When men were men and Laodicea was Philadelphia...
For those not in "the know," Laodicea is the last of the churches John addresses in the letters to the seven churches that begin the book of Revelation. Laodicea is the "lukewarm" church, the one which Christ threatens to spew out of his mouth, and consequently it has become a favorite symbol among modern-day evangelicals for the current Christian church (or at least the current church in America -- it is not clear how many evangelicals realize there is also a church outside of the US and Europe). Many dispensationalists go even further, believing that the seven churches in Asia to which John writes are intended as symbolic of seven church ages, and that we actually are living in the final, Laodicean period. (Of course we know the end is near because the fig tree- Israel - began to bud in 1948, etc.)
In any case, these evangelicals are convinced that the modern church on the decline, and one industrious individual has even taken it upon herself to start a blog chronicling this sad era. (I will leave it unnamed, but Laodicea features in the title.) Recently she expressed deep disdain over Rick Warren and other evangelical leaders backing an anti-global warming initiative, as decribed in the following quote from the New York Times:
Despite opposition from some of their colleagues, 86 evangelical Christian leaders have decided to back a major initiative to fight global warming, saying "millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors."
The blogger's derisive commentary concludes with the question:
Have pastors like Rick Warren stepped outside the bounds of the message that they should be preaching? "For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified". 1 Corinthians 2:2
I am puzzled. Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 2:2 is often quoted in contexts like this, but it is simply erroneous to think that preaching ONLY "Christ and him crucified" is normative for Christian ministers. Indeed, in the very next chapter Paul laments his need to stick so closely to the basics, forced upon him by the spiritual immaturity of the Corinthians:
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 1 Corinthians 3:1-2
And aspointed out to me by inseriatim, from other posts it seems quite doubtful that the blogger herself believes that Christian ministers should stick to the preaching of Christ and him crucified. For example, she links favorably to an off-site post by someone who, in an effort to encourage young adults to follow Paul's exhortation to "act like men and be strong" (1 Corinthians 16:13) has started a church youth-wrestling program (for men only, of course). I could vent my exegetical angst at this point, but I think it's obvious that this goes beyond preaching Christ and him crucified. (Leaving aside questions about whether Jacob wrestling with God was a Christophany...)
Judging from the comments on her article, it seems that many people are in agreement with her; some see this stance against global warming as conclusive evidence of apostasy. One clever commentator seems to feel that if Rick Warren and his ilk do not change their views they will be in for the more serious "global climate change" mentioned in 2 Peter 3:10, predicting the melting of the earth with "fervent heat." (A beautiful phrase, by the way.) I don't understand the furor -- I should mention that I have never been a disciple of Rick Warren's and know of him only through what I have heard of his books. But this seems completely unobjectionable. What is wrong with evangelicals being concerned about their global neighbors? Can someone explain this to me?
The Kyoto protocol is referred to in this blog post as anti free-market. Even if this is the case, why would it be such a big concern of Christians? Are Christians called to protect the free-market at the cost of other people's lives? It seems like the answer Jesus would give to this question is obvious. It certainly seems he would be more concerned with our poor neighbors than with making sure our young men have an appreciation for wrestling.
Of course there is the "possibility" that global warming is not occurring. I think this is unlikely. But even if it were the case, why the vitriol towards fellow Christians who feel compelled to agree with the majority of scientists?
In any case, these evangelicals are convinced that the modern church on the decline, and one industrious individual has even taken it upon herself to start a blog chronicling this sad era. (I will leave it unnamed, but Laodicea features in the title.) Recently she expressed deep disdain over Rick Warren and other evangelical leaders backing an anti-global warming initiative, as decribed in the following quote from the New York Times:
Despite opposition from some of their colleagues, 86 evangelical Christian leaders have decided to back a major initiative to fight global warming, saying "millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors."
The blogger's derisive commentary concludes with the question:
Have pastors like Rick Warren stepped outside the bounds of the message that they should be preaching? "For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified". 1 Corinthians 2:2
I am puzzled. Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 2:2 is often quoted in contexts like this, but it is simply erroneous to think that preaching ONLY "Christ and him crucified" is normative for Christian ministers. Indeed, in the very next chapter Paul laments his need to stick so closely to the basics, forced upon him by the spiritual immaturity of the Corinthians:
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 1 Corinthians 3:1-2
And aspointed out to me by inseriatim, from other posts it seems quite doubtful that the blogger herself believes that Christian ministers should stick to the preaching of Christ and him crucified. For example, she links favorably to an off-site post by someone who, in an effort to encourage young adults to follow Paul's exhortation to "act like men and be strong" (1 Corinthians 16:13) has started a church youth-wrestling program (for men only, of course). I could vent my exegetical angst at this point, but I think it's obvious that this goes beyond preaching Christ and him crucified. (Leaving aside questions about whether Jacob wrestling with God was a Christophany...)
Judging from the comments on her article, it seems that many people are in agreement with her; some see this stance against global warming as conclusive evidence of apostasy. One clever commentator seems to feel that if Rick Warren and his ilk do not change their views they will be in for the more serious "global climate change" mentioned in 2 Peter 3:10, predicting the melting of the earth with "fervent heat." (A beautiful phrase, by the way.) I don't understand the furor -- I should mention that I have never been a disciple of Rick Warren's and know of him only through what I have heard of his books. But this seems completely unobjectionable. What is wrong with evangelicals being concerned about their global neighbors? Can someone explain this to me?
The Kyoto protocol is referred to in this blog post as anti free-market. Even if this is the case, why would it be such a big concern of Christians? Are Christians called to protect the free-market at the cost of other people's lives? It seems like the answer Jesus would give to this question is obvious. It certainly seems he would be more concerned with our poor neighbors than with making sure our young men have an appreciation for wrestling.
Of course there is the "possibility" that global warming is not occurring. I think this is unlikely. But even if it were the case, why the vitriol towards fellow Christians who feel compelled to agree with the majority of scientists?