The Dobson letter

What I can't figure out is why global warming even comes up here.

Their definition of Evangelical Chrisianity, connecting the theology to conservative politics, is something new to me. Evangelicals are supposed to spread the gospel to all kinds of people. We have, as a privilege of our citizenship, the right to participate in politics. We should not turn this into a false religion, nor should we cause offense to our brothers by linking the two. If we are going to cause offense, let it be by the scandel of the cross, not by close association to people like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. Evangelical Christians need to make room for people like Richard Cizik within our tent. These guys are out of line.

These Christians are wimps. If they were Muslims, they'd just have the guy killed if they dislike his ideas so much.

These Christians know very well that the majority of the Global Warming crowd are nothing but little leftie Gaia worshippers hell-bent on destroying Christianity. It's that simple. Why would any Christian yoke themself to these unbleievers? It is fascinating to watch the Democrats pretend to be Christians. Their ideology is nothing but the yeast to grow the graet apostasy.

I don't find hate in most of these comments--that's a bit of an over-reaction. I think most of us are appalled at Dobson's public and juvenile maligning of a Christian in the public realm, which is contrary to Scripture, as if Dobson's charges even had the slightest bit of merit. And Donny: you are incorrect about the 'Global Warming' crowd. Millions if not billions of people are very concerned about this issue, and Christians should be, too. Why? Because in short, man's own greed and our historical refusal to live as good stewards, our very sin nature as it were, is resulting in climate changes that will bring severe consequences on a global scale, particularly to the poor and those already living on the very edge. To say that sharing this concern for the planet and our fellow man is yoking yourself with a Gaia-worshipper is quite illogical (and is also a true misunderstanding of the concept of Gaia, just as an aside). I agree with Andy and with reddopto, though: whatever our 'causes' may be, let our chief concern be the cross, and be magnifying Jesus and pointing all men to Him. The type of public spectacle Dobson has chosen to make his personal vendetta into certain does not hold up the Cross to a world in desperate need of real, eternal saving.

Implied in many of this comments is the question: "Isn t evangelism more important than caring for the creation?" The trouble is that the question is virtually meaningless as it stands. This can be illustrated by asking another question: Isn t evangelism more important than parenting? Whereas the first seems to call for an obvious yes, the second does not. In fact, most evangelicals with children would likely answer no to the second question.
The reason is this: We have creational responsibilities, which evangelicals share with all mankind, and we have spiritual/interpersonal responsibilities that relate to our mission as members of the universal body of Christ the church. The creational responsibilities that all people have in common are these: being fruitful by having children and then caring for and protecting them, working so that we might obtain good food to eat and clean water to drink, protecting ourselves with adequate shelter and clothing, being stewards of the earth and its fruitfulness so that it can continue to provide us with what we need to live and remain healthy. As Christians, of course, we want to be healthy and health promoting servants of God. These creational responsibilities are implicit in the foundational chapters of the Bible s book of Genesis, and it can be argued convincingly from Scripture that they have precedence over all others. If these were ignored, very little evangelism would take place at all because weak, diseased, and dead people are poor evangelists. Evangelicals commonly hold that evangelism is primarily the preaching, teaching, and sharing of the words of the Gospel: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son [Jesus], that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Yet it is not likely that any of us ever spend the bulk of our time doing this. We spend most of our waking hours carrying out our creational responsibilities which is as it should be. In fact, when we carry out these responsibilities in a way that demonstrates the love of God for both the world of people and the material world that He created, we are evangelizing. Living Christianly within the light of the Gospel with its good news for the cosmos is likely to be just as important as articulating the words of the Gospel. Can evangelicals who ignore the foundational, creational mandates implied by our Scriptures (like caring for the creation) really be good evangelists? Email me with any personal reflections on these thoughts. Thanks, Dean
dohlman@rbc.org