Moderate Evangelicals Taking on Dobson

So, if you're a nonconservative evangelical who wants to be politically effective, what you should do, instead of whining that the Democrats are big meanies, is stuff like this:

Rebuffing Christian radio commentator James C. Dobson, the board of directors of the National Association of Evangelicals reaffirmed its position that environmental protection, which it calls "creation care," is an important moral issue. ...

[In a letter to NAE, Dosbon and other right wingers] argued that evangelicals are divided on whether climate change is a real problem, and it said that "[NAE vice president Rev. Richard] Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time," such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

If Cizik "cannot be trusted to articulate the views of American evangelicals on environmental issues, then we respectfully suggest that he be encouraged to resign his position with the NAE," the letter concluded.

(Emphasis added.)  "Creation care" is pretty good rhetoric.  Note also that Dobson is forced to label abortion rights and marriage equality great moral evils while downplaying the moral significance of global warming - all positions at odds with the majority of normal people.

The Rev. Leith Anderson, the association's president, said yesterday that the board did not respond to the letter during a two-day meeting that ended Friday in Minneapolis. But, he said, the board reaffirmed a 2004 position paper, "For the Health of the Nations," that outlined seven areas of civic responsibility for evangelicals, including creation care along with religious freedom, nurturing the family, sanctity of life, compassion for the poor, human rights and restraining violence.

They ignored him. Perfect.

On Friday, the association's board approved a 12-page statement on terrorism and torture. Anderson said that Cizik gave a report to the board on his work in Washington as vice president for governmental affairs and that there was no effort to reprimand him. "I think there was a lot of support from me, from the executive committee and from the board for Rich Cizik," Anderson said.

Great. Where is James Dobson's outrage over torture? And note that Cizik is not just a spokesman, he's VP for government affairs, meaning he's the NAE's chief lobbyist.

Having said that, let's not forget that Cizik and friends are not our allies, just the enemy of our enemy in this case:

Cizik is a pro-Bush Bible-brandishing reverend zealously opposed to abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem-cell research. He is also on a mission to convert tens of millions of Americans to the cause of conservation, using a right-to-life framework.

Since Dobson's political power is based on hate, it's understandable he would want to purge the movement of ideas like this:

Q:    The Bible also says that humans have "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing." Some in your community interpret this as a license to exploit natural resources.

A:     That is a deeply flawed interpretation. Dominion does not mean domination. It implies responsibility -- to cultivate and care for the earth, not to sully it with bad environmental practices. The Bible also teaches us that Jesus Christ is not only redeeming his people, but also restoring God's creation. Obviously, since the fall of man and entrance of sin into the world, all of creation has yearned for its redemption from sin and death and destruction. That will occur with the Second Coming of Christ. But in the meantime we show our love for Jesus Christ by reaching out to and healing the spiritually lost and by conserving and renewing creation. Christ's call to love nature is as simple as his call to love our neighbors as ourselves.

This cuts right to the core of Dobson's financial support, which is corporate and wealthy. The rich fund Dobson because some of them are co-fanatics, but more importantly because he harnesses the haters to support the party through which the rich can impose their will on the government. A pro-environment, anti-big business message like Cizik's is poison to them:

BILL MOYERS: Senator James Inhofe is a prominent evangelical Christian and one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress. He heads the Senate Committee with Jurisdiction over the Environment. Back home in the oil-producing state of Oklahoma, his supporters cheer him for ferociously taking on environmentalists. Man-made global warming? Don't you believe it.

SEN. JAMES INHOFE [video]: Could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? I believe it is.

RICHARD CIZIK: The conscience of man doesn't always speak clearly. And I would ask the Senator does the $400,000 plus he gets from the oil and gas industry, about that. I'm not sure of the exact figures. Impact his ability to make decisions on the environment. And I don't really blame Senator Inhofe. I believe he's a fine man, a fellow Christian, whom I will not attack. I say, I love you. He's my brother in Christ. I have to love him. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with him.

