Good News for Southern Baptists (by Brian McLaren)
As the nation's second largest denomination (after the Roman Catholic Church), Southern Baptists have been given much, so their potential to do good is considerable - as is the danger of missing opportunities to do good. Sadly, until now, constituents and leaders of the 16-million-member Convention have tended to lag behind other large Christian communities when it comes to addressing the issue of environmental stewardship in general and climate change in particular. But that may be changing.
In 2007, the Convention took the positive step of passing a statement affirming the need for Baptists to care for creation, but a new group of Southern Baptists - including many notable Baptist leaders - have said the statement was too timid: it could be interpreted by "the world," they said, as "uncaring, reckless and ill-informed." Through the new declaration, "A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change," these leaders are calling Baptists to keep moving forward in care and healing for God's precious planet. Jonathan Merritt, a young leader who helped inspire the new declaration, expressed his motivation in language that resonates deeply with Southern Baptists: to trash this beautiful planet - which is God's handiwork and declares God's glory - is like tearing out pages from the Bible.
True, many SBC notables have not yet signed the new statement. But current Convention president Frank Page did, along with 43 other exemplary SBC leaders including Ed Stetzer, Larissa Arnault, David Clark, Timothy George, John Hammett, Darrin Patrick, Jonathan Merritt, and two previous Convention presidents, Jack Graham and James Merritt. Their website (www.baptistcreationcare.org) has room for additional signatories, so we may see the center of gravity shift further toward environmental responsibility in the coming days and weeks.
This step is important for a number of reasons. First, and most obviously, when a group as large and influential as the SBC accepts increasing moral responsibility for better care of the planet, the birds of the air and flowers of the field will benefit, as will all our children and grandchildren. Not only that, but by taking more seriously what I call the prosperity crisis (that our kind of prosperity is unsustainable in relation to the planet, thus reducing the prosperity of future generations), the SBC helps shift the larger evangelical community toward greater environmental responsibility. This shift has been gaining momentum in recent years in large part due to the good work of Jim Ball and the Evangelical Environmental Network (LINK).
Building on this momentum, evangelical Christians, with obvious influence in the Republican party and growing participation in the Democratic party, can increasingly join other Christian communities in being strong advocates for better environmental policy in the U.S. at large, whoever is our next president and whichever party controls the next Congress. By further shifting public opinion in the nation that consumes disproportionate amounts of resources and produces disproportionate amounts of greenhouse gases, members of the SBC can play a greater role in helping our nation move from being a global laggard to a global leader in this important moment of danger and opportunity.
I frequently hear from young Southern Baptists who express deep frustration with the ethos and image projected by some of their leaders in recent years: they want their denomination to rise above the old polarities of left and right, choosing transcendent Biblical values over ideological and partisan alignments. The current and future signatories of this statement will give young Southern Baptists something to be proud of - and that's no small thing.
Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is board chair for Sojourners. He writes and speaks about the intersection of faith and global crises.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I know this story may not mean as much to others as it does me, but as a young Southern Baptist who has continually been disappointed in my denomination, today is a great day in SBC history.
I hope the rest of the evangelical community will forgive my denomination; we are usually slow when it comes to these kinds of things. This brings the SBC so much closer to truly realizing the needs of this world. If the rest of the denomination can get on board on climate change, then we may start to see a bigger and brighter future for our planet.
Now if they can only start to get on board when it comes to poverty....
Posted by: Matt G. | March 10, 2008 11:13 AM
Matt,
I'm not a Southern Baptist, so I don't know the answer to this, but has the SBC not passed resolutions on poverty? Does the SBC not think poverty is a problem and that the SBC and its membership should work to confront it?
Posted by: Eric | March 10, 2008 11:48 AM
Well, it's not necessarily that they think it's not a problem. It is just the fact that they don't think it is has important as getting people "saved." Which, don't get me wrong, I think that is important as well, but we need to be more active and involved in these important social matters.
The "official position" of the SBC (even though it doesn't speak for everyone), seems to also allude that abortion and the sanctity of marriage are the top two social issues we should concern ourselves with. In fact Richard Land once said something along the lines of "at least children born under poverty or with AIDS have a chance to live" (not an exact quote); giving the implication that we shouldn't concern ourselves with them as much as unborn children. Personally, that statement made me sick.
This article above, however, shows Southern Baptists at their best. However, they need to be more active in social issues. Whether they (or we) want government to be more involved or to do it ourselves, I don't really care. We need to realize the damage we do when we don't recognize the needs of others, assuming getting them saved will fix everything. I am under the conviction that God does save us, but when we as Christians (not just SB's) see a need, we need to fill that need in the name of Christ.
