Is There Anyone Alive Who Would Oppose Nuclear Reduction?

Today, United States President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed to pursue a significant reduction in nuclear arms. America and Russia possess the largest nuclear stockpiles in the world by far, which is why Obama told reporters in Moscow, "We must lead by example, and that's what we're doing here today." The treaty includes "effective verification measures."

I have written before about the pressing need for multilateral, global, irreversible, verifiable nuclear disarmament. "The use of nuclear weapons can never be justified by Christian ethics," says David Neff, Editor in Chief of Christianity Today. "But that hasn’t stopped Christians from arguing that they are necessary. Such arguments betray a tendency to make national security into an ultimate value–something else that cannot be justified by Christian ethics."

As Neff indicates, some suppose that nuclear weapons are a necessary evil and, therefore, wouldn't support multilateral disarmament. These people can still support the President in his reduction effort because the treaty still allows both nations to keep over 1,000 nuclear weapons each. Even if you believe they are necessary, 1,000 nukes is more than we need.

This is a moral issue, and I am thankful for which has been recucitated by wonderful organizations like The Two Futures Project. The only question I have is, "How is this being received by everyday people?"

Flourish: The Connector for the Creation Care Movement?

This week, Cross Pointe Church hosted the first annual Flourish Conference. As a small part of the Flourish staff, I can tell you that the conference exceeded our expectations in many ways. First, our speaker list was amazing: Joel Hunter, Margaret Feinberg, Gabe Lyons, Matthew Sleeth, and Andy Crouch to name a few. Second, the community being built was unprecedented. People were connecting with others to share ideas and partner on projects. Individuals who have felt alone on these issues were comforted that there are others like them out there. Finally, the coverage of the event was great. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Associated Baptist Press, and others had great things to say. My favorite post was from Christianity Today who called Flourish "Creation Care Without the Baggage." I couldn't agree more.

Flourish seems to be becoming what Malcolm Gladwell calls a "connector." This movement is in desperate need of a connector--an organization that can bring together like-minded people from various social, cultural, professional, and economic circles who might not otherwise meet. This facilitates conversations and partnerships that might not otherwise occur and can push a movement into the mainstream. Our hope is that we can do this for the creation care community. Our goal is not to promote Flourish, but to promote great people and organizations who are living out creation care principles all across the country.

We had several organizations at Flourish that we showcased during the conference. This week, I will be profiling one each day. Look for the first post tomorrow.

Redefining Pro-Life? The Abortion Reduction Debate

I have often spoken out on this blog about the need to forge common ground on abortion reduction. At the same time, I have been more than frustrated at the total absence of any tangible reduction policies being put forth by this administration. As I recently commented in a Washington Post article, many evangelicals have stuck our necks out to forge common ground in this effort and the administration will have done us a great disservice if they do not put their political money where their political mouths are. Filling the air in place of an actual political agenda, pundits and commentators are offering their advice.

A Newsweek piece commented, "The election of a pro-choice administration and a Democratic Congress has divided the pro-life movement, between those who are preparing for the fight of their lives and those who see the opportunity to redefine what it means to be pro-life." I disagree with Newsweek, a periodical which demonstrates again and again that they wouldn't recognize evangelicals if we all scrunched together for a cover story photo. The pro-life movement is not divided. We are as unified as ever to protecting the lives of the unborn. However, many people--including myself--have been accepting a broader definition of what it means to be pro-life.

For many evangelicals, the term pro-life extends beyond anti-abortionism, though it certainly includes it. It means we must fight against the global death occurring in massive numbers all across the globe. It is the ultimate hypocrisy to advocate for the protection of unborn babies, but turn a blind eye to the millions who die from water-related diseases, malaria, hunger and other preventable maladies.

