Cizik contra Dobson

Dobson seems a lot more focused on politics than on the family these days. I just don't get the urgency with which he pursues the decision makers in Washington. Don't get me wrong, Christians should vote, but all too often voting one's Christian convictions is taken to be part and parcel of one's Christian existence. All this emphasis on scaring up votes against this and against that, when many sincere Evangelicals just want to know how to overcome the nagging, persistent sins in their lives that they've never been able to shake. Jesus said "My Kingdom is not of this world" and "the Kingdom of God is within you."
I liked Dobson much better as a psychologist than as political activist.

What I sense at the evangelical college where I teach is that a lot of evangelical folks on the left (students and professors) are profoundly embarrassed by traditional Christian stands on sex and life and weary of confrontation, and attempt to buy cultural cache and approval by showing concern for environmental action, etc. We've had event after event after event dedicated to global warming this academic year; the ROe vs Wade anniversary came and went with nary a mention. That is troubling to me. Really troubling. Why does it have to be an "either/or"? I don't believe God tells me that I have to be either for protecting unborn life, or for being a good steward of His gift of Creation. Admittedly I'm alienated from the GOP because I believe that it uses issues of life and sexual morality to get voters like me to the polls to vote Republican, but doesn't actually do anything about it once in office. A conservative Catholic friend of mine told me the other day that he doesn't even consider (Republican) presidential candidate's views on abortion and gay marriage when he evaluates them. He said he knows they're not going to do a thing to stop either once their in office, so why waste time pretending that they will?

I agree with Irenaeus and Prof. Beckwith that a lot of what's troubling about the pro-conservationist, anti-global warming evangelical left is that it elevates these causes at the expense of - in the place of - fighting for family and life issues. Perhaps it is, as suggested, because some are tired of being marginalized by the elite. They are basking in the newfound approbation from the New York Times and the academy they find in taking up traditionally "left" causes while at the same time it seems they are joining in looking at social conservatives with that faintly (or not so faintly) patronizing air we all know so well. I agree it doesn't have to be either/or, but while I believe in being a good steward of the environment, I don't think global warming is the biggest issue facing our country today and I certainly don't think it should take precedence over protecting life and family. Dr. Dobson has built up enough credibility with me over decades of being familiar with the Focus ministry (and the brief time I spent interning at Family Research Council) that I have a hard time believing he's primarily interested in the "power" aspects of this internal evangelical debate, though the leak first to the press is troubling. As a Catholic I don't always understand the role that evangelical associative bodies play in governing or representing the evangelical churches - is this debate something that should be handled more internally, or is it just hard to avoid playing it out publicly?

Motive is all. Is this Evangelical shift driven by embarrassment about being associated with the positions taken by the old-fashioned dullards, the drive to prove one is "hipper than that"? Or is it from a deep conviction that the Triune God is calling them to these particular missions? I imagine the former, but certainly cannot really judge. I only know that if it is, then institutions and groups, rather than going from strength to strength, mostly morph away from what sustained and distinguished them. Meanwhile, they do not really remedy their Country Cousin status, are seldom integrated on equal terms and welcomed by those thought to be more sophisticated, though they may be used politically and economically.
Sincerity, honesty, discernment is all at these turning points. Frankly, I share with the Pope's Lenten preacher a pervasive suspicion of giving priority to pacifism, environmentalism, and generic agreeable religion over more bedrock questions of aecesis and obvious, traditionally-defined virtue.

Racism can be personal and private, just as homosexuality can be interpersonal and public. For example, one can hold racist opinions and be a generally nice person. Think, for instance, of an endearing uncle or aunt, who wouldn't hurt a fly and is charitable, but holds racist beliefs. On the other hand, one can imagine someone like Rosie O'Donnell who brings a child into a fatherless home, denies that child the contribution of a male parent, and then requires that those who disagree with that arrangement remain silent, change their minds, or receive harsh judgment (e.g., being called a bigot, homophobe, and so on). We consider it a tragedy when a child loses the developmental contribution of a mother or father and must grow up with a single parent, even though we applaud the courage and fortitude of such a parent. Including a second single parent of the same sex in the home, though reducing the work load of the first, can never replace what the other sex contributes to that child's flourishing. If our genesis results from a co-mingling of difference, then I suspect our continued flourishing is enhanced by that paternal co-mingling during our formative years. That is a deep wisdom that all our grandparents knew, but we have chosen to ignore, probably to the peril of our progeny.
Remember that I was writing about Evangelical Christians of the Left, not the Left. Christians, of all people, should not assess a wrong merely on the basis of its consequences, but rather, on its inherent wrongness. Racism is not wrong just because it hurts others; it is wrong because it is a disordered way of thinking that harms the soul of the one who embraces it, even if that individual never acts in a way that hurts others.

