Minister Al-X

Evangelical Leaders Swing Influence Behind Effort to Combat Global Warming

I'm always a bit perplexed and amazed by the causes that evangelicals and right wing Christians take up.

I'm no expert in the Christian Bible, but I don't think that Jesus ever mentioned either abortion or homosexuality. I do know that he defended one sexual deviant (Mary), and he scolded the moral hypocrites who were about to murder her that "he who has no sin should cast the first stone." I also know that he spent his time healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and blasting the money-grubbing and extremely corrupt "Church" (Temple really) of his day. And while I'm not a Christian, I do believe that Jesus was the last great profit of the Jewish nation, and on the few occasions when I have read the Christian gospels I have always felt a kinship with the man whom Christians worship as an embodiment of the One (I feel the same kinship with many of the older Jewish profits as well, as well as with more recent Jews whom I would still place in this category, including Freud, Marx, and Einstein- and I know that the first two didn't believe in a God. It doesn't change my view).

So I have to admit that I almost wanted to cry (in a hopeful- maybe they really can find the Creator kind of way) when I read this article today about a group of Evangelicals trying to address causes that I believe Jesus would have actually talked about, i.e. taking care of those who cannot care for themselves(the poor, elderly, the environment, and many others), speaking out against injustice and working towards bringing more love and less discriminatory hate into the world, etc.

"A core group of influential evangelical leaders has put its considerable political power behind a cause that has barely registered on the evangelical agenda, fighting global warming.

These church leaders, scientists, writers and heads of international aid agencies argue that global warming is an urgent threat, a cause of poverty and a Christian issue because the Bible mandates stewardship of God's creation.

The Rev. Rich Cizik, vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals and a significant voice in the debate, said, 'I don't think God is going to ask us how he created the earth, but he will ask us what we did with what he created.'"

The association has scheduled two meetings on Capitol Hill and in the Washington suburbs on Thursday and Friday, where more than 100 leaders will discuss issuing a statement on global warming. The meetings are considered so pivotal that Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, and officials of the Bush administration, who are on opposite sides on how to address global warming, will speak.

People on all sides of the debate say that if evangelical leaders take a stand, they could change the political dynamics on global warming.

The administration has refused to join the international Kyoto treaty and opposes mandatory emission controls.

The issue has failed to gain much traction in the Republican-controlled Congress. An overwhelming majority of evangelicals are Republicans, and about four out of five evangelicals voted for President Bush last year, according to the Pew Research Center.

The Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group of 51 church denominations, said he had become passionate about global warming because of his experience scuba diving and observing the effects of rising ocean temperatures and pollution on coral reefs.

"The question is, Will evangelicals make a difference, and the answer is, The Senate thinks so," Mr. Haggard said. "We do represent 30 million people, and we can mobilize them if we have to."

In October the association paved the way for broad-based advocacy on the environment when it adopted "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," a platform that included a plank on "creation care" that many evangelical leaders say was unprecedented.

"Because clean air, pure water and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order," the statement said, "government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation."

Chris at MyDD has a post on some of the proceedings, and the brewing conflicts, from the first day:

The Nat'l Assn of Evangelicals (NAE) opened debate "on an ambitious plan" to influence policy by developing a new platform, which 87 Christian leaders signed on 3/10 (Duin, Washington Times, 3/11). The proposed platform, "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," contains policy goals that go "beyond the fight against abortion and same-sex marriage" and urge "evangelicals to address issues like racial injustice, religious freedom," and poverty. At the NAE's 3/10 luncheon many speakers said the new platform was "necessary" because the NAE risked being seen as "merely" a GOP "voting bloc." Speaker Barbara Williams-Skinner drew "a standing ovation" when she "criticized evangelicals who decide their votes using abortion and same-sex marriage as a litmus test." Williams-Skinner: "The litmus test is the Gospel, the whole of it."

But other "evangelical leaders voiced concern that the new platform could dilute the focus of the evangelical movement." Focus on the Family VP Tom Minnery warned other evangelical leaders against taking a "smorgasbord approach." Minnery: "Do not make this about global warming...the issues of marriage, the issues of pro-life are the issues that define us to this day." Sen Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) were among the "prominent figures" who attended the luncheon (Goodstein, New York Times, 3/11).

Remember that the importance of a swing group is not defined by how evenly it is split in preference between the two parties, as is commonly believed. Instead, the importance of a swing group is defined how much its voting preferences change from election to election. The greater the average change a group displays from election to election, the more important the group becomes to winning elections. In 2004, white evangelicals, already strongly pro-Republican, were actually the group with the greatest swing of any demographic. Because they swung to Bush by such a great amount compared to 2000, Kerry lost the election. Considering both the size and swinging nature of this demographic, it is essential for Democrats to find a way to improve their standing among white evangelicals. This does not mean that we have to win the group, just that we have to close the gap.

Stories like this one should give us hope.

It definitely raised my hope quotient for the day.

posted by Anonymous @ 1:20 PM