False Advertising?

The staff and congregation at the United Pentecostal Church of Harvey, Ill., are convinced you'll like their church--so convinced that they offered $25 to the first 75 visitors who showed up at each of their Sunday morning services. Chicago Tribune article notes--other churches have lured attendees with gas cards, cash and tickets to movies and comedy shows. It's easy to criticize these "tactics," but are they far removed from the advertisements of churches that promise free Starbucks and Krispy Kremes--or even "relevant, practical sermons," "exciting children's ministry" and "upbeat contemporary music"? Ministry is definitely about compelling people to come--and taste and see--that God is good. But do we compel them with what they want or what they need? I'm not sure what I think of all this, but here are two questions I have:

• Is this false advertising? In other words, does this methodology suggest to unbelievers that God and the church are merely another option at the spiritual smorgasbord of postmodern American culture--when in reality, it is the only option?
• Is it "bait and switch"? In other words, does this methodology give people the impression that church is "all about you," but then (once they join) we attempt to convince them that they exist for the glory of God and the service of His Kingdom?

by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
June 27, 2006

False Advertising?

The staff and congregation at the United Pentecostal Church of Harvey, Ill., are convinced you'll like their church--so convinced that they offered $25 to the first 75 visitors who showed up at each of their Sunday morning services. Chicago Tribune article notes--other churches have lured attendees with gas cards, cash and tickets to movies and comedy shows. It's easy to criticize these "tactics," but are they far removed from the advertisements of churches that promise free Starbucks and Krispy Kremes--or even "relevant, practical sermons," "exciting children's ministry" and "upbeat contemporary music"? Ministry is definitely about compelling people to come--and taste and see--that God is good. But do we compel them with what they want or what they need? I'm not sure what I think of all this, but here are two questions I have:

• Is this false advertising? In other words, does this methodology suggest to unbelievers that God and the church are merely another option at the spiritual smorgasbord of postmodern American culture--when in reality, it is the only option?
• Is it "bait and switch"? In other words, does this methodology give people the impression that church is "all about you," but then (once they join) we attempt to convince them that they exist for the glory of God and the service of His Kingdom?

by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
June 27, 2006

[Un]Healthy Relationships?

Why it's greasy for a pastor to hawk 'fatty acid' pills.

Last month the Tampa Tribune ran a story on a local megachurch pastor's infomercial for Omega XL fatty acid pills. Apparently, the pastor was on the verge of a vascular disaster several years ago when his physician recommended the $50-a-bottle pills. Now an avid evangelist for the product, the pastor receives $5 for every bottle sold through his infomercial.
The Tribune article focused primarily on the financial implications of pastoral product endorsements. (Apparently, this pastor stands in a long line of such partnerships: In the '30s, radio evangelist John Brinkley advocated the implantation of goat glands to enhance male virility.) But what about the spiritual implications? Although diminished with the effects of 21st-century cynicism (some would say, because of such "crass commercialization"), pastors still wield intangible spiritual power over the lives of those they lead.

They are sought out for advice in dating, finances, marriage, child rearing, emotional health and so on. Their opinions are considered informed by biblical reflection and prayer, not merely commercial interest or cold rationality. Simply put, a pastor's counsel is trusted for spiritual reasons--reasons that transcend common sense for some people. Consider recent Ponzi schemes launched by church leaders who used their spiritual influence for financial gain and hoodwinked reasonably intelligent believers with promises of "kingdom increase" and "divine overflow."

Regardless of the purity of one's motives, it would seem that the use of spiritual influence for commercial purposes ultimately cheapens the public perception of the pastoral role and weakens prophetic influence in the public sector (particularly on issues in which a biblically-informed voice is so desperately needed, such as abortion, gay marriage, poverty and the environment).

Without a clear distinction, the pastor's voice becomes merely another plea for attention among the countless other voices hawking their wares and pushing their agendas--as easy to tune out as a Geico commercial.

by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
June 20, 2006

[Un]Healthy Relationships?

Why it's greasy for a pastor to hawk 'fatty acid' pills.

Last month the Tampa Tribune ran a story on a local megachurch pastor's infomercial for Omega XL fatty acid pills. Apparently, the pastor was on the verge of a vascular disaster several years ago when his physician recommended the $50-a-bottle pills. Now an avid evangelist for the product, the pastor receives $5 for every bottle sold through his infomercial.
The Tribune article focused primarily on the financial implications of pastoral product endorsements. (Apparently, this pastor stands in a long line of such partnerships: In the '30s, radio evangelist John Brinkley advocated the implantation of goat glands to enhance male virility.) But what about the spiritual implications? Although diminished with the effects of 21st-century cynicism (some would say, because of such "crass commercialization"), pastors still wield intangible spiritual power over the lives of those they lead.

