Ship of Fools: Objecting "as a Christian"

Thread: Objecting "as a Christian" Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020214

Posted by Wulfia (# 18799) on :

CNN reports former charge d'affaires/acting ambassador to China, David Rank, resigned from his position Monday in objection to Trump pulling out of the Paris accords. Near the end is a teasing quote citing his Christian faith as a motivator. Allegedly, he told his staff that he objected to the decision "as a parent, patriot and Christian."

I've been looking for more detail on the story, but haven't been able to find any details on what church he attends, which denomination/flavor of Christianity he practices, or how exactly he links his faith and his environmental commitment. Around here, lots of people are passionate about climate change, but they don't tend to connect it to religion (that I've seen, anyway).

Has anyone else heard any more details? And is faith-driven climate action a more prevalent thing than I realize?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I would say faith-driven beliefs in environmentalism are relatively prevalent among liberal churches. The last three churches I've been a member of have had such. Of course if my current big one does much practical about it, they're the only one of the three that does. Well, having checked with the husband, that's not completely fair. Besides education, the previous one had a rain garden. Still, I think faith-based activity on climate change is still woefully lacking in general.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I dunno, my climate/eco/whatever activism is faith driven.

I would think that normal? I mean, unless you compartmentalize your life...

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

My beliefs about environmentalism come from a belief we were placed here to care for the earth. I'd like to think I care about it because it is right to do so, as many atheists do too...

Like LC, it is difficult to compartmentalise things. I would be wary of throwing "because I'm a Christian" around as people may see it as odd (at least here in secular Oz) or that only Christians can care about the environment...I find it hard to express faith reasons as many people, incorrectly, read into it that I am claiming exclusivity. Which I am not. But faith does colour my beliefs and actions, so it is a, perhaps not the only but a, reason.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

Some churches around here may be more pro-active. Of course the water conserving in large part may be because of the drought we had for several years and the knowledge that another almost certainly will come (and the water bills). I know one local UU church is putting up solar panels (which will double as shade for the parking lot). Drought resistant gardens are popular. Several seem to be involved with California Interfaith Power & Light A quick check shows that all the members local to me are mainline churches/synagogues/UU congregations.

Going back to the opening post, he might be using "Christian" as a rebuke to those Christians who say that there is no climate change, God won't allow it.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I once used "as a Christian" as an explanation for my actions, but in general I don't, because [Hot and Hormonal]

. But I can see why it would be a good thing in the situation he was in--after all, we (I, at least) are inundated with stories in the news about how Christians don't give a shit for the climate and ecosystem, and perhaps he was hoping to counter those stories. They get very old damn quickly, and it doesn't seem to make any difference if Christians protest that this is a smear against what, 2 billion people? Many of whom are passionately concerned about the earth? But the stories just keep coming, and protesting the smear gets you nothing. Crickets.

He might have a chance, though.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

Didn't the Pope recently write an Encyclical on the environment and environmental justice?

We say a petition for the proper care of the Earth in our prayers of the people.

Just two anecdotes to suggest that tying Christianity to environmentalism isn't all that unusual or novel.

I would bet that he probably threw in "as a Christian" in part to remind folks that the party that talks the most about our government being founded on Christian ideals and putting Christ back in Christmas and prayers back in schools is also the party that is cheering Trump on in his move to abandon the Paris agreement.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Just remembered--last year I was involved in setting up a faith-based "save the earth" type educational and action initiative. It is headed by one of our seminary professors.

I'd bet good money, though, that it'll never hit the news. It doesn't fit with the common narrative.

Bitter? Why, yes.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

as a parent, a patriot, and a Christian I appreciated Rank's remarks.

[ 11. June 2017, 03:30: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

My (mainline) denomination certifies qualifying congregations as Earth Care congregations. Our Place has been certified for a number of years now.

