Re: [asa] Dobson

The Cizik quote about population control is sourced in an Acton Institute
document: http://tinyurl.com/2xcs7n There is no transcript, but the Acton
document cites an email from a witness who allegedly heard the statement.

The Cizik quote apparently is a "he said / she said", but the Acton
statement further notes, correctly, that the "Evangelical Declaration on
Creation Care" includes a reference to population control:

*Many* of these degradations are signs that we are pressing against the
finite limits God has set for creation. With continued population growth,
these degradations will become more severe. Our responsibility is not only
to bear and nurture children, but to nurture their home on earth. We respect
the institution of marriage as the way God has given to insure thoughtful
procreation of children and their nurture to the glory of God. *(*
http://www.creationcare.org/resources/declaration.php)

I hadn't noticed this a few weeks ago when I started reading the different
evangelical statements on global warming. Regardless of what Cizik may or
may not have said, this statement disturbs me greatly. A theology of
"creation care" that links environmental stewardship to population control,
IMHO, is gravely flawed and naive.

On 3/5/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If the quote is in fact misrepresented / manufactured, that is heinous. I
> should say for the record that while I appreciate some of Focus' parenting
> materials, I'm no fan of that organization or its methods when it comes to
> politics. Did Cizik really endorse that book?
>
> On 3/5/07, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3/5/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, it was pretty stupid of Cizik to mention population control.
> > > That feeds the worst fears of folks like Dobson. Frankly, it scares me as
> > > well, and I think Dobson's comment about forced abortion and infanticide in
> > > China is right on point. Christian environmentalists need to acknowledge
> > > that the environmental movement was dead wrong about the "population
> > > explosion" and must distance Christian responses to problems like gobal
> > > warming from the "secular" environmental movement's untoward emphasis on
> > > population control.
> >
> >
> > I've tried to run down this quote and its provenance is dodgy. It comes
> > from an e-mail from an AEI member. I could find no transcripts or evidence
> > that this meeting ever happened. The Christian blog, Bene Diction Blogs On,
> > ran into similar problems:
> >
> >
> > > *As far as I can tell the Cizik quote from the World Bank Sustainable
> > > Development Forum was first trotted out at the Focus on the Family Value
> > > Voters 2006 Summit by Oklahoma Senator **James Inhofe*<http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:KTWu6sQPfoQJ:www.talk2action.org/story/2006/9/25/12463/2968+Rev.+Richard+Cizik+Word+Bank&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=ca>
> > > *. I cannot find a transcript of the World Bank Forum (May 2006)
> > > online to put Rev. Cizik's quote in context.*
> > >
> >
> > Bene Diction and Christianity Today may have found the real reason for
> > the hostility:
> >
> >
> > > *Christianity Today has noted Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family
> > > wants Rev. Richard Cizik fired for endorsing **this book*<http://www.religionnews.com/press02/PR022707.html>
> > > *.* [THE JESUS MACHINE How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, * *and
> > > Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War]
> >
> >
> > What made Dobson so mad?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > "Gilgoff is a writer and journalist of the first rank... This is a
> > > book that evangelicals, as well as the critics of our movement, should
> > > surely read."
> > > RICHARD CIZIK, CHIEF LOBBYIST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > You have this quote being passed only by two hostile witnesses so I
> > looked to see if Cizik talked about this topic at some other time and I did
> > find something here. Cizik has talked on the record about this and here is
> > what he told the New York Times magazine:
> >
> > *
> > >
> > > ""Creation care'' sounds like a division of Medicare."
> > > It's still better than environmentalism.
> > >
> > > "What is wrong with that term?"
> > > "It's not the term. It's the environmentalists themselves. I was
> > > recently speaking with the leadership of the Sierra Club and the National
> > > Wildlife Federation, and I told them, 'Gentlemen, I respect you, but at this
> > > point don't plan on any formal collaborations.'"
> > >
> > > "Why? Because they lean to the left?"
> > > "Environmentalists have a bad reputation among evangelical Christians
> > > for four reasons. One, they rely on big-government solutions. Two, their
> > > alliance with population-control movements. Three, they keep kooky religious
> > > company."
> > >
> > > "What is your idea of a kooky religion?"
> > > "Some environmentalists are pantheists who believe creation itself is
> > > holy, not the Creator."
> > >
> > > "And what's No. 4?"
> > > "There's a certain gloom and doom about environmentalists. They tend
> > > to prophecies of doom that don't happen. Look at the movie 'The Day After
> > > Tomorrow,' in which New York City freezes
> > >
> > *over."
> > That doesn't sound like someone who is pro-population control to me and
> > he did what you asked Christian environmentalists to do in that interview.
> >
> >
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 5 22:29:06 2007