They are sought out for advice in dating, finances, marriage, child rearing, emotional health and so on. Their opinions are considered informed by biblical reflection and prayer, not merely commercial interest or cold rationality. Simply put, a pastor's counsel is trusted for spiritual reasons--reasons that transcend common sense for some people. Consider recent Ponzi schemes launched by church leaders who used their spiritual influence for financial gain and hoodwinked reasonably intelligent believers with promises of "kingdom increase" and "divine overflow."

Regardless of the purity of one's motives, it would seem that the use of spiritual influence for commercial purposes ultimately cheapens the public perception of the pastoral role and weakens prophetic influence in the public sector (particularly on issues in which a biblically-informed voice is so desperately needed, such as abortion, gay marriage, poverty and the environment).

Without a clear distinction, the pastor's voice becomes merely another plea for attention among the countless other voices hawking their wares and pushing their agendas--as easy to tune out as a Geico commercial.

by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
June 20, 2006

A Tale of Two Tithers

Is 10 percent really enough?

Phil is rich--philthy rich according to some. His contracting business provides more than enough money for him, his wife and his two children. In fact, he just bought a second home in the Florida Keys, along with a jet ski and his and her Jeeps. Phil is also a tither--and then some. Last year he was pushing 12 percent when tax time came around. Phil's happy, his pastor's happy and--lucky for Phil--there's plenty left over for the finer things in life.

Beth's not so lucky. A single mother, she's made some poor choices in life, and she's been the victim of poor choices on the part of others. After rededicating her life to Christ, she was recently introduced to the practice of tithing. Sometimes, before taking the offering, her pastor has one of the board members give a testimony of how God has blessed him and his family for tithing. She was particularly impressed when he recounted how he recently nailed a great deal on a beach house in the Keys. But for Beth, five percent is about all she can squeeze out of her budget for a tithe. She's been told that a tithe is 10 percent and that, "if she would just trust God," he would make the other 90 percent stretch. Maybe someday she'll be in better financial straits. In the meantime, she finds herself frequently asking God's forgiveness for "robbing Him." She hopes He understands.

The story may seem farfetched to some, but it reveals a question many of us would rather not discuss: In the context of materialistic American life, is 10 percent enough? Or, is it even a number that should be used as a standard in a church in which welfare recipients mingle with financiers. For some, the tithe gives the implicit right to spend 90 percent of one's money however one sees fit--as long as God gets His due. While the Old Testament is clear in its expectation that God's people give merely a tenth of their firstfruits, the New Testament's expectations seem far greater: Jesus castigates those who are conscientious about tithing but neglect the "weightier" things of the law, He suggests that His followers consider the prospect of complete asset liquidation and the Acts church practices radical communalism.

Perhaps it's time to consider a "graduated tithe", such as Ron Sider describes in his book Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. With a graduated tithe, a family tithes 10 percent of its base needed income (usually the poverty level). For any income above that base, a family would give a gradually higher percentage. Some, like Rick Warren, may eventually find themselves blessed to the extent that they are "reverse tithing"--giving 90 percent and keeping 10.

Of course, church leaders should avoid presenting these stewardship strategies as a legalistic command for those whom God has blessed financially. But maybe it's time we considered the possibility that God might be just as concerned with how we spend the 90 percent He lets us keep as He is with what we do with the 10 percent He requires as a tithe.

by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
June 15, 2006

A Tale of Two Tithers

Is 10 percent really enough?

Phil is rich--philthy rich according to some. His contracting business provides more than enough money for him, his wife and his two children. In fact, he just bought a second home in the Florida Keys, along with a jet ski and his and her Jeeps. Phil is also a tither--and then some. Last year he was pushing 12 percent when tax time came around. Phil's happy, his pastor's happy and--lucky for Phil--there's plenty left over for the finer things in life.

Beth's not so lucky. A single mother, she's made some poor choices in life, and she's been the victim of poor choices on the part of others. After rededicating her life to Christ, she was recently introduced to the practice of tithing. Sometimes, before taking the offering, her pastor has one of the board members give a testimony of how God has blessed him and his family for tithing. She was particularly impressed when he recounted how he recently nailed a great deal on a beach house in the Keys. But for Beth, five percent is about all she can squeeze out of her budget for a tithe. She's been told that a tithe is 10 percent and that, "if she would just trust God," he would make the other 90 percent stretch. Maybe someday she'll be in better financial straits. In the meantime, she finds herself frequently asking God's forgiveness for "robbing Him." She hopes He understands.

