An evanglical Christian who does not support the Republicans
I thought this would be an appropriate place to post this. It's an email from an evangelical Christian environmentalist friend of mine (her husband started the 'What Would Jesus Drive' campaign. I sent her a link to an article in GRIST (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/) on the evangelical Christian view of the world based on an imminent apocalyptic prophesy. This is her response, which I found very thoughtful and maybe a little reassuring that not all evangelicals think this way. And maybe the ones who do can be turned around.
Hi Sara:
Sorry I didn't get back to you on this sooner! I hit some glitches on my work with NWF that I was working out (actually, am still working out)!
Yes we are still bummed about the election. How depressing. We didn't even take down our Kerry sign until a few days ago.
Regarding this article, it seems to combine several different ideas. Since this article was put out, there's been much unresolved debate about the so called "values voters" and how the polling was done. Have you seen any of those articles (in NYT, WP). They are very interesting.
Regarding the "end times" idea, there are some Christians who believe that we don't need to care as much about "earthly things" (which includes much more than the environment) because there will be a new heaven and a new earth. However, this is a schism with many other Christians who believe that life on this earth matters, so we do need to worry about feeding the poor, taking care of our own bodies, and caring for what God has made. As for us, we hold the latter view which we believe is also biblical. Simply stated, if God created it then God cares about it, and we are to also. We are also to care for our neighbor as we care for ourselves, and all of us do care whether we eat, whether our families are healthy, and whether we have sufficiency and contentment.
I think the most disturbing thing to me in this article was what I felt was a hostility by the writer toward a particular faith - in this case Christianity. I can understand (as both a Christian and an environmentalist) the anger after this election. However, this anger translated into essentially a prejudice against one religion as well came across to me as a very biased and arrogant report. It also defined the whole group monochromatically as one faction. For example, the author didn't even mention the above schism, which is very well known, and that there are many others of faith who do not support these views. Nor mention that many of the world's most respected and prominent scientists who have dedicated their life's work to caring for the environment are also Christians.
Anyway, my hope is that neither environmentalists nor people of faith are characterized monochromatically and that both can be open to the views of the other.
What did you think of the article?
Take care,
YYYY
>From: "Sara J. Gottlieb"
> To: "XXXX, YYYY"
> Subject: Interesting piece from Grist Magazine
> Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:37:38 -0700
>
> Hi YYYY,
>
> I was reading this and wondering what your take would be?
>
> http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/
>
> Needless to say, I'm very distressed about the outcome of the election and the direction our nation seems to be heading.
>
> Sara
Hi Sara:
Sorry I didn't get back to you on this sooner! I hit some glitches on my work with NWF that I was working out (actually, am still working out)!
Yes we are still bummed about the election. How depressing. We didn't even take down our Kerry sign until a few days ago.
Regarding this article, it seems to combine several different ideas. Since this article was put out, there's been much unresolved debate about the so called "values voters" and how the polling was done. Have you seen any of those articles (in NYT, WP). They are very interesting.
Regarding the "end times" idea, there are some Christians who believe that we don't need to care as much about "earthly things" (which includes much more than the environment) because there will be a new heaven and a new earth. However, this is a schism with many other Christians who believe that life on this earth matters, so we do need to worry about feeding the poor, taking care of our own bodies, and caring for what God has made. As for us, we hold the latter view which we believe is also biblical. Simply stated, if God created it then God cares about it, and we are to also. We are also to care for our neighbor as we care for ourselves, and all of us do care whether we eat, whether our families are healthy, and whether we have sufficiency and contentment.
I think the most disturbing thing to me in this article was what I felt was a hostility by the writer toward a particular faith - in this case Christianity. I can understand (as both a Christian and an environmentalist) the anger after this election. However, this anger translated into essentially a prejudice against one religion as well came across to me as a very biased and arrogant report. It also defined the whole group monochromatically as one faction. For example, the author didn't even mention the above schism, which is very well known, and that there are many others of faith who do not support these views. Nor mention that many of the world's most respected and prominent scientists who have dedicated their life's work to caring for the environment are also Christians.
Anyway, my hope is that neither environmentalists nor people of faith are characterized monochromatically and that both can be open to the views of the other.
What did you think of the article?
Take care,
YYYY
>From: "Sara J. Gottlieb"
> To: "XXXX, YYYY"
> Subject: Interesting piece from Grist Magazine
> Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:37:38 -0700
>
> Hi YYYY,
>
> I was reading this and wondering what your take would be?
>
> http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/
>
> Needless to say, I'm very distressed about the outcome of the election and the direction our nation seems to be heading.
>
> Sara