AMERICAN LIFE AND POLITICS

    By    Mel Ingram

 

"The Left must learn the differences between Secular, Biblical and Moral Values if     they wish to grasp the reasons for their defeat at the polls in 2004!" 

 

Article MV-3 in a Feature Series

       THE HERRICKREPORT.COM  

 See other articles in this MV series: Vol 1, Vol 2, Vol 3, Vol 4 Vol 5 Vol 6

 

ELECTION 2004 AND MORAL VALUES

 

This article will vary somewhat from my first two in this series.  I’ve chosen to answer assertions made by Mr. Glenn Scherer in an article featured by Grist Magazine entitled, The Godly Must Be Crazy http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/.  The Grist headline was "Christian-right views are swaying politicians and threatening the environment."  It is my belief that Scherer and other ‘progressives’ are attempting to make “Environmental Protection” co-equal with the primary questions of homosexual unions, abortion and embryonic stem cell research. It was these hot-button issues that governed the Christian vote in the 2004 election.  Because of this ominous attempt by the secular element to divert attention away from primary traditional values, I am persuaded that their deception warrants our attention.

 

Quote: "U.S. legislators backed by the Christian right vote against these issues with near-perfect consistency. That probably doesn't surprise you, but this might: Those same legislators are equally united and unswerving in their opposition to environmental protection." -- Glenn Scherer

 

This quote is a 'red herring' -- This is simply an outlandish accusation about some very fine legislators with no basis or proof offered.  You can't prove that even a single legislator is "unswerving in their opposition to environmental protection" -- not even one!  Just because they receive high ratings from conservative institutions and low 'grades' from the liberal and progressive left does not prove your accusation that they oppose protection of the environment.

 

Although these legislators consistently vote in concert with established Biblical values such as abortion, legalizing homosexual "unions" and embryo stem cell research, this does not necessarily mean that they vote against or oppose protection of the environment.

 

Quote: "…. President Reagan's first secretary of the interior, James Watt, told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. 'God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.’ Watt said in public testimony that helped get him fired…their words and actions suggest that many share Watt's beliefs." -- Glenn Scherer

 

Attributing Watt's interpretation of Scripture is another 'red herring'.  You are totally aware that many Christians would disagree with much of his interpretation. You readily admitted that this quotation helped to get Mr. Watt fired.   Although I agree that mismanagement of our environment is a matter of morality, it is a stretch to conclude, therefore, that conservative legislators and thinkers should be required to justify their position by scripture reference, especially if they happen to be non-Christians. 

 

You seem to have disclosed that the Left's secret plan for the future is to establish environmental disputes as principle moral issues, bringing it to the same level of national interest as abortion, legalizing homosexual "unions" and embryo stem cell research.   I suppose you could confuse the issue even further by adding to the mix such items as animal rights, maltreatment of the poor and needy, or any number of such items.  But few, if any of these items are 'hot button' issues with the general population!  Few of us would quarrel over feeding the needy or helping with health issues!  Maybe the Progressives of the liberal left will give you some special recognition or award you for discovering a new way to redefine morality within the arena of public concern.

 

Your unswerving determination to paint Christians, with a brush dripping with sarcasm, as being completely uncaring for this earth is evidenced by this assertion:

 

Quote: "Like him, many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future. They believe we are living in the End Time, when the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire. They may also believe, along with millions of other Christian fundamentalists, that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming Apocalypse." -- Glen Scherer

 

As you contend, it is true that God gave man dominion over all the earth (Genesis 2:28).  But as you well know, the Bible admonishes Christians to exercise good stewardship over His gifts.  I contend that most Christians understand their obligation to live out their lives in the center of God's will, caring for the earth and its bounty, even as they realize that His return will come when least expected.  But that does not mean we should live care-free lives, wantonly destroying our habitat, not preparing for our future or protecting our environment in the mistaken belief that ours is a not-to-worry society because Christ's eminent return relieves us of any and all responsibility.  After 2000 years of waiting, clearly it is up to each of us to prepare for the winter of our lives and for that of our grandchildren.  How very, very wrong -- how disrespectful can you be?  You seem to conclude that all, or even most, Christians are guilty of not caring about protecting God's creatures or about the environment that Almighty Creator left in our care, custody and control.