The story may seem farfetched to some, but it reveals a question many of us would rather not discuss: In the context of materialistic American life, is 10 percent enough? Or, is it even a number that should be used as a standard in a church in which welfare recipients mingle with financiers. For some, the tithe gives the implicit right to spend 90 percent of one's money however one sees fit--as long as God gets His due. While the Old Testament is clear in its expectation that God's people give merely a tenth of their firstfruits, the New Testament's expectations seem far greater: Jesus castigates those who are conscientious about tithing but neglect the "weightier" things of the law, He suggests that His followers consider the prospect of complete asset liquidation and the Acts church practices radical communalism.

Perhaps it's time to consider a "graduated tithe", such as Ron Sider describes in his book Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. With a graduated tithe, a family tithes 10 percent of its base needed income (usually the poverty level). For any income above that base, a family would give a gradually higher percentage. Some, like Rick Warren, may eventually find themselves blessed to the extent that they are "reverse tithing"--giving 90 percent and keeping 10.

Of course, church leaders should avoid presenting these stewardship strategies as a legalistic command for those whom God has blessed financially. But maybe it's time we considered the possibility that God might be just as concerned with how we spend the 90 percent He lets us keep as He is with what we do with the 10 percent He requires as a tithe.

by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
June 15, 2006

Heretics @ Home

Are house churches really more vulnerable to false doctrine?

Since George Barna released Revolution last fall, nearly everyone has weighed in on his controversial vision of the future that sees 70 percent of the church worshipping in non-traditional settings such as house churches within the next 20 years.

My "favorite" argument against the house church movement popped up (again) in a recent article in the Washington Post, where it is suggested that house churches are more vulnerable to heresy, because they lack the accountability of established churches and denominations. I'm not sure what's weirder about this argument--that it is made by Americans, that it is made by Protestants or that it is made by people clearly aware of the current religious milieu.

Why? Well, let's start with the "America" issue. This nation was founded on a belief in the superiority of limited government, on the contention that "we the people" must keep government accountable through the democratic process. Although far from being a "biblical form of government," democracy reflects the biblical principle that a lot of power in the hands of a few sinners can lead nowhere good. This same egalitarian notion is at the heart of the house church movement. It's the conviction that doctrine (like political power) should not be preserved by an ecclesiastical elite. It must be articulated, taught, transmitted and understood by the laity.

Next, we are Protestants, aren't we? The Reformation was a movement of doctrinal purification that emerged from the decay of institutional heresy. Apparently the strong "leadership" of generations of popes, bishops and priests was inadequate to protect the church from doctrines and practices so bizarre they would be considered downright cultish by today's standards. An indulgence anyone? In fact, as many would argue, the leaders were the ones who concocted these abberations to begin with! It was when the exclusive right to interpret the Word of God was pried from the grasp of clergy that the laity discovered that they had been duped. Then, like now, the church is not in need of more leaders, it's in need of more readers--believers who will embrace the responsibility of their own spiritual health and stop subcontracting it to paid clergy. However flawed, the house church movement is one attempt to correct this imbalance.

Finally, even a cursory observation of our largest religious institutions would indicate that size and structure have no bearing on orthodoxy. Some of our largest denominations are still making up their mind about whether they should ordain gays. The pastors of some of our largest churches don't even crack open the Bible when they preach. And yet some of us are worried about the theological pitfalls faced by devout believers exploring the Scriptures and worshipping in the privacy of their own home?

No, house churches are the least likely seedbeds of heresy. In fact, they are the natural offspring of the Reformation's cry: Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda ("The church reformed and always to be reformed"). As with any renewal movement, there will be pockets of excess and room for correction. For instance, in the coming years, the house church movement will have to tackle challenges of elitism, leadership, accountability and--of course--heresy. But like the rest of the Body, they won't be facing these alone (see Matt. 18:20).

by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
June 7, 2006

Heretics @ Home

Are house churches really more vulnerable to false doctrine?

Since George Barna released Revolution last fall, nearly everyone has weighed in on his controversial vision of the future that sees 70 percent of the church worshipping in non-traditional settings such as house churches within the next 20 years.