There's also GreenFaith.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

Speaking as an atheists, I would say a fair number of non-Christians are aware that self-defined Christians are split. They are probably less aware that evangelicals are split (though most don't believe it)

The Pew Forum asked some questions on climate change and religion in 2014 results
It seems for the US population as a whole 50% accepted climate change and that humans were responsible; 23% accepted climate change but thought humans weren't responsible, and 25% said no solid evidence the earth was getting warmer. Being Christian increased the percent who said no solid evidence except for Hispanic Catholics (where 77% thought there was human caused climate change and 8% that there was no evidence of climate change) and Black Protestants.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Speaking as an atheist, I would say a fair number of non-Christians are aware that self-defined Christians are split.

At first glance I read that as "self-defined Christians are spit."

Not even that. As someone else said elsewhere, If Jesus walked the earth today he would cross over to the other side of the road and make believe he was on his cellphone if he saw most "self-defined Christians" coming his way.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

There is an environmental Christian organisation called A Rocha which was campaigning to get Christians to lead environmental programmes.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

I share some of the feelings of the posters above. Especially where climate activism is concerned, I think an 'as a Christian' stance can claim specific relevancy due to the large number of climate-change-denying con-evo views which drift about in the media.

I recently was involved in an attempt to raise money for charity by selling equipment of interest into an explicitly secular web group which had come my way for free. I felt I had a right to share my motivation in a low-key kind of way, given all the hassle it was going to be, so I did it for Christian Aid. It was actively well received in most part (rather than politely ignored, which is what I guess I expected). I guess we're always treading on egg shells, and always need to be discerning.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Not on climate change or environmental issues, but another take on acting "as a Christian", Milton Jones, who is known as a Christian comedian, was asked about his Christianity and comedy on Radio 4's Saturday live at around 15 minutes in. He replied something he is not paid to convert Christians or convert, not his job to go around churches and if he does he stirs it up. Also he doesn't want to perpetuate a subculture. He starts talking about 6 minutes in.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I suppose you mean he's not paid to convert non-Christians.

To my mind, the point is that in a post-Christian society speaking 'as a Christian' is neither lucrative for an entertainer, and nor is it a positive USP for a politician or any other influential public figure. Non-Christians will be indifferent or unimpressed, and believers are always worried that the comment will be made by the 'wrong sort' of Christian, and create yet more bad publicity for the faith.

In essence, secularised societies expect religion to remain to the private sphere, and unless there is a problem (i.e. with Islamic extremism) mentioning it in public is deemed to be unwise and in poor taste.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Milton Jones is openly Christian and has produced a material on Christianity - 10 Second Sermons for example. I was linking to an interview on Holy Saturday this year when he was asked about his Christian faith and the links to his work. If you want to challenge what he said, I suggest you listen to the linked interview.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Oh, I don't mean to 'challenge' him. He's free to do what he wishes. You gave the impression that he sees Christianity as a 'subculture', and I certainly agree with that. There's always a degree of curiosity about subcultures. Subcultures are exotic.

I may well have a listen.

[ 11. June 2017, 14:03: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

In that interview, Milton Jones said that he preferred not to perform in churches because he didn't want to encourage a subculture, and would suggest that if a church wanted to see his show they should come to see him.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It seems to me that in all of these sorts of situations the criterion must be, "Is mentioning Christianity going to help my cause/argument?" Sometimes, it's not. But in the specific example of climate change, under assault by a dingbat President who has the imprimatur of the evangelical church, I think it is a good witness. No, believers are not all idiots (like so many politicians I could quote you) who claim that Jesus is going to fix all this stuff and so we might as well belch toxic fumes into the air as not. If all of us who have half a brain step up and say this in the public forum, we might find (as women did) that we are a mighty tide, a force to be reckoned with. The doltish President will not of course be altered in his ways, but politicians have to be re-elected. They should know us, and tremble.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
In that interview, Milton Jones said that he preferred not to perform in churches because he didn't want to encourage a subculture, and would suggest that if a church wanted to see his show they should come to see him.

I've listened to that, and he's obviously referring to the 'problem' of evangelical success.

Other churches don't really have the problem of putting on so many fun events that its members don't want to go elsewhere!

