Diplomacy at The Expense of Liberty?

It seems like every day another news story reports an effort to mend US-Muslim relations. Who can forget the uproar when Rick Warren and over 300 others signed "Loving God and Neighbor Together,"  a letter penned by Yale University's Center for Faith and Culture, which sought to create dialogue between Muslims and Christians? I remember Baptist Press demanding that one Southern Baptist professor give his rationale for signing that letter. In fact, they published his rationale alongside another article, drawing on the comments of Al Mohler who called the letter "troubling." The problem people had with the Yale letter was that it capitulated on foundational Christian beliefs in an effort to be gracious. 

In this case, I think that Mohler et al. were justified in their criticisms. As much as we desire dialogue with any disenfranchised group, whether they are Muslim or Mormon or gay, we cannot sacrifice who we are as Christ-followers simply to achieve conversation. Conversation for the sake of conversing is neither profitable nor a good use of one's time. We must be true to ourselves as we seek to engage others who are at variance with our religious beliefs. 

Perhaps that is why a more recent attempt to bridge the Muslim gap troubles me. This time the effort came by way of a document, "Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World," which was signed by 33 American leaders meeting at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund conference center. Participants included former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, author Steven Covey, American Petroleum Institute president Red Cavaney and an assortment of professors and former government officials. The one participant representing an evangelical group was Richard Land, President of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. 

The most glaring problem with this effort is that while they rightly emphasize diplomacy as the primary tool for bringing peace and encourage the civic participation in governance, they completely ignore the gross oppression of religious liberty in the Muslim world. It is impossible to comprehensively address Muslim relations without addressing religious oppression. As one commentator stated in the December 13/20 issue of WORLD magazine, "[The report's rhetoric] sounds good, but the report skips questions of religious liberty--and without that fundamental freedom, "democracy" will merely mask tyranny."

Countries like Libya, Algeria, and Iran openly suppress the expression of liberty among Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims. In places like Sudan where 1.5 million Sudanese have been martyred for their faith in the last 15 years, we have seen the results of unchecked suppression of religious liberty. Opposing this sort of atrocity is at the core of what a Christ-follower should be, and we cannot and should not check that at the door in the name of dialogue. 

Christians must never compromise our stance on religious freedom. We are a people on mission, and each year we send missionaries to closed countries where they risk their lives for the gospel. In the case of Southern Baptists, we must be careful that the "Relgious Liberty" in "Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission" remains an integral and fundamental part of our public witness rather than a mere afterthought. I think we can and must do a better job of loving our Muslim neighbors while demanding that they pursue civility and freedom in places where they enjoy governmental control. 

Your thoughts?

Hello, My Name is Environmental Pinhead

My holiday season began with three disappointments. First, I went to see the new Vince Vaughn flick, "Four Christmases," and found it to be thoroughly devoid of both humor and holiday cheer. Second, I received a review copy of "Searching for a Better God" and finished the last chapter still wondering what was wrong with our current God and completely convinced that the author didn't know of a better one. Finally, I caught wind of Richard Land's attack on climate science and pro-active environmentalism on his radio program. As a recent article published by EthicsDaily.com (a website and organization for which I have few affections), "Baptist Leader Misstates Environmental Data," has pointed out, Land recently spent his show ranting about how the globe is actually getting cooler, not warmer, and called those who disagree with him "environmental pinheads" and "environmental loons."

Now, I don't mind anyone attacking a particular position with which they disagree. Unless this is your first visit to my blog, you know I do it often myself. What irks me is when people launch an attack with such ferocity and vitriol that their breath could melt steel when they haven't done their homework. As this article points out, Land was quoting data form a Washington Times article referring the United States, NOT the globe. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center, 2008 has been the 9th hottest year GLOBALLY on record.

Following Land's radio spot, I was interviewed by the Associated Baptist Press for a story entitled, "Studies Show Rise in Greenhouse Gases in 2007," in which I noted that people who selectively quote data to support a contrarian view are driven more by an ideology than a theology. When viewed theologically, our decisions should always err on the side of love rather than greed in any matter, environmental or otherwise.

"Regardless of one's stance on climate change," I said in the ABP article. "Everyone can agree that pumping record levels of gas into our atmosphere isn't a good idea and certainly wouldn't be consistent with an idea of stewardship."

I have said many times before that I am not convinced of all the claims of climate scientists. I can't even understand some of what they say. But in the face of conflicting evidence on ethical issues, Christians must always act prudently. Prudence, in my mind, means gathering all the facts before making strong claims and doing one's best not to stoop to name calling. 

Thoughts?