Elnour Adam is Projects Director at the Darfur Rehabilitation Project. Sojourners spoke with him recently at Ecumenical Advocacy Days.

What is The Darfur Rehabilitation Project?

The Darfur Rehabilitation Project is a U.S.-based Darfurian NGO, advocating for the people, Darfur’s peoples’ rights to live humanely. Actually, we are mobilizing the international community, the U.S. people, and the faith groups, and other entities to advocate for Darfurian rights. We believe that the United States faith groups, they have the moral integrity to help the Darfurians attain the sustainable peace, and they can work with the United States government, and they can leverage the United States institutions to work to realize peace in Darfur. So the Darfur Rehabilitation Project is working closely with all the entities, with all the faith groups, in the United States as well as other European countries for the right of the Darfurians to live humanely.

And how did you yourself get involved?

I am Darfurian myself. My siblings and my whole family is in refugee camps. My area is the first area to be bombarded by the Sudanese government. The area is Habilah. It’s in western Sudan; it's at the border of the Sudan and Chad. It’s what they called the Masalit community area. My family, the whole family, is pushed out to Chad and up to now they are still in the refugee camps, and we know that the refugee camps themselves were attacked by the Sudanese government and their supported group [the Janjaweed] that is now destabilizing the situation in Chad itself.

Unfortunately, the Sudanese government has succeeded in pushing the poor Darfurians from their villages, from their areas where they are self-sustaining, to the outskirts of some of the suburbs. But now, since they [the Khartoum government] succeeded in the first phase, now they are pushing them to the outskirts of the major cities, and relocating them permanently and the Janjaweed, the proxy militia that the government empowers, is taking their areas, so we are permanently [replacing] the people of Darfur with other entities, with other people that support the government.

What’s the last news that you’ve had from home?

The Sudanese government succeeded in cutting the communications by buying the companies that supply the communication tools to the different Darfurian areas. So now the Darfurians are cut off of any links to the international community. Not only that, but they hampered the aid community. And most of them left Darfur. So they left Darfurians vulnerable to starvation, as well as any human rights abuses from the Sudanese government and their proxy-militia.

So the cutoff of communication, does that mean mobile phones?

Yes. Mobile phones, satellite communication, they are all cut off - any kind of communication. [They did it] by buying the assets of the supplying firms to this communication - international communication and satellite stations.

When did that happen?

That happened recently, in the months of January, February. And so up to now we cannot hear that many incidents because they are cut off. But a lot of incidents are happening right now on the ground. People are dying every day, the starvation is wide spreading. Morbidity rate is higher now than ever in Darfur, because most of the humanitarian organizations, international humanitarian organizations, left the area because of the insecurity. Because of the government blocks to give them permits. So they are more vulnerable than ever.

You would think that the people who want creationism or intelligent design taught in the public schools would evince some concern for the handiwork of the intelligent designer.

You might think that the human costs wrought by global warming – crop destruction, famine, displacement – would capture the attention of those who persistently style themselves “pro-life.”

Well, no, not really, not if it detracts from the single-minded agenda of making abortion and same-sex unions illegal. Or if it offends corporate interests. That’s the gist of a letter, which Jim Wallis and others have blogged about recently, sent on March 1 by a coalition of high-powered leaders of the Religious Right.

Writing to L. Roy Taylor, chair of the National Association of Evangelicals, an organization that claims to represent 45,000 evangelical congregations, 25 Religious Right stalwarts, including James Dobson, Paul Weyrich and Donald Wildmon, called on the NAE to throttle the efforts of Richard Cizik, the organization’s lobbyist, to call attention to the environmental crisis caused by global warming.

“The existence of global warming and its implications for mankind is a subject of heated controversy throughout the world,” the letter states. “More importantly, we have observed that Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.”

This is not the first time that leaders of the Religious Right have tried to derail evangelical interest in environmental matters. In October 1999, meeting (ironically) in the bucolic hills of northwestern Connecticut, several of these same signatories produced a document called the Cornwall Declaration, a putative statement of concern for the environment. The Cornwall Declaration opens with a pious affirmation of “shared reverence for God and His creation,” but a closer reading reveals that the statement is really a brief for corporate interests. Let’s trust market forces to determine our posture toward the environment, the Declaration argues, because public policy “can dangerously delay or reverse” economic development.

If the leaders of the Religious Right are truly concerned about “the great moral issues of our time,” I suggest they look beyond abortion and same-sex unions. They could do far worse than to address the displacement and the human toll caused by global warming.

