May 15
Dick Land really gets it . . .
Topic: ERLC, News, Politics, Richard Land| Written by: Benjamin Cole|Your good, green friends at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission have joined together with historian (no snickering please) David Barton, the ever lovely Janet Parshall, an apparently less family-focused James Dobson, a few organizations supported by oil money, a handful of Southern Baptist theologians like Russell Moore and Daniel Akin, Singer Pat Boone — who apparently got off the the Crazy Train in time to sign — and Oklahoma’s entire Senatorial delegation
Ergun “Butch” Caner apparently did not sign this declaration either.
Go check out the We Get It campaign as it rolls out of Nashville coming to a convention near you.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:31 am
the only thing richard land is getting is a case of diminished influence.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Nothing but a political agenda
May 15th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Our man in the field just reported that NO major media representatives, writers, or reporters showed up for the “Press Conference” just concluded in Washington D.C. to launch this effort.
Baptist Press, of course, was there. And a few other religious news outlets.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I guess the major media just doesn’t ‘get it’
May 15th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Robert,
I don’t get it either.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
So the response to global warming is basically a “take care of the people, let the planet take care of itself?”
Tell me, is there any scientific evidence backing this?
May 15th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I get it. This is another opportunity to fire a shot across the bow of leaders we don’t like.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Actually, this is the first thing in a long, long time I’ve seen come from Mr. Land’s office that’s credible. Yes, Beth, this effort is more scientifically sound than the perceived threat of global warming has ever been. I’m quite astonished and impressed at the soundness of this effort.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Great. Now we have a war of dueling manifestos and declarations. I can sign the one I relate to the best and feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Ben, you outdid yourself on the Crazy Train link. There are those of us who are still trying to erase that horrible memory of Pat Boone ‘re-inventing’ himself.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Good heavens! Who put that poor little girl on that perilous cliff? Isn’t that child endangerment or something? I know females are expendable, but really!
Call the Department of Social Services!
May 15th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Prince,
You’d think SWBTS would be in great protest over this. If that girl were to have fallen off that cliff, that’s one less potential student in their Homemaking undergrad program.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Al Mohler’s statement about why he did not sign the “Evangelical Manifesto” is excellent. I would encourage everyone to read it. It is respectful to those who drafted and signed the manifesto, but rightfully points out problems with the manifesto.
Some comment above rightfully identified this “Get It” campaign as a response to another campaign that was equally political and PR oriented.
As a gross generalization, it looks like evangelicals can be divided into two camps:
1. The friendly evangelists - who desparately want to have good PR in the public at large (nothing wrong with that), but in chasing that dream make statements (or leave out statements, as Dr. Mohler has rightly noted) that are less than careful. What’s odd about this group is that while they hit upon a nugget of truth in their efforts, they look to anxious and insecure. Many evangelicals whom I know applaud their efforts. Most non-Christians whom I have talked to about their efforts believe that this group is about building big churches, colleges, etc. and just wants to appear to be really nice, and not angry like their fundamentalists friends. But this is a group of fundamentalists, too, who are basically the same (so say my non-Christian friends).
2. The other group, in response to the first group, looks like they are playing PR defense, rather than casting a positive vision for something. I know that may not be fair, but that’s how the timing makes it appear. (Maybe it’s just a matter of who can get a gig at the National Press Club - and who gets there first!)
One could call this group the “Truth Party,” but in using that term, it should not be seen as endorsing the conclusions of the group. This group has opposed the dominant cultural trends for so long that they would reflexively think something were wrong if they did not oppose the dominant cultural trends.
As for me, I am not signing up for anybody or anything that is speculative, uses “projections”, projections of models, etc. I am also distrustful of Marxist ideology, even if it’s repackaged. And if someone is going to tell me that the world is in danger and it’s urgent that we act, they had better live like they believe that. I could care less about their hypocrisy. It just doesn’t make sense to me if things are all that bad that the people who are desperate to get me to change my lifestyle have the biggest carbon footprints in the world.
So, I won’t really be signing anything or following anybody this year. But I am sure not going to sign up for something or agitate for something that’s not proven. For me, global warming fits that. It’s got nothing to do with religion. It’s just common sense and spending many of my days deposing “experts” who are really paid to say what one side in a lawsuit wants them to say. You listen to a few of those, and pick them apart, and it will almost cause you to believe that there is no such thing as truth.