...he doesn't even consider (Republican) presidential candidate's views on abortion and gay marriage when he evaluates them. He said he knows they're not going to do a thing to stop either once their in office, so why waste time pretending that they will? Uh...how about two Supreme Court justices, a veto of stem-cell research, and stopping funds for overseas abortions? What more do you want, in a country that generally supports abortion? Sheese.

Thanks to M_David and Erin Manning for bringing up a couple points I left out above. Often environmentalists see human beings as the problem, overpopulation threatening the planet, and the solution to that is, of course, abortion. And for those who think that Republicans don't push conservative social issues hard enough, well, I would say that what they *don't do* -- advocate for gay marriage, free abortion on demand, etc. -- is very important. Edward Hyne makes a good point re: industrialization; I would say that industrialization per se is not a Christian or evangelical virtue, but industry (ie., 'industriousness') is. John Wesley (I believe) said, 'Make all you can, save all you can, give all you can.' The broader point is that market economies and trade and etc. is necessary to bring people out of poverty, and it seems to work much better than centrally planned economies, *but* capitalism must always be tempered and constrained by governments acting in good faith enacting laws to protect fundamental human values. (Of course, the devil is in the details, and governments seldom act in good faith.) Hope this is relatively coherent; it's too early for me to be thinking and typing.

For example, one can hold racist opinions and be a generally nice person. Think, for instance, of an endearing uncle or aunt, who wouldn't hurt a fly and is charitable, but holds racist beliefs. On the other hand, one can imagine someone like Rosie O'Donnell who brings a child into a fatherless home, denies that child the contribution of a male parent, and then requires that those who disagree with that arrangement remain silent, change their minds, or receive harsh judgment (e.g., being called a bigot, homophobe, and so on).Francis Beckwith
Francis I do believe you suffer from a crippling case of homophobia. First, racism is never innocent because it's never without a victim, as you've so eloquently stated in another post on this thread. The favorite aunt has been deprived of potentially beneficial relationships and her racism has negatively affected others. It's the nature of the beast. Bringing that into the discussion on homosexuality is comparing apples to graffiti in construction site portapotties. Your assault on Rosie is ridiculous. Gay women raising children in openly gay relationships is what? one thousandth of one percent of the families in America? Probably not even that large a percentage would be my guess. But the latest numbers I'm aware of puts thirty five percent of African American families are two parent. The bulk are female single parents. That's what? eight percent of the population of American families? Caucasion American are funning about fifty five percent two parent families, the balance is single parent female. Thirty to thirty five percent of the population maybe? Almost half of all of the American families are single parent. Yet you get your pants in a knot over the smallest percentage of the smallest group of parents of all. That's homophobia my friend. If your concern is the American family I suggest you go with the odds and not the odd. Figure out why men have made themselves so unnecessary as parents. If they didn't do it then figure out why the women have decided the men aren't necessary in a family. Picking on Rosie while ignoring the reality of the family crisis is like attempting to fix the faucet while a tsunami is taking out the neighborhood, crazy.

It should also be noted that Dobson may have a vested interest in the debate, as well. Donald Paul Hodel, President of Focus on the Family, has an extensive history with with the electric power industry, serving on several boards. (See bio on recent Open Letter from Interfaith Stewardship Alliance).
So it may not only be a generational conflict, but may be something more familiar, a conflict generated by vested interest.

Erin, thanks for that -- I wasn't aware that Cizik was a population controller, and I appreciate you bringing that to my attention. There is stuff within the environmental movement that does, and should, worry orthodox Christians, but that doesn't invalidate the basic cause of being good stewards of the Earth. I think it's an error to take the excesses of the enviros and use that as a reason to oppose conservation -- just like many liberals will use the excesses of some in the pro-life movement as a reason to dismiss the entire pro-life case and cause.

Wow. Now Dr. Dobson is no good. I always thought his stalwart defense of human life and dignity and the value of the traditional family were good and helpful, countering the poison of this culture. But I guess Spotted Owls and Snail Darters are far more important.