Once they summon the courage to address that issue, the leaders of the Religious Right might want to look elsewhere. I happen to believe that the defining issues of our day are the morality of the war in Iraq and the Bush administration’s use of torture against those it designates as “enemy combatants.” Regarding the former, there are centuries of thought and writing that go into defining what is or is not a just war: Is it a defensive war? Is the use of military force the last resort? Is there a reasonable chance of success? Is the amount of force used roughly proportional to the provocation? Have provisions been made, as much as possible, to protect civilians?

No one has yet persuaded me that the war in Iraq meets any of these criteria.

Regarding the use of torture, as I was writing Thy Kingdom Come, I contacted eight Religious Right organizations, including many represented as signatories to the NAE letter, with a simple query. Please send me, I asked, a copy of your organization’s position on torture. I heard from only two – both of whom defended the Bush administration’s policies on torture. To my knowledge, no Religious Right organization has yet issued a statement unequivocally denouncing the use of torture, despite the fact that these despicable practices came to light nearly two years ago.

Thankfully, the board of the National Association of Evangelicals stood up to the leaders of the Religious Right at their meeting last week. They refused to censure Cizik for his efforts on global warming, and they also approved a long overdue statement denouncing the use of torture.

The leaders of the Religious Right suffer from a kind of moral myopia. If they are truly concerned about “the great moral issues of our time,” I suggest they look beyond abortion and same-sex unions. Protection of the natural world, God’s creation, from neglect and from the effects of predatory capitalism would be a good place to start.


Randall Balmer, an Episcopal priest, is professor of American religious history at Barnard College, Columbia University, a visiting professor at Yale Divinity School, and the author, most recently, of Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelical's Lament (Basic Books). He is also a member of the Red Letter Christians.

With much hard work and prayer - and despite frigid temperatures with rain and sleet - the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq was a moving and inspiring event. More than 3,000 people gathered at the Washington National Cathedral and then walked in a candlelight procession nearly four miles to Lafayette Park across from the White House, where more than 500 additional people (who had watched the service in an overflow location at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church) joined them. While the main group of people continued walking around the White House with candles, more than 200 crossed Pennsylvania Avenue to pray on the sidewalk and were arrested.

An Associated Press story was printed in more than 200 publications around the country, and there was a good AP video, Christians pray, march for peace. Other news services included United Press International and Cox News. The Washington Post and National Public Radio ran pieces on Saturday morning. The New York Times included two sentences in a longer story about Saturday’s protest at the Pentagon. And the service was covered by CNN and Local News on Fox 5 in D.C. - thanks to Katie Barge of Faith in Public Life for YouTubing these! Watch them here:

CNN:



Fox 5:

Last week, a letter from James Dobson and friends to the board of the National Association of Evangelicals challenged NAE vice president Rich Cizik’s efforts on global warming as “dividing and demoralizing,” and shifting “the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time.”

In response, I invited Dobson to a debate on the question, “What are the great moral issues of our time for evangelical Christians?” and suggested that a major evangelical Christian university should host it.

On Saturday, the Los Angeles Times reported on the debate invitation, and this response: “A Focus on the Family vice president, Tom Minnery, said he would be happy to take up that debate. Dobson himself, Minnery said, is busy writing a book on child rearing.”

I’m also busy writing a book, but I suggest that when we’re both finished, we hold that debate. My personal invitation to James Dobson still stands. And since he was the primary driving force behind the crucial letter, the conversation should be with him. But let’s change the tone of this from “a debate” to “a conversation.” This is, in fact, the big conversation going on among evangelicals (and Catholics, too) across the nation and around the world.

In his letter, Dobson named the “great moral issues” as “the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.” I said in my last blog that I believe the sanctity of life, the integrity and health of marriages, and the teaching of sexual morality to our children are, indeed, among the “great moral issues of our time. But I believe they are not the only great moral issues.” As many writers have been saying in this blog, the enormous challenges of global poverty, climate change, pandemics that wipe out generations and continents, the trafficking of human beings made in God’s image, and the grotesque violations of human rights, even to the point of genocide, are also among the great moral issues that people of faith must be - and already are - addressing.

Just in the last few days, we have already received invitations from six major Christian universities eager to host this conversation between James Dobson and me. But this is bigger than just two people: It’s the conversation we need to have on every Christian campus, in every church, and in public forums around the nation, especially as we approach another election season. So let’s do that together.

