I think Bill’s comment about those three things and their relation to liberal Christianity is because those phrases are trendy and hip in those circles. In liberal Christianity those things are ends in themselves and the motive is the inherent goodness of those things. I’m guessing Bill does not in fact want to ruin the environment, abuse other people and keep people poor (going out on a limb there though). I think in evangelical Christianity one would have to say that the motive behind these is the command of God and a love for people which stems from the love we receive from God in Christ. I think the difference between the liberals and evangelicals in this is on the priority and motives. As an example, I took a class at a liberal seminary where the professor taught that ‘The Good News’ to the poor and hungry is the chance for food and wealth (or at least an escape of poverty). While I agree that to the poor or hungry food and an escape from poverty is news that is good, it is hardly to be confused with the Gospel, which is so much more.

your fellow unworthy servant in Christ,
Brian DeVisser

Be careful reading T3010′s. They are not exhaustive. You are only required to put in up to ten designated recipients.

Also to Bill, if you equate eco-justice, human rights and ending poverty excluviely to the liberal church then I guess Christ himself must have been a liberal. I suggest you read Matthew 25 sometime, unless you consider that to be liberal baffle gab.

http://kairoscanada.org/en/

The “who we are” link shows their Canadian and overseas partners. Lots of admirable goals with the “ending poverty” goal seemingly congruent with CIDA’s mandate. There is a link to a briefing note that argues that KAIROS did not spend any CIDA money on social justice issues.

If I were a member of the ACoC or a contributor to the PWRDF I would be asking that mission funds be redirected to a more Gospel based mission and away from a group like KAIROS which has a fairly obvious political agenda.