Glad I know better than that.
But I sure do yearn for a referee on earth who could sort it all out!
Oh, and by the way, this blog would have been much stronger without the personal invective. While clever, it detracts from the issue, and distracts from this author’s obvious talent.
Louis
May 15th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Apparently, EMC doesn’t “get it”….
“First, I do not see any “confusion” concerning the term- we have always been clear what it means. We are conservatives who believe that Jesus alone is Lord, and the Bible is the only Word of God. The only confusion occurs when a non-evangelical wants to muddy the waters in order to become one of us, since we are such a large constituency.”
I think Dr. Caner needs to come down of Liberty Mountain for a while to realize that the majority of churches out there who are NOT preaching even the doctrines he cites, and they are failing to do so under the flag of “evangelicalism”.
“Secondly, as a Baptist, I do not stand in the “Protestant” tradition. Historically Baptists are dissenters, and were hunted by many of the Reformers. I do not believe, as the longer version of the Manifesto reads, that “evangelical is synonymous with Protestant” ”
Only according to the Landmarkist Guide to Church History. The truth is that far more Reformers where persecuted and killed by the apoState of Rome than were the relatively few Anabaptist heretics who were executed in Geneva and elsewhere. And let’s keep something in mind…these Anabaptists like Servetis were NOT orthodox. They denied key doctrines of scripture like the Trinity and Substitutionary Atonement. While in today’s tolerant culture we would never condone execution of even the worst heretics, times were far more desperate back then. While I would never justify Servetis’s execution, I will say that we should always look at the facts and look at them in their historical context.
“Further, reading the document sounds like an extended apology, and I do not apologize for the stance we have taken for decades: evangelicals are unapologetically and unabashedly pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-prayer. We believe that Christianity has been pushed out of the public square, and I do not believe such a “manifesto” will accomplish the aim of bringing prayer back in schools or rescuing the unborn. Simple logic states that standing for something requires standing against something else.”
The fact that evangelicals are acting like a political party is the very reason that they have been marginalized as such in the public arena. We have replaced declaring the gospel with declaring our political platform.
“This was the genius of men such as Dr. Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, Tim LaHaye, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Adrian Rogers and others.”
Only half of these guys are Baptist and of them only one is (was) Independant Fundamental Baptist. If the IFB and Landmarkist mindset is what defines evangelicalism in Dr. Caner’s mind, I’d suggest he might look for a new set of heroes. Perhaps Jack Hyles, D.A. Waite or even Gail Riplinger?
Check out Al Mohler’s reasoning for not signing the EM. It’s a much better investment of your time.
LD
May 15th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
This is a response to “We Get It” from the Evangelical Climate Initiative, which is a coalition including John Stott, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Timothy George, David Neff.
This Right On!
The “We Get It” Declaration Obscures the Truth
A Statement by Jim Jewell
Campaign Director, Evangelical Climate Initiative
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 15, 2008—Prior to an important vote in the Senate on climate protection, the short “We Get It” declaration masquerades as spiritual reflection, obscures the truth, and disguises its true political intent.
The statement suggests that the overwhelming scientific evidence that human activity is a main driver of global warming is somehow speculative. It purports to be an expression of concern for the poor, while advocating inaction on climate change–which will disproportionately harm the poor. And it uses the language of “tending creation” in a public effort to block policies that would advance that very end.
It is a sad and somewhat desperate attempt by a group that presents itself as representative of communities that have moved beyond them.
· Richard Land’s ERLC has been eclipsed by the new moral voices of the Southern Baptist Environment & Climate Initiative (www.baptistcreationcare.org), signed by hundreds of Southern Baptist leaders, including SBC president Frank Page.
· Father Robert Sirico of Acton Institute is out of step on environmental protection with the Vatican and a conservative Pontiff.
· Tony Perkins and James Dobson argue as evangelical leaders against climate protection, while 84 percent of evangelicals favor federal legislation to curb the emissions that contribute to global warming (2007 Ellison Research poll).
· Sen. James Inhofe is stuck on the denial of climate change, while the leaders of his own party, including President Bush and Sen. McCain, recognize the problem and call for new solutions.