 

Where can I begin to mount a defense against such inaccurate garbage?  Your disdainful treatment of Scripture shows how contemptuous your attitude is toward almost all categories of Christian believers.  Perhaps you might have shared more insightful opinions if you could actually comprehend what you thought you read and understood about the Bible concerning God's revelation to mankind.  If you had respect for and belief in the Authority of the Bible, we could talk theology and probably come to a reasonable conclusion about all this.  But in the absence of such instruction, I must reject your charade of how we 'born-again', Bible-literalists, fundamental-believing Christians interpret Scripture and what most of us actually understand about the so-called 'End Times'.  Your characterization of Christians is totally unsubstantiated and incorrect.

 

Quote: "Like it or not, faith in the Apocalypse is a powerful driving force in modern American politics. In the 2000 election, the Christian right cast at least 15 million votes, or about 30 percent of those that propelled Bush into the presidency…. Because of its power as a voting bloc, the Christian right has the ear, if not the souls, of much of the nation's leadership… their [legislative] votes are heavily swayed by an electoral base that accepts the Bible as literal truth and eagerly awaits the looming Apocalypse. And that, in turn, is sobering news for those who hope for the protection of the earth, not its destruction…. It is also difficult to understand without grasping the complex belief systems underlying and driving it." -- Glen Scherer

 

The faith of true Christians lies not "in the Apocalypse as a powerful driving force in modern American politics."  -- Sir, our faith resides in our Lord as we believe in the sufficiency of grace provided by our Living God!  Yet, you continued to torture us with the assertion of this little jewel:

 

"While there are many divergent End-Time theologies and sects, the most politically influential are the dispensationalists and reconstructionists." -- Glen Scherer

 

There you go again… Not many of us were impressed by your theological prowess in characterizing those especially 'dangerous-but-influential' Dispensationalists and Reconstructionists as the 'worst-of-the-worst' offenders.  Your worry and concern that the earth will not be "protected" from the terrible and destructive Christians who will do all in their power to ravage, deplete and destroy their own environment is the most blatant mischaracterization of facts in your whole ridiculous article. Christians hold dear many different and varied interpretations of the Bible.   A very large segment of Christians believe that much, but by no means all, of Scripture is to be taken literally just as it was translated.   A student of the Bible recognizes the difference between apocalyptic revelation and the intended literal treatment of the Word.  And those who do are in step with the traditional thinking of most theologians going all the way back to the days of Christ's virgin birth and incarnation.

 

Quote: "The social and environmental crises of our times, dispensationalists say, are portents of the Rapture, when born-again Christians, living and dead, will be taken up into heaven…." -- Glen Scherer

It is true that we believers will be 'raptured' when Christ returns to claim His church…. But you have added another ingredient to your imagined case of environmental crisis: that being one of an imagined social crisis.  To what social crisis do you refer?  Please advise us when you have located even one knowledgeable person who claims that "the social and environmental crises of our times" have anything to do with the so-called 'End Times'.  Why must you insist on trying to connect to and blame Christians for some obscure plot that harms the environment and destroys our ecological infrastructure?  Is it by chance that you seek to substitute "the social and environmental crises" as your idea of a "moral value" so that the 'Progressive' liberal establishment may use it to deflect from the genuine social issues that helped to defeat the Democrats in the 2004 election?

 

Quote: On the heels of that Rapture, nonbelievers left behind on earth will endure seven years of unspeakable suffering called the Great Tribulation, which will culminate in the rise of the Antichrist and the final battle of Armageddon between God and Satan. Upon winning that battle, Christ will send all unbelievers into the pits of hellfire, re-green the planet, and reign on earth in peace with His followers for a millennium." -- Glen Scherer

 

How sardonic can you get? My, my, what an absolutely false picture you have painted.   Where are the collaborative Scriptures for these words: "Christ will send all unbelievers into the pits of hellfire."? The door is open for all that believe, but no one enters without a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.  Those who foolishly reject Christ as Savior have condemned themselves already to a future devoid of the Master's presence.  It is not Christ who condemns -- they condemn themselves!

