Saturday, March 10, 2007

Blessed are the poor in spirit 

If this article is true, it is one of the few signs of hope I've seen in a long time. (By "hope" I don't mean the crazy idea that "everything is going to get better"; I mean an opening toward which effort might be directed.)

I do think it's true, as I know a bit about Jim Wallis. See his blog or his magazine.

A struggle for control of the evangelical agenda intensified this week, with some leaders declaring that the focus has strayed too far from their signature battles against abortion and gay rights.

Those issues defined the evangelical movement for more than two decades — and cemented ties with the Republican Party. But in a caustic letter, leaders of the religious right warned that these "great moral issues of our time" were being displaced by a "divisive and dangerous" alignment with the left on global warming.

A new generation of pastors has expanded the definition of moral issues to include not only global warming, but an array of causes. Quoting Scripture and invoking Jesus, they're calling for citizenship for illegal immigrants, universal healthcare and caps on carbon emissions.

The best-known champion of such causes, the Rev. Jim Wallis, this week challenged conservative crusader James C. Dobson, the chairman of Focus on the Family, to a debate on evangelical priorities.

"Are the only really 'great moral issues' those concerning abortion, gay marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence?" Wallis asked in his challenge. "How about the reality of 3 billion of God's children living on less than $2 per day? … What about pandemics like HIV/AIDS … [and] disastrous wars like Iraq?"


The public dispute began with the release of a letter signed by several men who helped transform the religious right into a political force, including Dobson, Don Wildmon of the American Family Assn. and Paul Weyrich of American Values.

The signatories — most of them activists, not theologians — expressed dismay that an evangelical emphasis on global warming was "contributing to growing confusion about the very term 'evangelical.' "


Dobson and his fellow letter-writers suggested that evangelical should also signify "conservative views on politics, economics and biblical morality."

The letter took particular aim at the Rev. Richard Cizik, a prominent evangelical lobbyist who has promoted environmental protection as a moral imperative. Citing the creation story in the Book of Genesis, he has called the fight against global warming a directive "straight from the word of God … no doubt about it."

The letter accused Cizik of "dividing and demoralizing" Christians by pushing this agenda and called on his employer, the National Assn. of Evangelicals, to silence him or to demand his resignation.


The renewed debate on moral priorities came as the National Assn. of Evangelicals — which represents 45,000 churches and 30 million Christians — gathered for a board meeting Friday in Eden Prairie, Minn.

The board declined to censure or silence Cizik. Moreover, it appeared to embrace a broad view of the evangelical agenda, endorsing a sweeping human rights declaration.

The board also reaffirmed its support for a 2004 Call to Civic Responsibility that urged evangelical engagement on seven key issues, including religious freedom, the sanctity of life, justice for the poor, and environmental protection.

Those advocating a broader agenda insist that they're not trying to downplay — much less back away from — traditional evangelical positions on abortion and sexual morality.


"It's a mistake to think that we're all becoming liberal Democrats. That's not true," Wallis said.

But he asserted that his followers — especially young people — no longer want the old guard of evangelicals to define their priorities.

When he preached recently at a conservative evangelical college, Wallis said, he was besieged by students furious at the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who recently described global warming as a satanic plot to divert Christians from more pressing moral issues, such as spreading the Gospel.


He and others have sought to re-brand traditional slogans of the religious right, such as "pro-life," to encompass a range of programs, from working with AIDS victims in Africa to helping illegal immigrants achieve legal status so they can continue to live with their U.S.-born children.


Friday's board meeting advanced that view, but the debate is not over.

"The NAE is at a crossroads," board member Jerald Walz said.

I do know this: the fascists will never be defeated if we are afraid to challenge them directly on issues of ultimate concern--however framed. The response to Falwell et al. cannot be, "But we have separation of church and state." The response has to offer some sort of account of what human life IS, what it is FOR, how it is FULFILLED. Any attempt to foreclose the debate with reference to the public/private distinction is simply to declare that the fascists (who don't recognize the distinction) have won it.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?