who we are

Amy Simpson
Amy Simpson

Free Newsletters

on LeadershipJournal.net

« Leadership and Betrayal | Main | Woe Now! 3 Questions for Leaders »

March 24, 2010

When Ideology Trumps Theology

by by Tracey Bianchi

I’m a glutton for punishment. I could have decided to slouch along the sidelines of ministry and watch the many controversies within the church zip past. Perhaps peeking over the pew on occasion and catching a slight breeze off the mini-tornadoes of debate that exist under the umbrella that is American Evangelicalism.

Public prayer, the roles of women, the role of the Holy Spirit, capital punishment, responses to poverty, HIV/AIDS, divorce, adult or infant baptism, health or wealth . . . . . .

But you see I’m optimistic to a fault so I have decided to throw myself into a few of the storms. Sort of like that completely unrealistic heifer in the movie “Twister.” I decided to ride the windy tumult on occasion. Most recently, I became a Christian environmentalist.

As my position on environmental stewardship (also known as Creation Care) has become more public I’ve been reminded afresh of a the very painful way many of us in faith communities go about making decisions. I’m convinced perhaps now more than ever that those of us in the church need to put grace and peace before our own agendas. We need to out God’s agenda first.

“Well, duh,” you might say. This is nothing new. But since the Garden we have put our own agendas before God’s agenda. It seems to be the way of humankind. Since we’ve not managed to solve this issue yet I believe the conversation bears repeating for the church today. I will use Christian environmentalism as a little test case here.

There are both fans and skeptics involved in the debate over how much energy and resources Christians should place on caring for Creation. Should we care about the issue at all? Is there room in the Kingdom of God for conversations about sustainability, land and water use, resource management, and stewardship of the land?

These are just a few of the current arguments. Every debate inside Christendom has its respective list of questions, fans, and skeptics. Because a Christian response to environmentalism is a fierce debate today, this issue can shed new light on how we engage with ideas and thoughts in our culture today. For example:

When I speak about Creation Care I receive two basic replies. The first is an overflowing sigh of thanksgiving that seems to emanate from the depths of a person’s gut. “Thank you Jesus that we are finally doing something about this.” People say. “I am so happy we are finally taking this conversation into the church.” They smile.

The other response often goes like this. “Hmmm, isn’t this a liberal agenda item?” “Are you saying that you think Obama is right?” “Isn’t this an issue for Democrats?”

These are fair questions and this is not to mock any of them. Where I struggle is with the fact that rarely does someone say to me “is this biblical?”

“Is this biblical” is the question we should be asking in every debate, on both sides. In a subject area that is rife with pantheists and a real concern that worship of God may be diverted from Creator to Creation, “is this biblical” is an essential question. But sadly I receive the biblical query in small numbers compared to those who are angry with our current President or what they perceive to be a liberal political agenda.

There is a leadership lesson here for the church that brings me to reflect on my own responses to issues. How often do I let my own ideologies drive my theology? I am usually tempted to consider first how a particular issue or response fits into my own ideological framework rather than asking the simple question, “well, is it biblical?” And if so, then how do I adjust my life accordingly (whether I want to or not).

My desire to be a good steward of the earth comes from Scripture. Sure, people can lump the passions of “green” folks like me into whatever camp they want. But to honor the conversation I do my best to let Scripture drive my agenda. This principle applies to other dicey debates as well.

If we let theology drive our ideology we open ourselves up to the horrifying yet humble possibility that we might be wrong. This puts us in a place where the Holy Spirit can move in our lives and can shape our very souls. Eugene Peterson (and I am paraphrasing here) once remarked that the moment we declare we know it all is the moment that we’ve told the Holy Spirit to take a hike.

To claim we know it all and then to declare a particular political or social camp captures that viewpoint is to place the wisdom that belongs to God alone into the hands of sinful humanity. We enter dangerous territory when we ask ideological questions before theological questions, especially in the church.

Whether environmentalism, immigration reform or economic recovery, we do the Kingdom of God justice when we venture out bravely and search first for a theological position rather than hunker down smugly behind our ideologies. This can leave us exposed, caught in the cross-fires, but strangely free to live a bit more like Jesus, who came to free us from the very ideologies of his own day, and our days as well.

Posted by Caryn Rivadeneira on March 24, 2010 9:34 AM

Comments

Hi...
This is right to confess their fault because this gives us chance to amend our fault easily. I am agree with your facts that women makes the home happiest and holy. This is also fact that true leadership comes from church. Thanks for sharing.

Posted By: Christian Women | March 25, 2010 6:11 AM

Great post! Our "side" should always be wherever the Word of God stands- on any issue. Bless you and thank you.

Posted By: Glenda | March 26, 2010 10:51 AM

The article metaphorically left me hanging, waiting to read the punch line. I am lazy and don't want to read about mining, drilling, and all the implications of anti-green. The article needs to finish. It is not ...done. Please.

Posted By: Val Angasan | March 27, 2010 1:37 AM

Good article. I passed it along to a friend who had a whole different take on it though. So, for some clarification for us, did you come to the conclusion that your environmentalism was or was not biblical?