 

Quote: "People under the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth when the droughts, floods, and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the Apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the Rapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a Word? Many End-Timers believe that until Jesus' return, the Lord will provide…. Natural-resource depletion and overpopulation, then, are not concerns for End-Timers -- and nor are other ecological catastrophes, which are viewed by dispensationalists as presaging the Great Tribulation. “-- Glen Scherer

 

Now it's my turn for sarcasm: Why care, indeed?  Why not just walk in front of the next Greyhound bus or 18-wheeler?  After all, if your time is up, it's up!  Mr. Scherer, such a fatalistic view of life is no more Biblical than are the questions you have posed.  Why, indeed, should we concern ourselves with the health of our environment?  I submit that a very small percentage of Christians hold such pessimistic views, so why do you pretend it so?  Because, sir, you have deliberately set out to build a case against Christians as being environmentally callous; therefore dangerous.  Don't look now, but your bias against Christianity is showing!  My advice to you, my man, is to be very, very careful how you ridicule everything Godly, because the scripture you quoted, below, pertains to you -- except that your own, personal redemption may be in jeopardy due to your personal disbelief.

 

"When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh" (Luke 21:28).

 

Your worldview appears to track with that of secular humanism, which by the way is a religion unto itself.  You may pretend to be a 'Christian', but a Christian has been born-again through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.  Christians, who are in good standing with their Maker, do not seek to destroy the earth over which they were given custody.  The position you take in trying to prove Christians to be environmental antagonist’s challenges the Authority of Scripture in that you persist in twisting and perverting the words inspired by Almighty God in order to prove your erroneous conclusion.

 

Quote: "[Tom] DeLay has fought to gut the Clean Air and Endangered Species acts. Last year, Inhofe invited a stacked-deck of fossil fuel-funded climate-change skeptics to testify at a Senate hearing that climaxed with him calling global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." DeLay has said bluntly that he intends to smite the "socialist" worldview of 'secular humanists,' whom, he argues, control the U.S. political system, media, public schools, and universities." -- Glen Scherer

 

Well, I suppose that the Republicans were able to do a lot of 'smiting' in the recent election!

 

Quote: "This explains the disregard for environmental science so prevalent among Christian fundamentalist lawmakers: the denial of global warming, of the damaged ozone layer, and of the poisoning caused by industrial arsenic and mercury."  "… Faith in Christ's impending return causes End-Timers to be interested only in short-term political-theological outcomes, not long-term solutions.  -- Glen Scherer

 

Mr. Scherer, why don't you try an approach that leaves your opponent's religion out of the formula?   If you hope to convince the American people and their legislative representatives, you'll need to build your case on a different 'red herring'.  You have failed to prove that the world is coming to an end due to environmental crimes and ecological neglect perpetrated by the Religious Right.  And, you'd be wise to research the scientific data that contradict the numbers predicted for the 'Chicken Little' minions you apparently exemplify. 

 

 

 

Anyhow, the data shows us traditional Christians haven't done so badly after all:

 

Quote: The fact that the United States over the past 30 years has reduced major air pollutants by a quarter at the same time that energy consumption and population have risen 40 percent gives Diamond hope. -- David Shi (president of Furman University in Greenville, S.C.) quoted Jared Diamond, a Pulitzer Prize-winning geographer at UCLA in the December 28, 2004 edition of Christian Science Monitor:  http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1228/p15s01-bogn.html

 

 

About Mel Ingram

Contact Mel --- Unless you note to the contrary, it is assumed that you have, by writing to Mel Ingram or through the Herrickreport.com to him, given permission to the editor of the Herrickreport.com to reprint in part or in all any questions or comments directed to Mel.

Copyright, 2004
Herrickreport.com