wayne,
Once again you said,
"they come on here and engage in pointless rhetoric instead of getting out there and doing something about it."
,b>How do you know this is true?
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | November 8, 2007 5:11 P
Is it that difficult?
A: They are spending time here.
B: Their party is about to nominate their least acceptable candidate.
Need any further explanation?
Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 9, 2007 3:22 PM
Kevin Wayne,
If you think their posts are pointless rhetoric then go after the posts, not the person.
I'm a conservative contributor to this blog and everyday I get out and do something to make my community better.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | November 9, 2007 5:46 PM
I'm a conservative contributor to this blog and everyday I get out and do something to make my community better.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | November 9, 2007 5:46 PM
The point I was addressing was the fact that the Republicans may nominate Giuliani and using that as a contrast to the fact that some see Sojouners as a shill for the Democrats. I'm talking about the way the election is going to go, not community involvement in general.
Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 9, 2007 5:54 PM
Kevin Wayne,
Once again, go after the post not the poster.
NM quote was about dialogue at this site, not Pat Robertson or the election. When you take a quote out of context it is difficult to follow you.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | November 9, 2007 6:07 PM
NM quote was about dialogue at this site, not Pat Robertson or the election. When you take a quote out of context it is difficult to follow you.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | November 9, 2007 6:07 PM
Thanks for your concern, but Robertson was 1st brought up on here- even before Wallis wrote today's blog about him.
Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 9, 2007 6:26 PM
And the elephant trumpets louder and louder--how do you guys not hear her? I guess your pointless bickering is drowning her out.
Posted by: squeaky | November 9, 2007 6:42 PM
Chuck Colson:
Can you think of one instance where Scripture praises excessive consumption or waste?
That is exactly the thought I could never get out of my head.
And that's the problem with proof-texting - all too often it can't see the forest for the trees. It ignores the whole picture. And arrives at some grotesque, misshapen conclusion that you never see one example of in the whole of Scripture.
You can make the Bible say anything using proof-texting with isolated verses.
Gotta look at the whole picture.
Posted by: Amazon Creek | November 10, 2007 3:16 AM
Wolverine-Air quality better? Are you kidding? We have more cases of childhood ahsma than ever.
Rudy Guilliani-He and Christy Todd Whitman said the air quality was fine at ground zero after 9/11. Rudy for president - no way. Ask the police, firemen, EMS workers. Oh yeah, and he relocated the command center to one of the twin towers.
Pat Robertson-doesn't he have investments in the diamond mines in the Congo?
Posted by: Jo Jo from NY | November 10, 2007 7:39 AM
Jo Jo,
Actually, air and water quality ARE better, thanks to the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. The problem is, however, now that we have significantly fought pollution, some in government and industry think we have some leeway to slack off on that account, which is why the bush admin has rolled back some of the requirements of such acts. It's really like what happens when I clean my apartment--it's nice and clean, and I'm pretty good at keeping it that way for a day or two, and then I tell myself I can do dishes later, and put stuff away later, and it's back to the way it was before I cleaned it. So with the environment, we start thinking we can slack off, and we'll end up where we were before the Clean Air and Water Acts.
Posted by: squeaky | November 10, 2007 1:13 PM
Jo Jo,
There's avery good chance that the increase in asthma among children can be attributed to increased smoking among adults:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070521161944.htm
Just thought you should know there are other possible explanations.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | November 11, 2007 3:36 PM
I'm days late on this but Wolverine are you kidding me! Cigarette smoking in all groups has declined since the 70's. That is not the correlation you should be looking at. Of course, you can find just about any study to fit a point of view that you want to hold.
Posted by: Nuttshell | November 13, 2007 8:13 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?