Posted by: Matt G. | March 10, 2008 12:28 PM
Thanks for filling me in Matt.
Posted by: Eric | March 10, 2008 1:27 PM
I for one am glad to hear that some of the SBC is seeing that there is a need to save our planet from distruction at the hands of humans. While I am not from SBC I think it is commendable that they are taking a stance and I wish to see more denominations do the same. I also like Matt would like to see more done about poverty, not just talk, but actual change... and not just in the US, although that would be a start, but also in third world countries as well.
Jim
Posted by: Jim Savage | March 10, 2008 4:02 PM
Good to see, they just need to address the Capital Punishment..... I'd be even happier then.
Posted by: Andrew | March 10, 2008 4:26 PM
Actually, for a denomination such as the SBC to acknowledge that poverty is a problem is of little consequence by itself. There are very few individuals or Christian denominations who would deny that we should care for the poor. Problem is, the sham called "supply-side economics" lets them off the hook: "We don't have to actually do something to fight poverty, all we have to do is cut corporate taxes and deregulate, and those jobs will start appearing. People will be able to work themselves out of poverty with a (low-wage) job."
Paying lip service to supply-side lets people eat their cake and not feel guilty about it, too.
Posted by: I and I | March 10, 2008 4:42 PM
I and I,
Come on... If you want to make a case for federal government programs to address poverty and critique Christians who disagree, fine. But don't make up straw men. Christians who emphasize personal and local community action over federal action don't fall back on "supply-side economics" arguments. There's a much deeper thought than a single economic theory. You're a smart guy and know this.
Posted by: Eric | March 10, 2008 5:04 PM
"They want their denomination to rise above the old polarities of left and right, choosing transcendent Biblical values over ideological and partisan alignments."
As a former member of the SBC, now happily at home in CBF, I will believe this when I hear or see some apology, some attempt at reconciliation, with those whose careers were trashed, whose calling was impugned, and whose fitness to be recognized as a child of God was denied during the fundamentalist takeover of the 80s. I was a target, and I know.
I expect such an apology might happen shortly after Jesus comes. A long time after pigs fly.
Posted by: Rachel | March 10, 2008 5:20 PM
Rachel,
You are definitely right about not getting an apology (very, very unfortunately). You must know the SBC all too well. The Fundamentalism that grew out of the 80's ended up doing more damage than I think advocates realize, even today.
For what it's worth I am sorry for any suffering caused to you on behalf of my denomination (even though I was born in the 80's and didn't live through it). Christians have been known to be...cruel.... I am glad you found a denomination/church you feel comfortable and content with and didn't throw out Jesus all together.
Maybe this can be a start of new beginning for the SBC. But like I said in an earlier post a week ago by Tony Campolo, if this denomination does not realize it is in the 21st century, then we could see the end of this denomination in the next 10-20 years. I think justice would be served if they refuse to recognize there is more to the gospel than just getting people saved. Young Christians are becoming few and far between in the SBC. In fact I think the latest figure was that 75-80% of Southern Baptists are over the age of about 60!
Posted by: Matt G. | March 10, 2008 7:08 PM
I am also a former SBC guy and current CBFer so I understand the pain Rachel. Nonetheless, let's not start wanting the SBC to all of a sudden pull a 180 on each and every issue for the past 30 years.
Maybe we should just start with a golf size applause for this recent resolution. I know many a Southern Baptist who love to parrot whatever the organization spits out. So if this is what it takes to get some of my good friends and family members to finally start recycling, I am happy.
Posted by: Rosco | March 10, 2008 10:42 PM
The SBC has much to repent of. Perhaps this is a first step. As a former Southern Baptist and baptist missionary, I certainly hope so. Perhaps one day the SBC will return to their traditional beliefs as found in the "Baptist Faith and Message" that Herschel Hobbs chronicled. Glory to God.
Posted by: dlowen | March 11, 2008 12:11 AM
I am glad to see that the SBC has signed this statement. Any indication of action on these words so far? I am curious how much energy they will put forth on this important issue, opposed to their traditional favorite topics everyone knows.
Posted by: Ryan | March 11, 2008 2:26 PM
Eric: "Christians who emphasize personal and local community action over federal action don't fall back on "supply-side economics" arguments."
That is your experience but it hasn't been mine. In many instances, when I have spoken with religious conservatives about poverty being an issue as important as abortion and gay marriage, they'll agree "yes it is, but..." and then follow with some variant of supply-side economics without actually using the term (i.e. "we're helping the poor with tax cuts," "Democrats are hurting the poor with environmental regulations," "minimum wage will kill jobs," etc.) It is all self-serving.