My "favorite" argument against the house church movement popped up (again) in a recent article in the Washington Post, where it is suggested that house churches are more vulnerable to heresy, because they lack the accountability of established churches and denominations. I'm not sure what's weirder about this argument--that it is made by Americans, that it is made by Protestants or that it is made by people clearly aware of the current religious milieu.

Why? Well, let's start with the "America" issue. This nation was founded on a belief in the superiority of limited government, on the contention that "we the people" must keep government accountable through the democratic process. Although far from being a "biblical form of government," democracy reflects the biblical principle that a lot of power in the hands of a few sinners can lead nowhere good. This same egalitarian notion is at the heart of the house church movement. It's the conviction that doctrine (like political power) should not be preserved by an ecclesiastical elite. It must be articulated, taught, transmitted and understood by the laity.

Next, we are Protestants, aren't we? The Reformation was a movement of doctrinal purification that emerged from the decay of institutional heresy. Apparently the strong "leadership" of generations of popes, bishops and priests was inadequate to protect the church from doctrines and practices so bizarre they would be considered downright cultish by today's standards. An indulgence anyone? In fact, as many would argue, the leaders were the ones who concocted these abberations to begin with! It was when the exclusive right to interpret the Word of God was pried from the grasp of clergy that the laity discovered that they had been duped. Then, like now, the church is not in need of more leaders, it's in need of more readers--believers who will embrace the responsibility of their own spiritual health and stop subcontracting it to paid clergy. However flawed, the house church movement is one attempt to correct this imbalance.

Finally, even a cursory observation of our largest religious institutions would indicate that size and structure have no bearing on orthodoxy. Some of our largest denominations are still making up their mind about whether they should ordain gays. The pastors of some of our largest churches don't even crack open the Bible when they preach. And yet some of us are worried about the theological pitfalls faced by devout believers exploring the Scriptures and worshipping in the privacy of their own home?

No, house churches are the least likely seedbeds of heresy. In fact, they are the natural offspring of the Reformation's cry: Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda ("The church reformed and always to be reformed"). As with any renewal movement, there will be pockets of excess and room for correction. For instance, in the coming years, the house church movement will have to tackle challenges of elitism, leadership, accountability and--of course--heresy. But like the rest of the Body, they won't be facing these alone (see Matt. 18:20).

by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report
June 7, 2006

Good Housekeeping

How evangelicals are reclaiming the environmental agenda on a biblical foundation.

A group of 86 prominent evangelical leaders stirred up controversy earlier this year when it backed a major initiative for environmental stewardship called "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action." Signatories included pastors, educators and denominational officials from a broad swath of evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal traditions, including pastor and author Rick Warren, International Church of the Foursquare Gospel president Jack Hayford and Wheaton College president Duane Litfin.

Soon after the document's release, 22 high-profile evangelicals sent a letter to the National Association of Evangelicals, urging the body not to issue any statement on global warming or to allow its officers or staff members to take a position, arguing that, "global warming is not a consensus issue."

Signatories of this counter-document included Prison Fellowship Founder Charles Colson, Focus on the Family's James Dobson and Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Recently, Ministry Today sat down with Joel C. Hunter, pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed, in Longwood, Fla., to discuss this new brand of evangelical environmentalism. Hunter signed the original document and also appeared as a spokesperson for TV commercials promoting the initiative's agenda. Hunter notes that the initiative has been largely welcomed—especially among younger evangelicals.

"There's a part of emerging Christianity who've been waiting for leadership in this area," he says. "There will always be some who will be scared, but that's not the majority of what we're hearing."

While he recognizes that some who are against the initiative may object to the partnerships with more liberal groups that such a stand may bring, Hunter contends that biblical obedience must trump political concerns. We asked him to respond to some of the concerns of opponents of evangelical environmentalism:

Ministry Today: Some would say there are more pressing, "eternal" issues at stake. In other words, why focus on creation care when millions still need to hear the gospel?

Joel Hunter: This is not a focus. This is part of a full and comprehensive spreading of the gospel. In the future, I believe service and social witness are going to be the main venue for evangelism. We will be able to do more to spread the gospel by addressing some of the practical issues of people's needs than if we had just gone in there and started preaching the Word. We'll build up credibility as being a people who care about more than just spreading their own religion.

Ministry Today: Don't government-enforced environmental regulations ultimately hurt poor people by raising the cost of goods and services?