Posted By: Karen | March 27, 2010 11:29 AM

To Val & Karen, perhaps it was intentional to not make this article about a specific issue, but about the process of coming to a position. I thought that was the whole point - & that the environment was simply an example - although Tracey DID state that her desire to care for creation comes from Scripture.

Thanks, Tracey, for this article about ideologies & for the admonition to find the Biblical perspective rather than arbitrarily coming down on a certain side of an issue.

Posted By: Kaye | March 27, 2010 7:03 PM

Hi Val and Karen,
Kaye summed it up nicely. Thank you for that. The larger point of the article was indeed to leave things open. To keep the discussions going, to free us from whatever ideologies are nagging at us and move us to explore deeper theologies. I left is loose on purpose. Thanks for asking though! Glad you took the time to read. Peace to you.
T

Posted By: Tracey Bianchi | March 27, 2010 9:43 PM

Scripture trumps ideology whenever someone approaches the Word with humility and a submissive attitude.

I find many aspects of "Christian environmentalism" troubling. Ms. Bianchi correctly identified the great danger of moving our worship from Creator to creation, and I'm glad to see her acknowledge that peril.

Additionally, room must be left for those who have serious intellectual objections to the "science" behind the claims of the most rabid of environmentalists. It's fine to say that "creation care" is a Biblical response to a real problem (I agree with this only in part), but quite another to say that since creation care is Biblical, the nature or gravity of the problem is inconsequential.

I find it puzzling, for example, when Christian environmentalists oppose genetically-engineered food - food sources that feed an exponentially greater number of people than so-called organic methods can - yet bemoan the plight of starving people around the world. I find it puzzling when Christian environmentalists support restrictions on land and water use in the Third World, thus depriving the populations of much-needed farmland and produce.

Perhaps the most maddening comment I've heard of late came from a UMC pastor, who told me with a straight face that she regarded global warming as the single most important issue facing Christians today. How sad.

Posted By: Joe | March 30, 2010 10:24 PM

Here's my issue with Ms. Bianchi....

Environmentalism, in the sense of caring for the earth God has given us, is NOT the same as environmentalism as normally discussed in politics.

A farmer who produces sheep and cattle on a farm is, IMHO, a far better environmentalist that some city-slicker nutjob protesting McDonalds.

So when she takes a political cause ind injects it into the Church, she is mixing politics with religion - and that is bad. While I believe that God’s purposes are more closely aligned with the GOP than Democrats, I am called to follow God - NOT Republicans or Democrats.

Environmentalism is NOT a religious issue except for the Mother Gaea worshipers.

Theology sets goals. Politics discusses what path we should take to reach those goals. Very few political disputes involve the end state (good health care for as many people as possible), but HOW to do it.

The problem with critiquing Ms. Bianchi's reasoning is that she does not define her terms. For instance, what does she mean by "environmentalism"? I consider myself an environmentalist, but I consider the idea that humanity is influencing global climate to be preposterous and the "green" agenda to be downright wrong.

In my view, most of the agenda of the environmental movement for the last forty years has been anti-human and, frankly, anti-environment. I believe that wealthy societies are clean societies, and that subsistence societies lack the resources to bother to do much about protecting their environment. Finally, I believe that almost all real environmental issues are local and regional; I don't think there is such a thing as a truly "global" environmental issue.

That said, I think we should care for creation; we are its stewards. I love nature and despise littering, for example, and I think regulating industrial waste is a legitimate function of government.

I guess if I were to critique the reasoning of the column, it would be to say that the author presents a false choice between ideology and theology as drivers of our thinking, and that she presents conservative opposition as a "they're for it, so I'm agin' it" straw man.

There are other options - ideology and theology are not the only sources of truth. What about looking at environmental issues with curious but skeptical eyes and looking for common-sense solutions to the problems that turn out to be real, rather than swallowing the environmental left's propaganda wholesale under the guise of being "Biblical"?

The author needs to understand that treating one's opposition as a cartoonish straw man without understanding their viewpoint does nothing to convince those of us whose opposition is reasoned and principled. She'll have to do a whole lot better than this article.

Posted By: Nathan | April 2, 2010 10:21 AM

I am a Christian and I believe in conservation, but I would never try use one to justify the other.

Why do Christians always try to justify everything through the Bible? There are numerous good ideas (not that I agree with this author) that are not covered in the Bible.

Everything in the Bible is good, but not everything good is in the Bible.

Excercise is good for you, I'm not sure if I can find a verse in the Bible that says that.

Posted By: Gina Stewart | April 2, 2010 10:52 AM

Here's the irony in the above article by Ms. Tracey Bianchi...

The whole article is about basing one's assertions on the Bible.

Yet, Ms. Bianchi doesn't refer to the Bible to back up a single point she makes in the article.

How are people going to determine whether her brand of environmentalism, or strategy to alleviate poverty is Biblical or not ?

Posted By: James Casey | April 2, 2010 11:14 AM

I'm a non-denominational Christian and I have had numerous discussions with family members about this issue over the past few years.

Here are my observations on this article:

Firstly, the author asks the question "is it biblical?", but doesn't provide any Scripture whatsoever to support her position.

