Related articles and links |  1 of 2

These are anxious days in the trenches of the culture war. The Federal Marriage Amendment is dead. A rollback of President Bush's restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research appears likely after he leaves office. Human cloning looms ominously.

What's more, Christians who speak publicly on these vital causes are called theocrats and worse. This faith-hostile context makes productive debate over contentious issues, such as global warming, ever more difficult among evangelicals.

Little wonder, then, that evangelicals who dispute the cause of and remedy for global warming are critical of fellow evangelicals who signed the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) statement last year. They have three complaints, outlined in a March letter to L. Roy Taylor, chairman of the board of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). First, they believe too many evangelicals are uncritically joining the global-warming campaign. Second, they criticize the campaign for adding another priority to our crowded agenda, shifting emphasis away from "the great moral issues of our time." And third, they argue that evangelical leaders lack "the expertise to settle the controversy, and that the issue should be addressed scientifically and not theologically."

The letter, signed by Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Don Wildmon of the American Family Association, and more than 20 other conservative Christian leaders, also attacks Richard Cizik, the NAE's vice president for governmental affairs, for his vocal public stance on global warming.

The letter accuses Cizik of orchestrating a "relentless campaign," speaking "without authorization for the entire organization," and advancing "his own political opinions as scientific fact." It concludes, "If he 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."

There are many problems with the letter, not least being that the signatories, as they acknowledge, don't even belong to the NAE. Does Dobson think it would be appropriate for members of the NAE to call publicly for his resignation?

But the letter's most troubling assumption is that a conservative approach to social issues represents the sum total of the NAE's mandate and the evangelical political calling. Citing USA Today, the letter notes, "We believe that some of [the secular media's] misunderstanding about evangelicalism and its 'conservative views on politics, economics, and biblical morality' can be laid at Richard Cizik's door." Actually, restricting evangelicals to the narrower agenda of "conservative views on politics, economics, and biblical morality" is the bigger problem. This plays into convenient mainstream stereotypes of Christians being obsessed with sexual issues or pawns of the Republican Party.

It also underestimates the scope of modern evangelicalism, as well as Christ's call for us to be salt and light in all spheres of life. Historically, Christian leaders from John Chrysostom to William Wilberforce to Carl F. H. Henry have addressed a broad array of issues. They did not give in to fear of diluting the gospel message, nor did they make common cause with non-Christians uncritically. While some Christians may question global warming, none can doubt our responsibility to be stewards of God's creation.

In response to the letter, the NAE board pointedly reaffirmed its 2004 document, "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility." This text lists environmental stewardship (although not specifically global warming) among seven key evangelical priorities. The others are religious freedom, the family and children, the sanctity of human life, the poor, human rights, and peace in a violent world.

next page... |  1 of 2

share this page

May 2007, Vol. 51, No. 5