Hunter: We think the poor can be hurt more by the devastation that may be caused in part by global warming than by any government-imposed sanctions. There can be a remedy to this by a business-generated, economically-suitable cure for the problem, rather than simply imposing a top-down solution. There are ways to build both jobs and economic incentives to solve the problem, rather than mandate certain limits. Government needs to partner in this. It's more than an NGO [non-government organization] can cure.

Ministry Today: Although there are scientific indications that global warming is occurring, how do we know that it's humanly-generated?

Hunter: I have in front of me the executive summary for the National Academy of Sciences document on climate change science. Its first sentence starts out like this: "Greenhouse gasses are accumulating in the earth's atmosphere as a result of human activity." You can go from "We are a major cause" to "We are a minimum cause." Either way, we are still a cause.

Ministry Today: Doesn't an emphasis on environmental concerns distract the church from more pressing political and social issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and poverty?

Hunter: I think it's just the opposite. There will always be a few Christian leaders who focus on one or two or three issues, because that's their heart—that's their passion. But I think that the more Christians are involved in addressing the problems of society, it is going to give us greater credibility for the issues that we are concerned about. In other words, as we get more involved in society in multiple ways, we'll be seen as a force to reckoned with. We'll have a momentum that enhances our impact on certain issues, rather than takes away from. It's not an either/or issue, it's both/and.

Ministry Today: How do signers of this initiative avoid supporting a pantheistic worldview that is often at the heart of environmentalism?

Hunter: Here's what Christians have to do: We have to continue to frame the issue as one of biblical obedience, appreciating the Creator by taking care of His creation. Simply put, Christians are doing this out of reverence for God, out of respect for his gifts, rather than out of any devotion to the gift. The earth is the Lord's, and that's why we're doing this.

Ministry Today: Doesn't "dominion" over the earth imply that we would eventually use—or even exhaust the resources—we've been given?

Hunter: That has been grossly misinterpreted. Dominion is defined in Genesis 2:15 when God puts the man in the garden to cultivate it and to keep it. In those two words we have the definition of dominion. The first is abad—"to make use of." The second is shamar—"to protect and safeguard." So, we can't exploit the gift of creation and use it up. We have to develop it in a way that respects it and protects it. We have to be sure that we don't use the old cultural definition of dominion. The biblical definition has everything to do with protecting and serving.

Ministry Today: The signs of the times indicate we may be nearing the return of Christ. So, why focus on this right now?

Hunter: First, if Christ comes back right away, wouldn't it be nice to have him find us doing what we're supposed to do? It's very important that we don't protect the earth for utilitarian purposes. Our focus is obedience. Obedience is right whether it's utilitarian or not. We want to obey God no matter how long or how short Christ is in His return. Plus, we're going to be judged for our works. If we don't care for the earth, we're going to be asked, "What did you do with what I gave you?" We don't want to answer, "We trashed it."

Ministry Today: It doesn't seem this debate has been settled among scientists—let alone church leaders. So shouldn't we avoid it altogether rather than make ourselves look foolish?

Hunter: The reason we're doing this is not because of the science. Since when do Christians need scientific confirmation to do what God tells them to do? What will really make Christians look foolish is talking about religion as though it's something inside a church, without our faith blessing all the families of the earth, which is really why God called a people unto himself in Genesis 12:3. If we want to look foolish, sit inside our churches and do things that don't matter to the world. That's what will look foolish.

by Matt Green
from Ministry Today magazine
May/June 2006

Good Housekeeping

How evangelicals are reclaiming the environmental agenda on a biblical foundation.

A group of 86 prominent evangelical leaders stirred up controversy earlier this year when it backed a major initiative for environmental stewardship called "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action." Signatories included pastors, educators and denominational officials from a broad swath of evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal traditions, including pastor and author Rick Warren, International Church of the Foursquare Gospel president Jack Hayford and Wheaton College president Duane Litfin.

Soon after the document's release, 22 high-profile evangelicals sent a letter to the National Association of Evangelicals, urging the body not to issue any statement on global warming or to allow its officers or staff members to take a position, arguing that, "global warming is not a consensus issue."

Signatories of this counter-document included Prison Fellowship Founder Charles Colson, Focus on the Family's James Dobson and Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Recently, Ministry Today sat down with Joel C. Hunter, pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed, in Longwood, Fla., to discuss this new brand of evangelical environmentalism. Hunter signed the original document and also appeared as a spokesperson for TV commercials promoting the initiative's agenda. Hunter notes that the initiative has been largely welcomed—especially among younger evangelicals.