The board meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals also ended Saturday, and in the words of their own press release: NAE Leaders Advance Broad Agenda with Landmark Document on Human Rights and Torture. The release begins by noting:

The board of directors of the National Association of Evangelicals advanced a broad public agenda at its annual meeting this week, endorsing a landmark document on human rights and torture, and reaffirming its "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Public Engagement," first adopted in 2003.

Specifically, the board noted it

…reaffirmed its support for the landmark "For the Health of the Nation" document unanimously adopted in 2003, commending its "principles of Christian political engagement to our entire community for action."

These principles include: (1) We work to protect religious freedom and liberty of conscience; (2) We work to nurture family life and protect children; (3) We work to protect the sanctity of human life and to safeguard its nature; (4) We seek justice and compassion for the poor and vulnerable; (5) We work to protect human rights; (6) We seek peace and work to restrain violence; (7) We labor to protect God's creation.”

The only mention of Rich Cizik, whom the Dobson letter had singled out and called upon the NAE to fire, came with these words in the official NAE press release:

Speaking at the annual board banquet, Rev. Richard Cizik, NAE vice president for governmental affairs, quoted evangelical theologian Carl F. H. Henry in his wake up call to evangelicals sixty years ago: ‘The cries of suffering humanity today are many. No evangelicalism which ignores the totality of man's condition dares respond in the name of Christianity.’

The NAE statement went on to say:

Speaking of a new generation of evangelicals that has responded to those cries, Cizik said: ‘We root our activism in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross and are giving it a proper temporal focus by emphasizing all of the principles that are found in the Bible. We come together in a positive way as a family bonded by the love of Christ, not as fractious relatives. We desire to be people known for our passionate commitment to justice and improving the world, and eager to reach across all barriers with love, civility, and care for our fellow human beings.’

I knew Carl F. H. Henry, during my seminary years at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and through many conversations together during our early years of Sojourners. His biblical theology, social conscience, and political balance provided a younger generation with crucial moral guidance. We miss his voice today.

But the NAE Board, and its president Leith Anderson, know that a new generation of evangelicals wants that same sound theology and good balance, and believe that Christian moral concerns (and God’s concerns) go beyond only a few issues. Recognizing how their broader agenda is resonating with evangelicals around the world, the NAE announced that at its fall board meeting in Washington, D.C., October 11-12, “the association will host an ‘International Congress on Evangelical Public Engagement,’ drawing prestigious leaders from around the world to meet with American leadership around the principles of the Association's ‘For the Health of the Nation’ document.” It seems the broader evangelical social agenda has solid support and is moving forward.

So, let’s have the big debate; and make it into the kind of deep and necessary conversation among the people of God that it needs to be. And to Jim Dobson I say, let’s finish our books (as a Dad with two young boys I look forward to reading yours on child rearing!), and then agree to a public conversation at the right place and the right time. I look forward to that.

The reality of Cambodia’s sex trafficking industry was vividly exposed to me one humid afternoon as I sat on a courtroom bench in Phnom Penh. I was sitting with four young girls as their sellers were escorted into the room. Their sellers were their mother, aunt, and grandmother. I didn’t need to understand the language to feel the fear, pain, and devastation that had just filled the room. I didn’t need to hear the words of the lawyer or the judge to understand the full situation.

You don’t have to work for a non-governmental organization or visit the red-light district - even the slightly observant tourist eye can see signs of sexual slavery, violence, and abuse. Pick up the city’s thin daily newspaper and you are likely to find another report of abuse, rape, or trafficking. Drive around the block and count the number of “massage parlors” filled with young women and rows of cots. Walk into a seemingly pleasant garden restaurant-bar and pass the “pretty girls” waiting to offer their services after a few drinks.

The perpetrators are shamelessly bold, as I experienced one day while using a hotel gym. After making polite conversation with the middle-aged white man on the next treadmill, I found myself in complete shock when he told me, “I come to Cambodia for the girls. They’re good for one thing only.”

The organization I work for here, Hagar Cambodia, helps women who have been victims of trafficking, abuse, or rape. Hagar seeks to transform despair into true hope. Hagar is passionate about the recovery and restoration of women and children through a long-term commitment to care and a belief in sustainable economic and work opportunities as an avenue for empowerment, dignity, and hope.

On your side of the world you can continue to cry out against this violation of basic human rights. You can advocate, pray, fight, and demand a stop to trafficking and other forms of abuse. On this side of the world are the lives and stories of these women and children. My hope is to build a bridge that connects our two worlds.

