Best in Show

Dog fans across the Western Hemisphere are ecstatic because the people’s dog has won “Best in Show.” The beagle is a historical family dog; he’s great with children, enthusiastic about playtime, and hunts for the solution, plus he’s got charm. Will America name a president with similar qualities?

Caroline Kennedy has christened Barack her father’s predecessor, Hillary has declared that her solutions will deliver the American people, and McCain is a veteran. But who is Best in Show?

Hillary’s campaign has requested that Barack add four more Democratic debates to their campaign schedules. One took place tonight, but debate isn’t where Barrack’s strength lies. Barack’s success in oration correlates with many of his successes in the polls. He doesn’t leave a wow-factor in Democratic debates, which leads to the question: is he only show?

Hillary’s new campaign tactic-criticizing Obama-hasn’t helped her. Clinton, who has been marketing herself as the candidate in the ‘"solutions business," said, "I do think that words are important and words matter, but actions speak louder than words, and I offer that"’ (CNN.com). Those actions aren’t speaking in the polls as Obama triumphed in Wisconsin and Hawaii this week. It appears that what America might need (“action” as Hillary puts it), is not what America wants.

Leaving Religion at the Door?

CSPAN just announced the winning video in their student competition, and it is about 6 minutes long, put together by some high school juniors. I think you'll find it interesting. It's called "Leaving Religion at the Door?: Faith and Politics in Decision 2008."

Evolution of Environmental Evangelicals

Evangelical Christians continue to play a large role during this election period. They have recently evolved into a political force and target voting group for many conservative to moderate candidates. In the late 1970's and early 1980's, the evangelicals were written off as a strictly Republican, right wing group with no "liberal" agenda. However, with the recent evolution in Evangelical thought, this powerful group of devoted Christians are edging to the forefront of American political issues.

One of the major issues that has aided the Evangelical Christians in diversifying their political agenda is the environment. The period prior to the recent Evangelical social revolution witnessed the strong adherence to dispensation. This belief holds fast to the view that the Bible must be taken literally. It also states that the primary goal of God is His own glorification. The way that the Evangelicals applied this to the environment is that caring for the earth, focusing on the sustainability of the planet is essentially pointless because Christ is soon to return. We need to focus on our current state of Grace rather than the state of the earth. The utmost importance is to secure our salvation, even if that translates into sacrificing the earth and potentially the future of humanity. Reverend Jerry Falwell, a great leader in the 1980 conservative evangelical movement considered environmentalism "Satan's attempt to redirect the Church's primary focus." The environmental movement was opposed for three main reasons:

1. It spoke against dispensationalism and the literal interpretation of the Bible.

2. Its heritage in the liberal arena of politics

3. The assumption that environmentalists worshipped the creation (trees and plants) rather than the Creator (the Christian God). 

Developments in science and the continued efforts of Christianity, to define itself in contemporary society, brought evangelicals to a cross roads. We now come to an interesting intersection where faith meets reason, and a compromise must be found. As much as the evangelical movement wanted to stand by their affirmation of the environment as a "non-issue" the reality of the matter was slapping them in the face. Polar ice caps were melting, the earth was heating and effects of human's on environmental degradation were being explained, trusted and understood. This reality forced evangelicals to redefine their views of the earth in terms of our call to care for creation. 

Catholic social teaching effectively and unwaveringly declared that we, as God's creation, must be stewards of the Earth. The Earth is a gift from God, and just as we care for our bodies as a gift from God, so must we care for the Earth. There is also the "small" difference that we, as Catholics, have a savior who redeemed us all so we can take part in eternal salvation. Evangelical Christianity believes that salvation is something we are trying to achieve, rather than a gift that we partake in by aligning our lives with the life of God, through the gift of Grace. However, the evangelical movement has now moved towards an ideology they call "creation care". This basically reiterates the Catholic view that Christians are the stewards of God's creation. He did not grant us the earth so that we may dominate it, but rather care for it sustainably. 

"Creation care" takes a step away from dispensationalism and the literal meaning of the Bible. In fact, across the United States there are evangelicals looking to understand their faith in terms of the current issues facing our society and this forces them to interpret scripture in a less literal Biblical context. "Creation care" takes the issues of the environment and makes them morally sound. They turn the environment into a problem that effects the life, and dignity of humanity. Humans are sustained physically and spiritually. Spiritual fulfillment comes from a direct relationship with God. Physical sustenance comes from God's created earth. If we wish to sustain ourselves fully, we must respect God's creation. Also, caring for the Earth is a way to show love and concern for other individuals. Preventing environmental degradation will promote better living options for many people around the world.

This presents an answer to the question as to where this focus on the evangelical voters comes from in this election. This more liberal agenda does not guarantee that the evangelical crowd will automatically vote conservative. The republican party can no longer simply lean on the evangelical voters for their support, they can no longer take advantage of the evangelical vote as an assumed group of supporters. This is really interesting because it makes me wonder if really, the political life is guided somewhat by faith, or religion. 

As evangelicals begin to look for a candidate more strongly dedicated to the care of God's creation, more candidates emerge as outright stating that they do care for God's creation. Mike Huckabee states in his autobiography:

"My own personal faith remind me that the earth is the Lord's and that we are not it's owners; but merely its care takers".

The American public, which consists highly of Christian voters, is demanding leadership that responds to the political and social issues of today with a moral and value centered compass. As the evangelical view continues to evolve, and more conservative theorists begin to accept that the usually party splitting issues, such as the environment, are moral issues grounded in the dignity of life, perhaps American politics will become more unified. Maybe the 2012 elections will involve a more unified political system in which each candidate is working for what is best for America.

Clearly I have strayed from the topic; however, its important to note the evolution of "liberal" thought in the United States as it relates to issues such as the environment. There are major issues, especially surrounding life, that will continue to split candidates, and potentially prevent some kind of party merger; however, the potential is evident. 

Evangelical evolution is a positive reformation  for American political life. I believe it forces politicians to take a more genuine interest in the desires of American Christians and also pressures them to follow through with their promised campaign (Don't mess with God...! JK). I think this also fosters a more accepting Christian community. 

The few questions I do have, and would like to end with (because if I continued this would become my final paper) focus on the stance of Evangelicals in relation to climate change. It has been proven that climate change and global warming are occurring, and many evangelical leaders have endorsed this reality (it's very hard not to these days). Science also proves that because of these changes in the global climate, animals are needing to adjust and adapt to the new environment. These findings hint at the continued reality of natural selection and evolution. I wonder how far the evangelical christians are willing to go in interpreting scripture. By endorsing global climate change, they have, by relation, endorsed the forced adaptations of animals to the new climate. This challenges creationism and calls into question the hypocritical stance to not believe in evolution but believe in the harmful and natural effects of global warming and climate change. Or are the evangelicals taking this more liberal stance in and effort to stop these changes before major shifts in the climate cause a substantial evidence of natural selection to arise so they don't have to face this doctrine challenging reality?  

Articles utilized:

Washington Post: The Greening of Evangelicals

University of Oregon: Recent, rapid climate change is driving evolution of animal species

MSNBC: More Evangelicals Concluding God is Green

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1491-2005Feb5.html