The Big Debate (by Jim Wallis)
Last week, a letter from James Dobson and friends to the board of the National Association of Evangelicals challenged NAE vice president Rich Cizik's efforts on global warming as "dividing and demoralizing," claiming they shift "the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time."
In response, I invited Dobson to a debate on the question, "What are the great moral issues of our time for evangelical Christians?" and suggested that a major evangelical Christian university should host it.
On Saturday, the Los Angeles Times reported on the debate invitation, and this response: "A Focus on the Family vice president, Tom Minnery, said he would be happy to take up that debate. Dobson himself, Minnery said, is busy writing a book on child rearing."
I’m also busy writing a book, but I suggest that when we’re both finished, we hold that debate. My personal invitation to James Dobson still stands. And since he was the primary driving force behind the crucial letter, the conversation should be with him. But let’s change the tone of this from "a debate" to "a conversation." This is, in fact, the big conversation going on among evangelicals (and Catholics, too) across the nation and around the world.
In his letter, Dobson named the "great moral issues" as "the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children." I said in my last blog that I believe the sanctity of life, the integrity and health of marriages, and the teaching of sexual morality to our children are, indeed, among the "great moral issues of our time. But I believe they are not the only great moral issues." As many writers have been saying in this blog, the enormous challenges of global poverty, climate change, pandemics that wipe out generations and continents, the trafficking of human beings made in God’s image, and the grotesque violations of human rights, even to the point of genocide, are also among the great moral issues that people of faith must be - and already are - addressing.
Just in the last few days, we have already received invitations from six major Christian universities eager to host this conversation between James Dobson and me. But this is bigger than just two people: It’s the conversation we need to have on every Christian campus, in every church, and in public forums around the nation, especially as we approach another election season. So let’s do that together.
The board meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals also ended Saturday, and in the words of their own press release: "NAE Leaders Advance Broad Agenda with Landmark Document on Human Rights and Torture." The release begins by noting:
The board of directors of the National Association of Evangelicals advanced a broad public agenda at its annual meeting this week, endorsing a landmark document on human rights and torture, and reaffirming its "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Public Engagement," first adopted in 2003.Specifically, the board noted it
The only mention of Rich Cizik, whom the Dobson letter had singled out and called upon the NAE to fire, came with these words in the official NAE press release:...reaffirmed its support for the landmark "For the Health of the Nation" document unanimously adopted in 2003, commending its "principles of Christian political engagement to our entire community for action."
These principles include: (1) We work to protect religious freedom and liberty of conscience; (2) We work to nurture family life and protect children; (3) We work to protect the sanctity of human life and to safeguard its nature; (4) We seek justice and compassion for the poor and vulnerable; (5) We work to protect human rights; (6) We seek peace and work to restrain violence; (7) We labor to protect God's creation.
Speaking at the annual board banquet, Rev. Richard Cizik, NAE vice president for governmental affairs, quoted evangelical theologian Carl F. H. Henry in his wake up call to evangelicals sixty years ago: ‘The cries of suffering humanity today are many. No evangelicalism which ignores the totality of man's condition dares respond in the name of Christianity.’The NAE statement went on to say:
Speaking of a new generation of evangelicals that has responded to those cries, Cizik said: ‘We root our activism in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross and are giving it a proper temporal focus by emphasizing all of the principles that are found in the Bible. We come together in a positive way as a family bonded by the love of Christ, not as fractious relatives. We desire to be people known for our passionate commitment to justice and improving the world, and eager to reach across all barriers with love, civility, and care for our fellow human beings.’
I knew Carl F. H. Henry, during my seminary years at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and through many conversations together during our early years of Sojourners. His biblical theology, social conscience, and political balance provided a younger generation with crucial moral guidance. We miss his voice today.
But the NAE board, and its president Leith Anderson, know that a new generation of evangelicals wants that same sound theology and good balance, and believe that Christian moral concerns (and God’s concerns) go beyond only a few issues. Recognizing how their broader agenda is resonating with evangelicals around the world, the NAE announced that at its fall board meeting in Washington, D.C., October 11-12, "the association will host an ‘International Congress on Evangelical Public Engagement,’ drawing prestigious leaders from around the world to meet with American leadership around the principles of the Association's ‘For the Health of the Nation’ document." It seems the broader evangelical social agenda has solid support and is moving forward.
So, let’s have the big debate, and make it into the kind of deep and necessary conversation among the people of God that it needs to be. And to Jim Dobson I say, let’s finish our books (as a Dad with two young boys I look forward to reading yours on child rearing!), and then agree to a public conversation at the right place and the right time. I look forward to that.
4 comments:
ltEven though I feel it was extreme for Dobson to ask for Cizik to resign his post, I query the topic of global warming being a stalwart puzzle piece to fit within moral issues.
The Earth has experienced other warm times in the past, including the Medieval Warm Period (approximately 800-1300 AD), the mid-Holocene (6,000 years ago), and the penultimate interglacial period (125,000 years ago). Some believe that our current state is nothing more than our “mother earth” going through incessant intervals.