Yes, the earth is God's creation and mankind was created to subdue it and rule over it in Genesis 1 and 2.

When mankind fell, so did all of creation - Romans 8:19-25. We and all of creation are not existing as God intended.

Yes, we're still stewards of everything that God has placed at our disposal. But there are priorities, and those are well communicated by Jesus Himself in the Great Commission: preach the Gospel so that fallen mankind will be redeemed.

Jesus didn't die on the cross to save the physical earth. He died to save sinners. (1 Tim 1:15). Humans. Not trees. Not oceans.

I see the current interest by Christians in environmentalism as a distraction in fulfilling the Great Commission: go and make disciples, baptize them.

Is protecting the environment a good thing? Of course. Does that activity steal time away from preaching the Gospel if the church prioritizes it ? What it does is do the good at the expense of the best.

But here's a question for Christian environmentalists:

If you had a house, and it had a sign on the front door that said "Condemned. Total renovation by Owner in near future.", would you go spend any time at all on the house?

Consider these Scriptures:

2 Peter 3:10-13

Revelation 21:1

There's going to be a new heaven and new earth. Old, passed away.

To sum up: lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven, not in saving the condemned house.

Posted By: J. Bosco | April 2, 2010 12:15 PM

The author asks the question "is it biblical?", but doesn't provide any Scripture whatsoever to support her position.

Yes, the earth is God's creation and mankind was created to subdue it and rule over it in Genesis 1 and 2.

When mankind fell, so did all of creation - Romans 8:19-25. We and all of creation are not existing as God intended.

Yes, we're still stewards of everything that God has placed at our disposal. But there are priorities, and those are well communicated by Jesus Himself in the Great Commission: preach the Gospel so that fallen mankind will be redeemed.

Jesus didn't die on the cross to save the physical earth. He died to save sinners. (1 Tim 1:15). Humans. Not trees. Not oceans.

I see the current interest by Christians in environmentalism as a distraction in fulfilling the Great Commission: go and make disciples, baptize them.

Is protecting the environment a good thing? Probably is. Does that activity steal time away from preaching the Gospel? What it does is do the good at the expense of the best.

But here's a question for Christian environmentalists:

If you had a house, and it had a sign on the front door that said "Condemned. Total renovation by Owner in near future.", would you go spend any time at all on the house?

Consider these Scriptures:

2 Peter 3:10-13

Revelation 21:1

There's going to be a new heaven and new earth. Old, passed away.

To sum up: lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven, not in saving the condemned house.

Posted By: Mike | April 2, 2010 12:50 PM

Yes there will be a new heaven and a new earth. But that doesn't mean that this earth is of no value. Yes we must take the Good News into the world but we are also to live out the Christian life - James comments about true religion spring to mind.
In part caring for the earth is a way of showing love to our neighbour. People suffer when the environment is degraded. But it also has an eschatalogical function. The Christian hope is for an embodied future. There will be a new heaven and a new earth. The earth at its best points towards the new creation, just as the church points towards God's intent for his people in that new creation.

To limit the purpose of Christ's death to saving sinners is not supported by Scripture. In the Hymn to Christ in Colossians (1:15-20) Paul writes that through Christ God reconciled to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven by making peace through his blood shed on the cross. (1:20) The all things has to be about more than just human beings. The passage also speaks of all things being created by and for Christ.

Romans 8 also implies that there will be some continuity between the old earth and the new. The old creation groans just as we groan - and we expect a continuity between what we are now and what we will be. We will have a new body. But there is some conection with our old body. Jesus was recognisable to his followers. And those who are still alive when Christ returns will be transformed - not annihilated. Paul says this twice in 1 Cor 15:51-2. The Greek word doesn't mean destroyed but changed, transformed. Romans 8 would imply that this is what happens to creation if it is groaning as we are.

Posted By: Amanda | April 2, 2010 6:00 PM

Amanda, you said:

"But that doesn't mean that this earth is of no value."

Where in my post did I say that the earth was of no value?

I stated that it was created by God, and that being responsible with it is a good thing.

You're making a straw man, I'm afraid.

Posted By: Mike | April 3, 2010 9:18 AM

Sorry, you're right you didn't say the earth was of no value. The last thing I read before I started posting was where you liken the earth to a condemned house. How much value do you put on a condemned house? You also wrote:

'If you had a house, and it had a sign on the front door that said "Condemned. Total renovation by Owner in near future.", would you go spend any time at all on the house?'

Which implies you feel that we should spend no time at all on caring for the earth. You didn't state that the earth was of no value but you did imply it. From what you have written it would certainly be reasonable to say that you feel that the earth has little, perhaps very little value.

I think part of the problem is that you have set up a false dichotomy: preach the gospel or care for the planet. It is not either/or but both/and.

And where in the Bible does it say that the creation is fallen? Romans 8 certainly doesn't. It has been subjected to frustration - which is about it not reaching its intended goal. It is in bondage to decay - from which it will be liberated. And it will be brought into a glorious freedom. Nothing about being fallen.

Posted By: Amanda | April 5, 2010 5:46 PM

Post a comment:





Verification (needed to reduce spam):

Tags

see more

resources