It’s probably just my contrarian nature, but I’m wondering how long it will take for a comment to appear castigating the Church for getting into the business of environmentalism rather than saving souls.

At least the Global South appreciates that it’s not an either/or proposition.

RE: “how long it will take for a comment to appear castigating the Church for getting into the business of environmentalism rather than saving souls. . . . “

Not certain why such a comment would appear since conservation is a most excellent thing—unlike the silly faddish attempts by TECusa for relevance by jumping on the man-made global warming bandwagon, which are the vast vast vast majority of comments to which Jeremy Bonner seems to be referring.

Is it “contrarianism” or just an inability to note differences between two sets which have little if any overlap?  ; > )

I’m not sure I agree, Sarah, not that we can’t disagree amicably as I trust we usually do.

My impression is that I think that there’s a tendency (which I have myself) to presume a secular agenda in the developed world that isn’t made when such initiatives are made in the Global South. Perhaps it’s because we know there’s no possibility of it becoming a substitute for faith in Africa (at least not yet), but I also think it reflects the defiantly individualist strain of much American evangelicalism (which also has things to be said in its favor).

It will be interesting to see, however, what African Christianity will ultimately look like in how it will in terms of political and economic stewardship. I rather suspect that it will be more corporatist than many in the US would feel was desirable, even while its theology remains uncompromised. What, for example, will be the approach of the proposed Anglican Bank, assuming it gets off the ground?