Posted by: I and I | March 11, 2008 2:27 PM
I and I,
Well right there you're quoting three different arguments. The one about tax cuts might mean "supply side economics" or it could mean that these people you're talking with are talking about actual tax cuts targetted at the poor. The one about environmental regulation has nothing to do with supply-side econ. It's a belief that regulation hurts the economy and reduces employment or makes it more costly. And again, the minimum wage argument has nothing to do with supply-side econ. It's a belief that a higher min. wage will price people out of the workforce or keep businesses from employing more people. These all may be false economic theories, but it's not supply-side economics.
But the larger belief to which I was alluding is that many people hold the legitimate view that the more areas of our lives in which the government gets involved the more power the government will have over the every-day decisions we make. Our freedoms will be reduced in the process. Don't reduce this down to Rick Nowlin's talking points about "supply-side economics" or "failed trickle-down economics".
Posted by: Eric | March 11, 2008 2:56 PM
Don't reduce this down to Rick Nowlin's talking points about "supply-side economics" or "failed trickle-down economics".
My "talking points" go to the heart of the real issue -- folks believing "I got mine and to hell with you." You'd have never seen this attitude in the early church because it wasn't part of the "establishment," while it certainly is today. The real problem is that too many Christians feel they're entitled to what they want without considering the effect on everything and everyone around them, which is why I'm glad to see conservative Christians step up on this issue.
You see, freedom, in the long run, means nothing without justice, which is why the Scriptures talk very little about the former but a lot about the latter; without it freedom becomes nothing more than license, which no Christian should subscribe to. One reason Karl Marx was able to get over was that his political philosophy pointed to then-contemporary issues, that the rich were actually using their political and economic heft to oppress the poor -- and that's straight out of the Prophets. For those who like to complain about government, I paraphrase Paul: "Do what's right for everyone and the state won't bother you."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin (the real one) | March 11, 2008 3:22 PM
Rick,
I actually agree with the majority of what you just wrote. If we're talking about the behavior of many Christians (on both the left and the right) and non-Christians, you're right that they don't always reflect the teachings of Jesus or the Bible. I also agree that you can't divorce freedom and justice. When justice isn't being done we have to convince people to change their behavior. In a few instances, it may even require federal government action.
My point about supply-side economics is that you, and others, almost always bring it up because you think you have the statistics to show it doesn't work. Frankly, I don't know whether it's a valid economic theory or not. But because people here think it's invalid, they use it to discredit an entire conservative, small government philosophy, as if conservatism is solely based on this specific economic theory, as if it's the essence of conservatism. It's not.
Posted by: Eric | March 11, 2008 3:45 PM
But because people here think it's invalid, they use it to discredit an entire conservative, small government philosophy, as if conservatism is solely based on this specific economic theory, as if it's the essence of conservatism. It's not.
But that's how it was sold in the 1980s and it was certainly congruent with the "small-government" philosophy in vogue then for a number of reasons, some of them outright sinister. Truth be told, "supply-side economics" was used merely as a front to entrench inequities, essentially taking this country back to the 1920s -- in more ways than one.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin (the real one) | March 11, 2008 4:21 PM
There is an article in today's paper (AP): "Thou shalt not pollute, says the Vatican."
"In the olden days, the deadly sins included lust, gluttony and greed. Now, the Catholic Church says pollution, mind-damaging drugs and genetic experiments are on its updated thou-shalt-not list" (sic)
The article goes on to describe how John Paul and Benedict have expressed concern for the environment, and that are plans to put photovoltaic cells on a number of buildings in the Vatican.
The article ends with four paragraphs in which Monsignor Girotti was asked about scandal in the Church and the Church's position on abortion.
Why? What does that have to do with the rest of the article?
The SBC is acknowldging climate change - that's great!
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 11, 2008 4:37 PM
Rick,
Even if it was sold as the essence of "small-government conservatism" back in the 1980s (and that's very debatable) this is 2008, not 1980. Your average conservative doesn't use "supply-side economics" as a reason why they don't want a government that intrudes in practically every aspect of their lives, which is were they see this country headed.
Posted by: Eric | March 11, 2008 4:44 PM
You said "As the nation's second largest denomination (after the Roman Catholic Church)..."
The Catholic Church is NOT a denomination. The Catholic Church IS Christianity. All other Christian sects split off from the one true church, the Catholic Church. So the Southern Baptists, then, would be the largest denomination. And the other 30-odd thousand Christian sects would come in after that.
Posted by: Suzanne | March 11, 2008 4:55 PM
Your average conservative doesn't use "supply-side economics" as a reason why they don't want a government that intrudes in practically every aspect of their lives, which is were they see this country headed.
