![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"For too long, we evangelical Christians have maintained an uneasy ecological conscience. I include myself in this indictment.
"We've had an inadequate view of human sin.
"Because we believe in free markets, we've acted as though this means we should trust corporations to protect the natural resources and habitats. But a laissez-faire view of government regulation of corporations is akin to the youth minister who lets the teenage girl and boy sleep in the same sleeping bag at church camp because he 'believes in young people.'
"The Scripture gives us a vision of human sin that means there ought to be limits to every claim to sovereignty, whether from church, state, business or labor. A commitment to the free market doesn't mean unfettered license any more than a commitment to free speech means hardcore pornography ought to be broadcast in prime-time by your local network television affiliate."
-- Russel D. Moore, "Ecological Catastrophe and the Uneasy Evangelical Conscience", 2010-06-01
(no subject)
As near as I can figure, according to the writings about Jesus, Christians should be something damn near indistinguishable from anarcho-socialists -- will grudgingly admit that the law of the land is the law, but are not bound to live by the precepts of the culture, and share everything communally that they haven't given away to benefit others.
But of course, that isn't what it says in the Gospel of the Republicans.
(no subject)
Since, oh, about the time the 'evangelical' label started implying more about politics than religion (that is, when right-wing Christianity started its push to capture the Republican party), more or less. AFAICT, the speaker is one for whom Evangelical ≅ Republican.
(AFAIK, that's not true of all Evangelicals, but it does seem the way to bet when you hear that label and no other information.)
So yeah, what you said about writings about Jesus vs. the Gospel of the Republicans.