In Cambodia I use a bag that carries a story of hope, even on days of overwhelming hopelessness. It’s a bag made by the women employed at Hagar Design, and it's the story of how beauty can be made out of brokenness and despair. It represents a journey of transformation that may be long and difficult, but that can be sewn together one piece at a time. Hope is what allows us to rise in the morning and gives us strength to carry on another day, no matter what side of the world we’re on.

Elise Elzinga is a former Sojourners intern, and the communications and advocacy coordinator for Hagar Cambodia in Phnom Penh. To read more about Hagar and human trafficking, see “In You I Take Refuge,” by David Batstone, in the March issue of Sojourners magazine.

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and other New Atheists cite Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, and Ann Coulter as ontological proof that all Christians are hypocrites. Using this logic, I could turn the tables around and pick out, say, the Marquis de Sade, Mao Tse-tung, and Marilyn Manson. I can use their stories to prove that all atheists are sadists, dictators, and really bad rock musicians. In the words of Dana Carvey (a.k.a. former President George H.W. Bush), “Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent.”

While Phelps, Falwell, and Coulter clearly represent minority views, the Christian community still implodes in popular perception when it comes to the hot button issue of homosexuality. But as we pray about how to address this controversial topic, can we at least come to a consensus that proclaiming “God Hates Fags” during funeral services for servicemen killed in Iraq supposedly because they're defending a pro-homosexual nation, blaming the 9/11 terrorist attacks on gays and lesbians, or, most recently, calling Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot" are moves that go directly against Jesus’ teachings?

Lest anyone think I am picking only on conservatives, I remember a nasty few run-ins I had with John Shelby Spong back in the early ‘90s. He stayed on my dorm floor at Yale Divinity School for a month while he was researching a book. Suffice to say, I got more than an earful of his diatribes against orthodoxy. Like Falwell and friends, Spong preferred to stand on his soapbox hawking his wares rather than engaging in genuine dialogue with those of us who dare to differ with his rather strident views.

So, what should Christians do when both the New Atheists and the media act as though the actions of extremists on both sides of the political spectrum are indicative of Christianity as a whole? Do we stay silent and hope they will just fade away? And if we should speak, how do we respond so that the love of Christ shines through?


Becky Garrison is author of Contemplating Coulter Christianity, an Amazon short.

My friend Chuck Gutenson, professor at Asbury Theological Seminary, has written an excellent piece – “Constantinianism of the Left?” – on his Imitatio Christi blog. He explains the history and meaning of the term “Constantinianism”:

In 313, the emperor Constantine, who had recently become a Christian, issued an edict making Christianity the official religion of the empire. In so doing, Constantine tightly bound the survival of the empire with that of the church, and the church went from being a marginalized, disempowered group to occupying a central place in the corridors of power. In exchange for this new-found power, the church was expected to serve as a cohesive force within the empire as well as to give religious cover to the emperor. Many consider this "an unholy alliance of religious and political power." In our contemporary setting, when someone is charged with Constantinianism, they are being charged with too closely uniting these two - religious and political power - so that the church begins to see the state and legislation as a way to accomplish its goals.

He notes the charge often made against progressive Christians engaged in politics is that, in attempting to come up with some solutions to social problems through legislative and other political activity, we are putting too much faith in the state. (Something which is also true of conservatives.) And, he says, we may be guilty of the charge:

Too often, our presentations emphasize so much the need to change public policies and institutions that it is entirely understandable that our critics would think we have forgotten we are members of the church first and of the state second. We can easily sound more like advocates of a particular political agenda than advocates of the Gospel of Jesus. The focus, of course, should be that we are advocates of the Gospel of Jesus, but that commitment to the Gospel leads to a particular kind of political advocacy. Second, we must also own that, by and large, our use of Scripture is rather slipshod. Frequently, when you read pieces on the Christian case for progressive politics, they read as if we have arrived at a particular set of political positions on other grounds and that we have then gone to Scripture in search of passages that give the appearance of supporting our case. (Of course, the same can be said of those of more conservative political leanings.) I sincerely believe that the folks I know who are active in progressive politics are firmly committed to the Gospel of Jesus and I believe that their political activism grows out of their faith. We must, however, do a better job of making this evident. If we do, we will go a long way toward undermining the charge that we are merely engaging in a “constantinianism of the left."

It’s a useful admonition, and Chuck goes on to suggest four steps that can more seriously ground political activism in faith. They are good and important suggestions. I commend Chuck’s piece for thought and reflection.