"There's a part of emerging Christianity who've been waiting for leadership in this area," he says. "There will always be some who will be scared, but that's not the majority of what we're hearing."

While he recognizes that some who are against the initiative may object to the partnerships with more liberal groups that such a stand may bring, Hunter contends that biblical obedience must trump political concerns. We asked him to respond to some of the concerns of opponents of evangelical environmentalism:

Ministry Today: Some would say there are more pressing, "eternal" issues at stake. In other words, why focus on creation care when millions still need to hear the gospel?

Joel Hunter: This is not a focus. This is part of a full and comprehensive spreading of the gospel. In the future, I believe service and social witness are going to be the main venue for evangelism. We will be able to do more to spread the gospel by addressing some of the practical issues of people's needs than if we had just gone in there and started preaching the Word. We'll build up credibility as being a people who care about more than just spreading their own religion.

Ministry Today: Don't government-enforced environmental regulations ultimately hurt poor people by raising the cost of goods and services?

Hunter: We think the poor can be hurt more by the devastation that may be caused in part by global warming than by any government-imposed sanctions. There can be a remedy to this by a business-generated, economically-suitable cure for the problem, rather than simply imposing a top-down solution. There are ways to build both jobs and economic incentives to solve the problem, rather than mandate certain limits. Government needs to partner in this. It's more than an NGO [non-government organization] can cure.

Ministry Today: Although there are scientific indications that global warming is occurring, how do we know that it's humanly-generated?

Hunter: I have in front of me the executive summary for the National Academy of Sciences document on climate change science. Its first sentence starts out like this: "Greenhouse gasses are accumulating in the earth's atmosphere as a result of human activity." You can go from "We are a major cause" to "We are a minimum cause." Either way, we are still a cause.

Ministry Today: Doesn't an emphasis on environmental concerns distract the church from more pressing political and social issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and poverty?

Hunter: I think it's just the opposite. There will always be a few Christian leaders who focus on one or two or three issues, because that's their heart—that's their passion. But I think that the more Christians are involved in addressing the problems of society, it is going to give us greater credibility for the issues that we are concerned about. In other words, as we get more involved in society in multiple ways, we'll be seen as a force to reckoned with. We'll have a momentum that enhances our impact on certain issues, rather than takes away from. It's not an either/or issue, it's both/and.

Ministry Today: How do signers of this initiative avoid supporting a pantheistic worldview that is often at the heart of environmentalism?

Hunter: Here's what Christians have to do: We have to continue to frame the issue as one of biblical obedience, appreciating the Creator by taking care of His creation. Simply put, Christians are doing this out of reverence for God, out of respect for his gifts, rather than out of any devotion to the gift. The earth is the Lord's, and that's why we're doing this.

Ministry Today: Doesn't "dominion" over the earth imply that we would eventually use—or even exhaust the resources—we've been given?

Hunter: That has been grossly misinterpreted. Dominion is defined in Genesis 2:15 when God puts the man in the garden to cultivate it and to keep it. In those two words we have the definition of dominion. The first is abad—"to make use of." The second is shamar—"to protect and safeguard." So, we can't exploit the gift of creation and use it up. We have to develop it in a way that respects it and protects it. We have to be sure that we don't use the old cultural definition of dominion. The biblical definition has everything to do with protecting and serving.

Ministry Today: The signs of the times indicate we may be nearing the return of Christ. So, why focus on this right now?

Hunter: First, if Christ comes back right away, wouldn't it be nice to have him find us doing what we're supposed to do? It's very important that we don't protect the earth for utilitarian purposes. Our focus is obedience. Obedience is right whether it's utilitarian or not. We want to obey God no matter how long or how short Christ is in His return. Plus, we're going to be judged for our works. If we don't care for the earth, we're going to be asked, "What did you do with what I gave you?" We don't want to answer, "We trashed it."

Ministry Today: It doesn't seem this debate has been settled among scientists—let alone church leaders. So shouldn't we avoid it altogether rather than make ourselves look foolish?

Hunter: The reason we're doing this is not because of the science. Since when do Christians need scientific confirmation to do what God tells them to do? What will really make Christians look foolish is talking about religion as though it's something inside a church, without our faith blessing all the families of the earth, which is really why God called a people unto himself in Genesis 12:3. If we want to look foolish, sit inside our churches and do things that don't matter to the world. That's what will look foolish.

by Matt Green
from Ministry Today magazine
May/June 2006