The voices of the senior evangelical leaders of the Evangelical Climate Initiative speak more clearly to the climate change crisis. Their Call to Action is at http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I personally think all the hype and disagreement over both the Evangelical Manifesto and the environmental document are ridiculous. It’s simple, don’t sign it, sign it. But to nit pick and get out the magnifying glass shows why so many are leaving the churches while throwing up their hands in the process. Neither is meant to be a full theology statement. It is more than some have done by sitting on their keyboards and simply complaining. Stop the Madness. Hey that may be a document I will be starting. STM not to be confused with STD. Or SBSTM Southern Baptists for Stopping the Madness or EFSM, Evangelicals for Stopping the Madness.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
“And let’s keep something in mind…these Anabaptists like Servetis were NOT orthodox.”
Servetus was an Ana Baptist? That would be news to him.
” They denied key doctrines of scripture like the Trinity and Substitutionary Atonement.”
Boy, I keep hearing this painting of a broad brush. There is NO one movement of Ana Baptists with a designated leader. There were hundreds of groups and most were NOT “orthodox” as Calvin would describe it. See, orthodox to Calvin was baptizing babies, compulsory church membership and the Lords supper as a sacrament. Not exactly what WE would call Biblical today as Baptists.
But you are right. None of them deserved to be murdered for their beliefs. Wonder how those brilliant theologians in Geneva missed that in scripture?
May 16th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Did anyone else notice a complete and utter lack of any climate scientists on the list of “We Get It!” signatories?
May 16th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Here’s a response I wrote a couple of years to a friend when I was asked my position on the climate change isssue:
Until recently, I hadn’t read enough about the climate change debate to have an opinion on the subject. The more I’ve read, the more I’m convinced of the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The “debate” over climate change reminds me of the “debate” between creationism and evolution. The types of arguments used by the climate change skeptics are almost exactly like those of the creationists.
- Climate change skeptics and creationists claim that there is a genuine debate within the scientific community. When you look at what the scientific community says, however, you find that the “debate” is something like 98% vs. 2% of scientists, and most of that 2% are not in a field that makes them qualified to comment on the issue.
- Climate change skeptics and creationists craft arguments that appeal to layman with little or know knowledge of the science involved. What they say _sounds_ reasonable and appeals to common sense, but the arguments all wind up being scientifically unsound.
- Climate change skeptics and creationists like to pick at details while ignoring the overwhelming evidence. They’ll pick one fact that presents problems for evolution/climate change, and say “See! See! Try to explain this one!” while ignoring ever piece of evidence that presents problems for their own case.
- Climate change skeptics and creationists claim that “You can’t prove anthropogenic climate change/evolution is occurring!” Well, duh. Science never _proves_ anything. It just accumulates evidence to the point that it would, in Steven J. Gould’s words, be perverse to withold assent to a claim.
- Climate change skeptics and creationists accuse those they oppose of having agenda. Scientists support climate change/evolution not because they believe the theory to be true and that the preponderance of evidence supports their position. No, they only support climate change/evolution because it furthers their agenda of grabbing grant money/promoting atheism.
- The progression of acceptance of the facts among climate change skeptics closely paralleled what happened with creationists and evolution:
- Creationists at first denied that any evolution happened ever.
- The evidence became too overwhelming, so they fell back to , “well, evolution happens within species, but it can’t produce new species.”
- Climate change skeptics first claimed that “no climate change is occurring.”
- Evidence finally became too overwhelming, now most have move to, “well, it’s occurring, but you can’t prove that it’s caused by human activity.”
- Some have already moved beyond that to, “well, some of it may be caused by human activity, but you can’t prove that it’s going to be disastrous.”
- Finally, in both the creation/evolution and climate change debates, there are no personal, immediate consequences for being wrong. If climate change is really occurring, and bad things do happen, they’ll happen after the today’s skeptics are all dead.
May 17th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Louis, re the hyprocrisy, yesterday our newspaper carried a short article about Paul McCartney chided for carbon footprint (I think this is basically what was in our paper). I wondered how many of the environmentalists who condemned McCartney (or more accurately Lexus) also condemned Al Gore for jetting over to Oslo to receive his Nobel Prize. I don’t remember noticing any. Oh, well.