This morning I wanted to give you a review of a conference I just returned from in Philadelphia. Evangelicals for Social Action held a conference called: The Scandal of Evangelical Politics: Toward a Biblical Agenda. Dr. Ron Sider has just published The Scandal of Evangelical Politics: Why are Christians Missing the Chance to Really Change the World? The book argues that as we develop our public policy, we must be centered in the biblical story and work outward from there. Sider gives what he understands to be the story's central biblical themes and then considers what these themes would mean for various political issues. He devotes a chapter to each of these:
- The State
- Justice
- Human Rights, Democracy, and Capitalism
- The Sanctity of Human Life
- Marriage and the Family
- Religious Freedom, Church, and State
- Peacemaking, Just War, and Nonviolence
- Creation Care
- Nation-States and International Affairs.
I agree with his presentation of the biblical narrative and resonate with his position on many of the specific applications. There are also areas where I have significant reservations. But what I liked most is his approach of beginning with the story and seeing all these issues related to the story. The conference picked up on themes presented in the book and the Public Policy document of the National Association of Evangelicals, For the Health of the Nation.
Friday Evening
Friday evening began with Dr. Sider talking about "A Faithful Methodology, A Biblical Agenda," followed by a presentation by David Gushee on "The Emerging Center in Evangelical Politics." Sider and Gushee were a little uneasy talking about being in the "center" between two poles. Gushee suggested something more like "centered" might be a better approach, suggesting that Evangelicals are becoming more centered in the story of God and seeing broader implications than what has often been identified with Evangelicalism.
Saturday Day
Saturday was a full day. Dr. Vinay Samuel gave the devotionals throughout the day. The morning plenary was on "Can [Political] Liberals and Conservatives Work Together to Solve America's Social Problems?" by Dr. Barrett Duke (Vice President of for Research & Public Policy. The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention) and Heidi Rolland Unruh (Director, Congregations, Community Outreach and Leadership Development.) I found Duke's comments particularly interesting. Duke borrowed from George Lakoffs' book Moral Politics where he uses the idea of the nation as family. Conservatives tend to see the state as an authoritarian father and liberals as a nurturing (smothering?) mother. This often leads us to ascribe very different meanings to ideas even while using the same language. Therefore, we are often confounded by the motives and thinking of opponents. Duke believes these barriers are higher and more significant than most are willing to acknowledge.
The afternoon plenary was "African Americans, Latinos, and White Evangelicals: Recognizing Barriers, Building Bridges." Luis Cortes, Jr., (Esperanza) and Dr. Brenda Salter McNeil (Salter McNeil & Assoc) both gave excellent presentations. They were followed by a panel that included them as well as Dr. Al Tizon (ESA), Rev. Richard Cizik (NAE), and Shirley Mullen (President, Houghton College) on assessing the NAE's statement (mentioned above) as a basis for finding common ground for greater reconciliation across race and gender. On the one hand, most agreed the statement was a big leap forward, and they were grateful. Yet all acknowledged that considerable work is still needed. Several women noted the absence of statements about women and their role in the Church, but there was also recognition of the realities of some of the bodies included in the NAE movement. I very much appreciated the frankness expressed during these presentations.
Also, throughout the day, there were workshops. I attended two. First, was "'Defend the Cause of the Poor' (Ps. 72:4): What Conservatives and Liberals Can Learn from Each Other about Fighting Poverty," by Dr. Unruh, and "Is a New Evangelical Center Emerging? Implementing the NAE Declaration, "For the Health of the Nation": How Well is it Going?" by Cizik and Gushee. Unruh did a great job of leading the discussion and framing poverty in terms of its relational qualities. There was great discussion and personal testimony.
The Cizik and Gushee workshop was informative and lively, but I will confess that some of what I heard here raised considerable concern. Cizik explained how we are on the verge of a total transformation of society. Every time energy sources have changed, there have been sweeping changes in how societies operate. Fighting climate change (as opposed to merely "creation care," although he uses the terms as synonyms) and the corresponding changes this will mean for energy technology is the transforming wave of the future. With each of these transformations, some make the leap, and some don't. The way forward is Evangelicals leading the transformation by fighting climate change. Furthermore, Cizik notes that Evangelicals' support of the Iraq War has seriously damaged the image of Evangelicals in the eyes of the rest of the world, but recent stances on climate change are restoring the image of Evangelicals. Battling climate change has brought the NAE far more recognition and intentional attention than anything they've done in years. Cizik clarifies that he intends to make fighting climate change the central defining element of being an Evangelical in the 21st Century.
I've read about Cizik, but this was the first time I saw him in action. I sense that if you disagree with him on climate change issues, you will be ignored. If you strenuously disagree with him, you will merely confirm to him that you are one of those who will be left behind (allusion intended). Creation care is one thing, but my perception is that Cizik has every intention of making adherence to the perspective of "save the planet from imminent environmental cataclysm created by human-caused global warming" the defining quality of being an Evangelical in the 21st Century, just as the Religious Right made abortion their single issue rallying point. It will pay political dividends of power and influence to Evangelicals. This is eerily familiar to the late 1970s and the Religious Right.
Saturday Evening
However, the conference's highlight for me was the evening presentation and panel discussion. John Dilulio, Jr., Bush's original Director of the Faith-Based Initiatives, spoke on "How Should Christians Engage the 2008 Election." The panel after the presentation included Sider, Unruh, Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, Jr. (National Hispanic Leadership Council), Dr. Sharon Gramby-Sobukwe (Eastern University), and Dr. James Skillen (President, The Center for Public Justice).
Dilulio is very entertaining, but at the heart of his message was that we will never agree on everything. He suggested we must devise two agendas to devote ourselves to and mobilize Evangelicals to those causes. They could be any number of causes. He suggested the plight of young Black men in America and addressing the AIDs crisis in Africa. Working intensely for a common cause on two issues like these would develop a pattern of being able to partner together.
The final question of the evening came from Skillen, who observed that while two issues like this might be helpful, Evangelicals are a demographic and not an organization with broad structures for doing this. How would this be done? Dilulio started with this question but veered off into a fascinating discussion about religious constituencies interacting with political power. He noted that those in power may occasionally give you an ear. You may even be invited to sit in the car of power. But you will never get your hands on the wheel of power. "A to Z" policy platforms for reforming the government are pointless. Your voice is just one small whine among a cacophony of voices clamoring for their "A to Z" interests, and the machinery is so complex and convoluted that there is no way any group can ever seize control.
Instead, he suggested Evangelicals need to go with their competitive advantage. Stake out ground on issues that fall through the cracks of society and organize to address those issues. That may mean getting involved with state or local politics, but more importantly, it is about building civic institutions that make society healthier concerning those issues. It is that prophetic witness that will then compel the powers that be to come your way in terms of governance. He was articulating exactly what has become my conviction in recent years. I was on the verge of jubilance at the conclusion of the evening. Yet, as I talked with others afterward, I sensed considerable disorientation and confusion about what he meant by such a thing.
Conclusion
The conference ended Sunday morning with open mics and worship. There were probably about 125 in attendance through the weekend. ESA did a wonderful job. It was fun to be back on the old stomping grounds of Palmer and Eastern University. Despite my inability to fully embrace the ESA agenda, I've always appreciated the gracious leadership of Dr. Sider and those associated with the organization.
Leave a Reply