Where Newsweek gets it right is that "to legions of pro-life activists, even the use of the word 'reduction' instead of elimination borders on heresy." That is perhaps the greatest potential division in the entire pro-life movement. This mindset is typified in the words of Russell Moore of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary who, in this month's Christianity Today, said that joining with pro-choice groups on abortion reduction is "akin to civil rights activists joining hands with pro-lynching vigilantes in ... early 20th century America to 'reduce the number of lynchings' through better funding of segregated African-American school systems."

On one hand, Moore makes a solid point. On the other, I am not sure that inflammatory rhetoric goes a long way toward solving a very real policy problem. There is no significant division within the pro-life movement, yet many of us have decided to speak and advocate in what may be more constructive ways. I have worked with others to promote common ground policies that can reduce abortions in America and will continue to do so.

We are making progress. As Christianity Today notes, "More states are passing legislation that works to reduce abortion. Fewer Americans now support abortion on demand. America's youth are increasingly pro-life. Crisis pregnancy centers are full of volunteers. Planned Parenthood is under more scrutiny thea it has been in decades. And the abortion rate is really decreasing. It's now the lowest level since 1974." Now we simply need the Obama administration to begin making good on their promise to enact federal legislation to support this trend.

If you read this blog regularly, you know that I have been speaking about the shifting abortion debate for some time. I will continue to bring you developments on this important trend as they happen.

Your thoughts?

Letter to Leith Anderson of the NAE

Late last week, Richard Cizik resigned as the Vice President for Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) after 28 years of distinguished service. Richard is a man of great courage who embraces a broad, whole gospel agenda. Because of his hard work, issues like creation care, social justice, human rights and poverty became a part of the evangelical platform. Richard was a unifier and a personal friend.

Unfortunately, in Cizik's December 2nd interview with National Public Radio, he placed himself at variance with long-held NAE platforms--most notably, same sex civil unions. Though Rich said he had not changed his mind about traditional marriage, he was "shifting" on the idea of civil unions. Open mouth, insert foot.

Regardless of your position on this issue, you have to understand why Cizik resigned (or was forced to resign, it seems). The NAE must be allowed to require someone serving in such a critical role to speak in harmony with the stated agenda of both NAE and its membership. If Cizik had decided that he was shifting on the abortion issue, the reaction from NAE would have been identical and justifiable. As sad as it is, that's not the end of the story. 

After Cizik resigned, several media outlets including Baptist Press, which is basically the public relations department at the national office of the Southern Baptist Convention, ignored nearly 30 years of Cizik's notable service and instead ran stories calling him controversial and divisive. That isn't so bad when you consider that some on the right have actually called him "Satan's minion" for his strong environmental stance. 

This was a sad development for many reasons, including the message it sends to the world. As someone once told me, "Christians are the only animals who kill their own wounded." Richard Cizik is undoubtedly hurting, and though we must respect the decision made by NAE, our goals as his brothers and sisters should not be to further beat him down. 

It was in response to this and in an effort to see the continuance of Richard's work on a broad range of moral issues that over 50 evangelicals including myself wrote a public letter to Leith Anderson, President of the NAE. Signatories to this letter were from both the right and left; they were both democrats and conservatives; they were both young and more established. Other signatories included Gabe Lyons of the Fermi Project, Lynne Hybels of Willowcreek Community Church, Brian McLaren, David Gushee, and Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary. 

Our letter supports the right of the NAE to appoint spokespersons who support their stated platforms, celebrates Cizik's 28 years of faithful service, and encourages NAE to select a replacement "who will carry out Richard's vision of a broad Christian moral agenda" including the sanctity of life and compassion for the least of these.  

If you too want to sign this letter, you can do so at WholeGospelAgenda.org.

What do you think? Do you think NAE made a good decision? Do you support a broad moral agenda as described in this letter? What do you think about civil unions?

**Update: "Evangelical Leaders Seek Broad Moral Agenda in Cizik Replacement," Associated Baptist Press**

**Update: "Evangelical Faction Warns against Christian Right," WorldNetDaily**