Organizing the New Center

RON SIDER

Organizing the New Center

of Evangelicals’ historic declaration in 2004, “For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility.” And in the last few years, prominent megachurch pastors—Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Joel Hunter, and Richard Nathan—have clearly and publicly proSomething astonishing has happened in moted this broader agenda.

A new, very important possibility the past few years in evangelical circles.An emerging evangelical center has replaced now presents itself. If it is possible to the religious right as the dominant group organize this new evangelical center, we in the evangelical world. A national poll could work with others who share a taken right after the election last November broad pro-life vision to profoundly change revealed an encouraging trend:A majority American public life.

Why do I say “if”? First, because I know (55 percent) of evangelicals want a political agenda that deals with both the more that there is no unified political vision in personal issues of abortion/family/marriage the evangelical world, even if the recent and the more corporate issues of economic poll is correct in identifying a widespread justice/creation care/peacemaking. (Of the embrace of a broadly “completely pro-life” remaining evangelicals polled, 21 percent agenda. And second, because the evanstill prefer a political agenda primarily gelical world is enormously decentralized concerned with abortion and family, and organizationally. It is composed of hun18 percent want to focus primarily on dreds of separate denominations, thousands of disconnected parachurch organizations, poverty, creation care, and peacemaking.)

That is a dramatic rejection of the reli- and a vast variety of disconnected, indegious right, which for more than two pendent leaders and groups.

We must somehow discover a process decades has promoted a much narrower that respects the un-hierarchical, decenagenda. What happened?

Many things. Ever since World Vision tralized reality of the evangelical world started about 50 years ago as a Korean while effectively nurturing widespread orphans’ choir raising funds for a few cooperation on our common agenda.

The starting point for wide-scale orphanages, evangelical relief and development agencies have been steadily grow- evangelical cooperation is almost always ing in numbers, scope, and skill. Over a biblically grounded declaration that several decades, evangelical leaders have large numbers of prominent evangelical turned away from their earlier view that gatekeepers endorse.The NAE’s widely Christians should be primarily focused on endorsed “For the Health of the Nation” evangelism and have come to embrace may serve this purpose.

Then several dozen of the evangelical holistic mission, understanding that both evangelism and social action are impor- world’s prominent leaders and their orgatant for biblical Christians. More slowly, nizations would need to form a new but then powerfully and visibly in the last network for the explicit purpose of coopfive years, many evangelicals have endorsed erating to shape public life on the basis of their common declaration.We do not creation care as a biblical mandate.

For decades, a few of us protested the want or need a new organization. Rather narrow political agenda of the religious we need a new network that enables right as unbiblical, not primarily in what large numbers of existing organizations it affirmed, but in what it ignored. Slowly to coordinate their efforts. A large counmomentum built for a broader agenda, cil of reference of distinguished evangelicrystallizing in the National Association cal leaders would be important. So would PRISM 2009

40

regular meetings of the leaders of the major cooperating organizations and a small staff for the network.

It would be essential to organize in such a way that not all members of the network would need to affirm and work on every concrete initiative. Specific programs (whether on overcoming poverty, reducing abortion, or promoting marriage or creation care) could be done under the general umbrella of the whole network but in the name of the leaders and organizations that sign on to that specific program.

Exactly how to structure the network so that effective, sustained cooperation happens is only dimly clear. It will require wisdom, patience, and creative experimentation. But it must be done, because the potential results are far-reaching.

If white evangelicals truly embraced this broader agenda, several influential partners would be ready to work with us.

The Vatican and the US Catholic bishops already officially promote an agenda that is strikingly similar to the NAE’s “For the Health of the Nation.”The rapidly growing Latino evangelical world is conservative on abortion and family but wants strong action on economic justice and immigration reform. African American Christians do not use the word “evangelical” and have no interest in cooperation with white evangelicals unconcerned with racism and overcoming poverty. But African Americans also have conservative views on abortion and marriage and would gladly join a coalition with white evangelicals and Catholics that was seriously committed to racial and economic justice.

Obviously, what I propose is a 20-year project. To succeed we must think more deeply, cooperate more vigorously, and learn how to engage public life in a civil, sustained, sophisticated way.

We must also be clear that politics is not of ultimate importance and at best will produce limited, imperfect results.We must hold our political views lightly, always Continued on page 2.

Talk back LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Rusty Pritchard’s September/October 2008 A Different Shade of Green column was about the need for a middle ground in the global warming debate between “the environmentalists” and “those on the right” who claim that there is major controversy among climate scientists as to whether people are to blame for global warming. The environmentalists were characterized as having “a not-so-latent misanthropy for the world’s poor.” Wow. We would not characterize either side of the public debate in this way. However, those pushing for urgent action, such as Al Gore, seem far more concerned for the poor as they warn of the disastrous effects of inaction, which are expected to primarily hit the poor. In contrast, Exxon, the main funder of global warming naysayers, who bankrolled “research” to cast doubt on the human impact on global warming (as did the tobacco industry with the smoking impact on cancer), seems more concerned with profits than with the poor. Characterizing the public debate this way is misleading. Most people would think the author’s criticism of “environmentalists” applies to those like Al Gore, who is highly regarded as the authoritative voice on global warming and who received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work.

Rather, Gore’s call to action mirrors those of the Evangelical Environmental Network,whose GlobalWarming Briefing for Evangelical Leaders states that the

possible consequences of global warming include the death of millions of people in this century. “Global warming is projected to hit the poor the hardest,” the briefing states, “and such impacts are already starting to occur.” They summarize why urgency is required: (1) it’s happening now; (2) the global warming pollution we create now will continue to harm our children and grandchildren throughout this century; and (3) we’re making long-term decisions now that will impact how much pollution we create for decades.

Seeking to move the debate to a “middle ground” closer to the naysayers is actually harmful to the poor, and we know this is not your intent. Therefore we were much encouraged by Pritchard’s January/February 2009 column, “The Danger of Derivatives,” where he points out that the accusations of legalism, judgmentalism, and hypocrisy that some Christians have leveled at environmentalists are the same that they themselves have been tarred with by detractors. He calls for Christian environmentalists to be a different shade of green: more humble, less judgmental of the shortcomings of others, more aware of our own shortcomings. And above all, a hue of environmentalism that follows the biblical call to love the poor and give voice to their needs.

The Francis-Lyon family Berkeley, Ca.

Ron Sider continued from page 40.

dramatically reduce poverty here and around the globe; renew vast numbers of two-parent families; avoid the worst dangers of global climate change and preserve God’s creation for our grandchildren; restore respect for the sanctity of human life; and nurture a more peaceful, just, democratic world.

That would still be a broken sinful world. But I would dearly love to pass on to my grandchildren a somewhat better world than the current disastrous mess. n

remembering that our common membership in the body of Christ is far more significant than even the deepest political disagreements.

But limited, imperfect results are still significant. If the new evangelical center could organize itself and cooperate with others of like mind, we could over the next 20 years accomplish the following: PRISM 2009

3