What makes this fight strange is that Cizik is not a liberal. He supported Ronald Reagan twice and George W. Bush twice. He is proud of his role in drafting the invitation to Reagan that led to the former president’s 1983 speech before the NAE calling the Soviet Union the “evil empire.”
Cizik simply repudiates the conjecture that his environmental commitment runs antipodal to his support for the anti-abortion movement.
Cizik appears slightly tainted because he has expressed a concern for world population in a 2006 speech at the World Bank. How is population control going to be achieved if not by promoting abortion, the distribution of condoms to the young, and, even by infanticide in China and elsewhere? That is the crossroad of this debatable impasse. Maybe we should abdicate welfare support for people who can’t bridle their sexual appetites that result in unbidden pregnancies.
NAE is not only shifting the focus from the most important issues of gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research, to the subsidiary issue of keeping our planet alive, but this movement is playing into the hands of every Godless Socialist (some would say liberal) that will play a role in our sooty future.
Thanks for your post Jer. What you say regarding global warming is certainly true - there are scientists who think that it is simply part of the earth's normal cycle. However, much of the evidence suggests that the earth is warming at a much greater rate than what records from the past indicate has previously occurred, and that the temperatures are higher - certainly the evidence of breakdown at the polar caps suggests that what is occurring is different than what has occurred previously. Time will tell - however, I do think that whether or not global warming ends up being a legitimate concern, it is nevertheless worth considering how we affect the earth with our technologies, and how much energy and resources each of us as individuals consume. Americans use far, far more energy individually than virtually anyone in other countries, and we are greater offenders regarding pollution as well. I do think we should be concerned about that.
I also disagree with your assessment of the "most important" moral issues of our time. What I like about the article by Jim Wallis that I posted is that he does a good job of articulating the fact that there are other moral issues that should be considered equal with the issues which some conservative Christians most often identify. Yes, the health of families and sanctity of human life are absolutely among the most important moral issues of our time. However, there are many other moral issues which are equally important. The wars in which we are involved are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths - many of civilians. AIDS and other diseases, as well as malnutrition, kill many hundreds of thousands (if not more) of people in third world countries, and much of it could be stopped if people in more developed countries did more about it. Unfortunately, many of these lives (especially African lives) are often considered cheap and not worth intervention. However, these are also issues that should be absolutely be addressed in in developing an ethic regarding the sanctity of human life. Many people, even in developed countries, live in abject poverty and do not even have the ability to provide for their families. That is a moral issue, and an extremely important one. And I believe that the care of the earth is every bit as important as these issues - if we do not keep our planet alive, all of the other debates become moot.
I would also offer a caution - not all socialists and liberals are godless, and not all conservatives are godly. I think it is important to realize that no political party is God's party. There is good and bad in both Democratic and Republican party platforms. No matter which side of the fence you end up on (or if you tend to straddle it like I do), I think it is imperative that we try to listen and learn from one another. Villifying those who think differently than we do only deepens the political divide in the U.S., and the fact that it is so difficult for Democrats and Republicans to converse with one another and work together is the fault of both parties, and it hurts all of us.
I apppreciate these kinds of discussions - I hope we can continue to have them. Everyone else needs to join in too! :) Take care.
I agree that there are other important moral issues out there, like personal responsibility of our planet. However, I don't feel as strongly towards that issue like I do about abortion, sanctity of the family, wars, poverty, etc... That being said, when it stops snowing in Cincinnati, I will then jump on the bandwagon and correct my personal agenda. Ha!
I would also like to point out that I did not refer to ALL socialist as being Godless; nor do I think all republicans are Godly. I did state that some people feel there is a fine line between socialists and liberals. Nothing is absolute in our world, except for the man who died for us over 2000 years ago.
Jer,
Fair enough. I don't think anyone feels as strongly about certain issues. The point I want to make is simply that it should be considered an important ethical issue and that it affects all of us. I do hope more Americans (and especially Christian Americans) will begin to take simple steps to curtail the energy they use and the pollution they produce, as it really isn't too hard to do so and can have a significant effect on our environment if more people do it. But I understand that some people may not necessarily feel as strongly about it - there are many important moral issues today (which is basically my point) and not everyone can be extremely active on every issue. When it stops snowing in Cincinnati, though, I think we all may be in trouble!
And I thought you probably felt that way regarding socialists, etc. - I just wasn't positive from your post, and thought it was an important point to make regardless. Please know, though, that I was not necessarily accusing you of believing those extremes. And honestly, some liberals probably are socialists, or believe that socialism is good in some cases. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. Its worth noting that in Acts what we see in the Christian community was essentially a socialist community - it certainly wasn't free market capitalism. And we do, of course, have a socialized education system in the U.S. Anyway, my point is simply that socialism may have gotten a worse rap than it deserves in some circles. I've known a good Christian socialist or two in my time.
Jer, judging from your posts I think you may be my most faithful reader. There should be some prize for that . . . :) Take care.
Post a Comment