SEN. JAMES INHOFE [video]: Pat, I don't have to tell you about reading the Scriptures, but one of mine that I've always enjoyed is toward Romans 1, 22 and 23 I think it is. They talk about you quit worshipping God and start worshipping the creation- the creeping things, the four-legged beasts, the birds and all that. That's their god. That's what they worship.

RICHARD CIZIK: If you are the senator of the committee in charge of the environment, of the most powerful nation in the history of the universe, in charge of the environment, and you maintain against all the science, that this climate change is surely a hoax, then I think you have to be the biggest riverboat gambler in all of history. Gambling you see, not just your own life, but the lives of millions of people. Not just Americans but others in low-lying countries around the world, that will be impacted by climate change, now, and not in generations to come. And do we have the right to say there's no consensus? To allow politicians off the hook? To permit years to go by, as it has occurred in this Administration? That is dangerous. That is almost, you see, spiritually dangerous.

Cizik says the right things about the political process:

The president is the president of all the people. He's president of not just the Protestants. He's president of the Catholics, and of the Muslims, and the orthodox and the unbelievers. So should this president cater to the evangelicals? I don't think so. Frankly, I don't think we can go to this administration and ask for favors. We don't.

But even if we could, we shouldn't simply because he's an evangelical. We have to make arguments based upon what is good for everybody. If it's not good for everybody, then you're wasting your time. …

Part of that is because evangelicals have matured; not only about our methodology in politics, but we've also come to understand you can't change America solely by politics. It won't happen. You have to change the hearts and minds of the public on issues like abortion. We're not going to statutorily prohibit abortion in America, I don't believe.

Fine. This I can live with. As I have said, I have no problem if your political aims are motivated by your religious beliefs. But when you make policy arguments, you have better be able to defend them in secular terms, because "God wants you to obey me" is not going to cut it. Digby says:

If the evangelical movement decides to pursue its agenda as a special interest rather than as GOP soldiers, I predict they will find friends across the aisle on different issues.

I would be a little more clear. Dobson et al are already a "special interest rather than ... GOP soldiers", because Dobson has told the Republicans in the past that he would abandon them if they didn't adopt his policies. Dobson really is a conservative soldier, while Cizik appears to be a principled evangelical.

Cizik is out in front of his membership, and is acutely aware that they need to be brought along:

Q:    My understanding is that you publicly rejected an offer by the leaders of the Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation to join forces.
A:     I said, "Not for now." Look, there are those in my community who are concerned that environmentalists are advocates of population control, of big-government solutions, or New Age religion, and have apocalyptic tendencies. In the latter case, there's some irony in my opinion. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. I am trying to reason with my community that we've earned our spurs in co-belligerency -- collaborating with groups we wouldn't otherwise work with, in the name of the common good. I say, if we've worked with Free Tibet on religious freedom, the Congressional Black Caucus on slavery, Gloria Steinem and feminists on rape, and the gay and lesbian lobby on AIDS, why can't we work with environmentalists?

(Emphasis supplied.) So, Cizik ain't no liberal, but can you imagine Dobson ever working with liberal groups on anything?

Here's the reason Dobson is afraid of this guy:

Q:    How much influence do you think you have on the direction of the Republican Party?

A:    Our membership is 30 million strong, with 45,000 churches, 7,000 megachurches, some with billion-dollar budgets. We represent 40 percent of the Republican Party. There is a saying that "as evangelicals go, so goes the West" -- meaning our community sets trends. Is everybody in our community ready to support a creation-care agenda? Certainly not. But conservation is conservative at its roots, and they can be regrown.

Whoa. "[C]onservation is conservative at its roots...."  So is banning torture. So is opposing aggressive war. So is favoring fair trade. So is supporting - really supporting - human rights.  No, NAE will never be our best buddies, but they're a pretty sharp stick to use against the Dobsons of the world.

 

Comments

[mds]

He's my brother in Christ. I have to love him. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with him.

Oooh, that one's finally gotten aimed at someone on the right.

And it's even done in that classic passive-aggressive evangelical style: "I love my brother in Christ, who is on the take from oil companies, and behaving like a riverboat gambler toward solid scientific conclusions."

This guy is good. Remind me to avoid being loved like a brother by him, though.

[Mithras]

Too late!