The Intimidation Factor. Charles Redfern
What a scandal.
The Moderate Voice—or lack of it
At first, the moderates—epitomized by the gentlemanly NAE—vied for the lead on this issue. The NAE’s 2004 framework for social engagement, entitled “For The Health of the Nation,” delineated seven vital arenas: religious freedom, family life and children, the sanctity of life, caring for the poverty-stricken and helpless, human rights, peacemaking, and creation care. One eventual outcome: Dorothy Boorse’s 56-page pamphlet, “Loving The Least of These: Addressing A Changing Environment.” The Gordon College professor stressed that “environmental change” strikes the poor most severely. Richard Cizik, the organization’s vice president of government affairs, spurred seismic shifts that would free the movement from reactionary captivity. Climate change was one of his top priorities.
Push-back arose, of course. James Dobson tried to get Cizik fired, but the NAE president at the time, Ted Haggard, was unimpressed: “The last time I checked,” he told Dobson, “you weren’t in charge of the NAE.”30 A more muted approach came early in 2006 from the so-called “Interfaith Stewardship Alliance,” the Cornwall Alliance’s predecessor. The signatories—among whom were the distinguished Charles Colson along with a who’s-who in the Religious Right, including James Dobson (again), John Hagee, the late James Kennedy, and Richard Land—said they “appreciated the bold stance that the (NAE) has taken on controversial issues like embracing a culture of life, protecting traditional marriage and family, promoting abstinence as AIDS prevention, and many others,” but they requested it lay off climate change: it was “not a consensus issue.” An “official stance” should be filtered through official channels, and “individual NAE members or staff should not give the impression that they are speaking on behalf of the entire membership, so as not to usurp the credibility and good reputation of the NAE.” Then came the twist: “We respectfully ask that the NAE carefully consider all policy issues in which it might engage in the light of promoting unity among the Christian community and glory to God.”31
To underscore: NAE officials were “bold” when advocating the signatories’ positions but potentially divisive (“. . . in the light of promoting unity . . .”) on climate change. Invoking “unity” often knocks the debate off the merits. Suddenly, a thousand eggshells rattle across the floor, freezing us in our tracks lest we break our delicate bonds. Don’t even dare ask: What about your position’s potential divisiveness? Have you pondered our possible disunity with Christianity’s other legitimate branches, such as Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and traditional Protestantism? They’ve endorsed the scientific consensus.
It worked. The NAE blinked. Haggard answered in late January by defending the organization’s pro-environment stance but demurring on climate change. His executive committee directed NAE staffers “to stand by and not exceed in any fashion our approved and adopted statements concerning the environment contained within the Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility.” Catch a glimpse of American evangelicalism’s blind spot toward the end. Haggard said: “I believe there are pro-environment, pro-free market, pro-business answers to the environmental questions facing our community.”
Do the Scriptures rally to free enterprise? Cultural standards were now mixed into a back-to-the-Bible organization, a charge evangelicals often levy against theological liberals. And pro-creation statements ring hollow without identifying its destructive agents. Imagine federal authorities banning the mention of cigarettes while promoting cancer-free living.
The year, 2006, proved pivotal. In February, 86 evangelical leaders—including pastors, 39 Christian college presidents, and not a few current NAE board members—signed the “Evangelical Climate Initiative,” which asserted the reality of human-induced global warming and said it imperiled national security and the poverty-stricken: “Love of God, love of neighbor, and the demands of stewardship are more than enough reason for evangelical Christians to respond to the climate change problem with moral passion and concrete action. Christians must care about climate change because we are called to love our neighbors.” In May, one of the last creditable denial hold-outs, Gregg Easterbrook, cried uncle: “Based on the data I’m now switching sides on global warming, from skeptic to convert.”32
But then calamity struck. In November, Haggard resigned in the wake of a sexual scandal. Anderson, who served as president before, was recalled and brought his steady hand. The evangelical world breathed a sigh of relief. “There’s an enormous trust that people have with (Anderson), and that allows him to lead,” said Jo Anne Lyon, general superintendent of the Wesleyan church.33 The Minnesota megachurch pastor brought administrative efficiency and showed he was no right-wing poster boy: He opposed the death penalty, supported immigration reform, and signed the Evangelical Climate Initiative. A Religion News Service profile said he “continues to press the issue of justice for the poor in the developing world, working hard behind the scenes to craft an official NAE statement on climate change.”34 Anderson’s pastoral style seemed the right prescription for a stunned organization laboring under a recent leadership humiliation—and it fit with the NAE’s gentlemanly and lady-like ethos.
Calamity struck again in 2008. National Public Radio’s Fresh Air host, Terry Gross, asked Cizik a question in an on-air interview: “A couple of years ago when you were on our show, I asked you if you were changing your mind on that. And two years ago, you said you were still opposed to gay marriage. But now as you identify more with younger voters, would you say you have changed on gay marriage?” Cizik waffled: “I’m shifting, I have to admit. In other words, I would willingly say that I believe in civil unions. I don’t officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition, I don’t think.”
This went too far those who believe we should insist on the Church’s traditional teaching on sex (I’m among them). Cizik apologized for his comment and re-affirmed the NAE’s official stance, but it was too late. He stepped down from the NAE.
Christianity Today interviewed Anderson immediately after Cizik’s resignation. He said NAE officials should speak for the association, not for themselves. When asked about Cizik’s climate change advocacy, he replied: “’For the Health of the Nation’ does state that creation care is one of our priorities. It does not state in that document that we have a specific position, because we don’t, on global warming or emissions. So he (Cizik) has spoken as an individual on that. However, to most of our constituents, marriage and related moral issues and of greater importance and significance than specific stances on the climate.”35
The question hovers: “But is it right?” Does the Bible prioritize family moralities over others? Did you, Anderson, not sign a statement underscoring the moral imperative entwined in climate change? Post-interview quarterbacking is easy (and let’s shout “take two” on Cizik’s NPR conversation), but we’re left with that vague “opportunity lost” feeling. Reel back the tape. Say this: “The NAE has no formal position on climate change, but Richard was educating us and I’m on record as agreeing with him. I hope the education process can go on.” No doubt some would have screamed for Anderson’s professional head so they could line it up on Cizik’s platter, but aren’t mega-church pastors writing books on courageous leadership? Did NAE heroes like Luther, Calvin, and Wesley—or founding President Harold Ockenga—poll their constituents? Haven’t evangelicals always claimed that truth trumps popularity? Otherwise, Ockenga would have fawned before Henry Emmerson Fosdick and Carl Henry would never have written The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism.
Perhaps the NAE ailed with the same malady once infecting me: Conflict avoidance in the guise of resolution. Many in its institutions and churches offer courses in communication and negotiation in an attempt to quell their internecine battles. Such efforts are laudable, but they can lead to unintended consequences: Argument (the process of defending a viewpoint by marshaling facts in a quest for the truth) is deemed intrinsically bad. Suddenly, we’re nomads in the labyrinth of passive aggressiveness, choked by stilted “I statements” and confined by the tyranny of the sensitive. And, for the sake of “unity,” absurdities gain the respect of actualities. Imagine representatives from the Flat Earth Society and the American Astronomical Society sitting at the same table while Luther