Rod, with all due respect, there's a great deal of difference between disagreeing with some of the tactics used by extreme members of a group or movement, and disagreeing with the philosophy underlying the movement. Like you, I disagree with dishonest or violent tactics used by some in the pro-life movement, but it would be a stretch of the truth to say that pro-life people in general are dishonest or violent. The environmental parallel to these extremists would be those groups who damage or destroy research facilities that do animal testing, or throw red paint on people wearing fur. But the idea that the growth in human population is the direct cause of most environmental damage does not belong to the fringes; it's an important tenet of mainstream environmentalism. A minimum of research on mainstream environmentalist websites shows that these groups are in agreement: there are too many people on the earth, and we can't repair the damage done to the environment without taking aggressive measures to limit and restrict human population. Many of the mainstream environmental groups believe that human population on the Earth should be no more than half a billion to a billion people; and while, to their credit, they don't envision using force to achieve that objective, there's a widespread belief that humans will have to adopt the single-child family as a model for several generations to return the human population to this 'sustainable' level. The underlying philosophy seems to be that the increase in the human lifespan coupled with the slow decline in death rates has been a tragedy for the planet. There's a tendency to think of the human presence on the planet as a 'cancer,' a term I encountered more than once in my brief reading. Far from being stewards of the earth, people are seen as being a plague upon it; in fact, the 'stewardship' notion was explicitly rejected at least once, on the grounds that it was a 'patriarchal' idea on par with the subjugation of women. Does this mean that Christians should have nothing to do with conservation? Not at all. But I think we're doing ourselves a disservice if we think we can ever have more than an uneasy and temporary alliance with groups who see no transcendent value to human life, and who therefore speak quite openly about our 'duty' to eliminate most of the human presence on this planet. The difference between a Christian conservationist and an environmentalist can be summed up in this way: the first wishes to conserve and protect the natural resources of the planet for the sake of future generations, while the second wishes to eliminate future generations for the sake of the planet.

Nick, thank you for pointing that out. I was using the phrase "Christian conservationist" to respond to Rod's statement above that "There is stuff within the environmental movement that does, and should, worry orthodox Christians, but that doesn't invalidate the basic cause of being good stewards of the Earth." But it is helpful to be reminded that non-Christians aren't necessarily aboard the 'population control' bandwagon.

Erin, What exactly is wrong with encouraging people to limit themselves to single-child families if it means we get to stick around for another couple of milennia?

The difference between a Christian conservationist and an environmentalist can be summed up in this way: the first wishes to conserve and protect the natural resources of the planet for the sake of future generations, while the second wishes to eliminate future generations for the sake of the planet. Erin, do you and others who have expressed opposition to population control really believe that we can be good stewards of the earth while the human population continues to expand exponentially? As more people fill up the landscape, we cut down forests for wood and to create farmland; we pollute and deplete the aquifers; we kill off animal populations for food or to make room for livestock; we farm or graze animals on fragile soils, resulting in erosion that makes the land barren. I m not expressing hatred of people when I say this. People can t help it; they want to eat. But how is it beneficial to people to live in a depleted, barren landscape of constant scarcity?
Is it your idea that the human population can expand indefinitely, forever? I don t see how that is possible. But just for the argument, let s assume that we find new sources of energy, new sources of food coupled with vastly more efficient distribution networks so we can avoid wide-spread famine, and that we discover how to purify polluted water and desalinate the ocean. Let us further assume that the resulting increase in energy use will have no bad effects on climate, and that we can make all the adjustments we ll have to make without creating massive population displacement. Even if all this is stipulated, if the human population continues to expand, eventually we will reach the point where every square inch of land and sea must be exploited to keep the humans alive. There will be no place for wilderness or for wild animals, which will be extinct. Eventually there will be no place for domestic animals, either. If we re still eating meat, we ll be eating some kind of engineered meat product that doesn t require living space. And then, as we continue to increase, the time eventually MUST come when there simply isn t any more room. The earth and its resources are finite. The human capacity to reproduce is not. This is just a fact. At some point, our growth WILL be stopped. If we don t make the choice to control it ourselves, it will be done for us by disease, famine, or war. It seems to me that it would be better to use reason and technology to control growth at a point where we can still preserve some of the other beings who share this earth with us. It seems to me that it is objectively evil--to use a term popular in the Catholic Church--to extinguish lives that were created by God. This is especially true of the higher orders of animals who have a degree of sentience and can experience pain and sorrow in their own way--animals like gorillas, chimpanzees, elephants, and whales. But it s true even of birds, fish and amphibians. Who are we to destroy what God has made, to wipe it out as if it had never been, to make it impossible for any human, ever again, to wonder at its beauty? Does this bother you at all when you advocate for unchecked population growth? How would you propose to deal with extinction of animals and destruction of the natural environment? What degree of poverty and deprivation is acceptable in the pursuit of greater numbers? How much limitation of freedom would you accept when scarce resources have to be rationed? Is there ever a point where you would consider it prudent to restrain growth in order to provide a better life for fewer people? Do you take a fatalistic view and plan on expanding until an act of God kills billions? Not rhetorical questions--I m genuinely puzzled by this and would like to hear your explanation.

Rod, I don't think the NAE has 1% the influence of Focus on the Family. Dobson may be right or wrong here, but I don't think you're seeing a changing of the guard so much as the horse turning around to swat the fly stinging his rear end and risking looking foolish in the process. That's not a slap at Cizik so much as it is a characterization of the relative importance of the NAE versus Focus in the evangelical world.