Conservatives were dangerously wrong in that analysis; to believe that they would have had to have been seriously isolated from real-world thinking. That's the problem with most conservative thought, then and now: It was unproven theory that didn't account for history, sociology and theology. As such, there was always a bogeyman to be defeated, in this case the "government"; that began falling apart in the mid-1990s with Clinton again selling government as a force for good. On top of that, that anti-authoritarian attitude displayed in resentment towards the state comes directly from Scotch-Irish culture, especially prevalent in the rural South.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 11, 2008 5:07 PM
The Catholic Church is NOT a denomination. The Catholic Church IS Christianity. All other Christian sects split off from the one true church, the Catholic Church.
That's a matter of opinion. The Orthodox consider the Roman Catholic Church schismatics, and the Protestants believe that the Catholics have serious theological flaws. And besides that, the Catholic Church, as we know it today, goes back only to the Fourth Century A. D.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 11, 2008 5:13 PM
Please, read your history. And in any case, do you not see the irony in what you said, even though it is not true? "the Catholic church only goes back to the Fourth Century A.D.". How far back the the various 30,000 Protestant sects go?
Posted by: Suzanne | March 11, 2008 5:31 PM
Suzanne,
One Catholic to another; please, chill!
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 11, 2008 5:56 PM
Gosh, I hope I NEVER chill! I hope that faith lights a fire in me and that I tend it all the days of my life.
Posted by: Suzanne | March 11, 2008 6:02 PM
And in any case, do you not see the irony in what you said, even though it is not true? "the Catholic church only goes back to the Fourth Century A.D.".
No, what I'm saying IS true. It was Constantine who basically set in motion what we now know as the Roman Catholic Church when he formed the Holy Roman Empire at around that time. (Going beyond that delves into some theological issues I'm not willing to deal with at this time.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 11, 2008 6:11 PM
"Gosh, I hope I NEVER chill! I hope that faith lights a fire in me and that I tend it all the days of my life."
Okay, but what are you trying to accomplish here?
Do you think your comments will make converts of these people whom I know to be passionate Christians, or are you serving your own sense of self-righteousness?
Those kinds of comment might win you some admiration on the Catholic Answers blog, but here you are just going to aggravate people with no desirable outcome that I can see.
Why don’t you look over the Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs pages on the USCCB website?
Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 11, 2008 6:37 PM
Eric: "Well right there you're quoting three different arguments."
Not that it's the main topic of this thread or anything, but what conservatives actually champion tax cuts or credits for the poor (i.e. federal EIC) without accompanying them with massive cuts for the affluent? I don't know if I've ever witnessed it. I see it as supply-side economics with a few scraps thrown to the unwashed masses to diffuse a major revolt. Environmental deregulation is also often advocated for supply-side reasons (saves corporations money so they can create new jobs, etc.).
Paul Krugman wrote an interesting column in NY Times a few years back contrasting "supply-side conservatives" with "small-government conservatives." In his view, the former are offering up an economic platform that would cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy that supposedly creates jobs in order to INCREASE the tax revenues of the government while DECREASING the tax burden on individual taxpayers, while the latter simply want to do away with as many federal government functions as possible. So in light of that I might mend what I said before to something along the lines of "religious conservatives often give lip service to the idea that poverty is a problem, but fall back on supply-side and small-government theories to justify government inaction in addressing the problem. That is a self-serving rationale."
I think it is an absolutely fair statement. Witness the posts of some who blog here regularly that they care about the poor having health coverage, but they think the churches should fill that role! Or that massive income tax cuts should be given as an end-all solution to poverty (even though the poor generally don't owe much income tax anyway). Huckabee, for all his talk about helping the poor, even wants to create a new tax that the poor would have to pay--a national sales tax! These are all conservative "solutions" to poverty.
Posted by: I and I | March 12, 2008 10:51 AM
I and I - With your addition, your statement has a lot more basis in reality. If you had said that in the first place I wouldn't have had much a problem with what you wrote. I appreciate your correcting your statement.
Rick,
Not wanting a central government expansive enough that it intrudes in practically all areas of one's life isn't an "analysis" or a "theory". It's a desire. If that's not your desire, that's fine.
Posted by: Eric | March 12, 2008 2:32 PM
Not wanting a central government expansive enough that it intrudes in practically all areas of one's life isn't an "analysis" or a "theory". It's a desire.
No, really, it's an excuse when you get right down to it. That was the very same rationale used for opposing, say, the civil-rights movement and any government program that benefits the poor and powerless, because they had no interest or intention of doing anything themselves or even raising the issue (otherwise they wouldn't have spent billions of dollars over the past four decades on its propaganda arm).
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 12, 2008 3:25 PM
Rick,
What is this desire of a small government an excuse for?
Posted by: Eric | March 12, 2008 3:40 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?