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It seems to me that in all of these sorts of situations the criterion must be, "Is mentioning Christianity going to help my cause/argument?" Sometimes, it's not. But in the specific example of climate change, under assault by a dingbat President who has the imprimatur of the evangelical church, I think it is a good witness. No, believers are not all idiots (like so many politicians I could quote you) who claim that Jesus is going to fix all this stuff and so we might as well belch toxic fumes into the air as not. If all of us who have half a brain step up and say this in the public forum, we might find (as women did) that we are a mighty tide, a force to be reckoned with. The doltish President will not of course be altered in his ways, but politicians have to be re-elected. They should know us, and tremble.

Yes. The danger of taking a position "as a Christian" is it can imply that only Christians care about the issue, which is clearly not the case in this instance or most other moral or ethical issues. It can sound like we're claiming the high ground presumptuously and imperiously.

otoh, the danger of not speaking "as a Christian" is it cedes the ground to other Christians who will speak "as a Christian"-- often in ways that may seem decidedly unChristian and so misrepresent our faith to the world. On this particular issue I think this danger is greater than the latter-- on others it may be the reverse.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Due to its excesses and compromises the church in the US is already in rocky shape. If we don't speak truth and shame the orange devil, then we deserve to go down into the dust and the grave.
At least there is the awareness now that we are in deep kimchee. In today's NY Times (I cannot link to it because of this particular computer I'm on) there is a long article on the front page about how liberal Christians are trying to take the microphone back, after years of ceding it to horrible people like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. Worth a read; I have not seen the issue examined in a flagship publication like this before.

[ 11. June 2017, 15:54: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Other churches don't really have the problem of putting on so many fun events that its members don't want to go elsewhere!

This is clearly ungrammatical. I meant to say:

'Other churches don't really have the problem of putting on so many fun events that their members don't want to go elsewhere!'

But going back to 'as a Christian', I'm reminded of a time when 'Christian' was used as a synonym for 'decent' or 'respectable'. It had positive but not necessarily very religious connotations. I remember reading a book in which a Christian writer recounted having had an argument with a classmate. The classmate concluded matters by saying something like, 'I may be an atheist but I'm just as much of a Christian as you are!'

Perhaps some speakers imagine that the word still has automatically positive connotations, and that it still chimes with the silent 'moral majority'. But those days are gone, and such assumptions reveal the naivete and outdated understanding of the speaker who uses the word in this way.

[ 11. June 2017, 20:42: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Perhaps some speakers imagine that the word still has automatically positive connotations, and that it still chimes with the silent 'moral majority'. But those days are gone, and such assumptions reveal the naivete and outdated understanding of the speaker who uses the word in this way.

No, in my lifetime it has completely flipped its meaning. Thanks, GOP! Now 'Christian' means a homophobe and a bigot who believes in oppressing women. If we don't snatch the name back, it'll be gone.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

One of the main take-aways I get from when someone says "as a Christian...." is that they have decided to stake out territory outside of whatever they're objecting to. Designating themselves as some sort of opposition. Which I suppose is precisely as they read their bibles, you know the bits about setting family members off against each other, not bringing peace but bringing swords and that sort of thing. Leaving out bits about salvation for everyone, not just the chosen people. And the various examples of hanging out with Bad People.

Is it reasonable to respond to someone objecting as a Christian, so say that that I object as a Christian to their objecting as a Christian?

(I have an active fantasy life, where I imagine myself giving witty snappy answers and statements and otherwise regaling others with my brilliance. I did once, decades ago, manage to say "It is unlikely I believe as you do" when asked "do you know Jesus?")

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I would say faith-driven beliefs in environmentalism are relatively prevalent among liberal churches. The last three churches I've been a member of have had such. Of course if my current big one does much practical about it, they're the only one of the three that does. Well, having checked with the husband, that's not completely fair. Besides education, the previous one had a rain garden. Still, I think faith-based activity on climate change is still woefully lacking in general.

I wouldn't call Pope Francis a liberal Christian, nor Laudato Si a liberal document. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have been fairly outspoken on environmental issues, probably because so many of their members live in the Global South and are more directly affected by climate change.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0