Many conservative evangelical Christians in America have taken President Bush's reelection as a mandate to push an agenda that includes an amendment banning gay marriage, nominating a certain type of Supreme Court judge, encouraging prayer or religious displays in public places, and that sort of thing. What do you think of the "values vote," and what should the evangelical agenda be now?
It's important to acknowledge that a very significant number of American voters cared deeply about questions like the sanctity of human life and the meaning of marriage, and related kinds of questions. At the same time, one needs to be careful not to overstate that. The way the question about values was asked in the exit polling was too broad to be very precise. My second comment is that Evangelicals for Social Action, my organization, has long argued that if you're going to be significantly Christian in your politics, you have to ask, what's the balance of things that biblical faith tells us God cares about? It's pretty clear that God cares very much about the sanctity of human life, but also very much about the poor, and economic justice for everyone. God cares very much about the family, but also about racial justice and creation care.Meaning environmental stewardship?Right. The recent National Association of Evangelicals document For the Health of the Nation is now the official policy for the NAE, which represents 30 million Americans. That document explicitly says that while individual persons and organizations are at times called by God to concentrate on one or two issues, faithful evangelical civic engagement must champion a biblically-balanced agenda. That means that we need to urge President Bush to make overcoming poverty a more central agenda in the next four years.Given limited time and resources, if you had to choose the top three priorities for evangelicals right now on that list, what would they be? Precisely that kind of question gets one into trouble. It's not good enough to say, this one is far more important than all of the others. If you let me choose five... (Laughs) OK, I'll take five. I would say that renewing wholesome, stable, two-parent families is absolutely crucial. In biblical faith and in historic Christianity, not to mention many other civilizations, marriage is between a man and woman. So fighting gay marriage should be an evangelical priority.
Absolutely. That's one part of it, but the issue is vastly bigger than that. Over 95% percent of American families are heterosexual. So if the family's in trouble, and it surely is, it's overwhelmingly in trouble because heterosexual Americans, including vast numbers of evangelicals, are not keeping their marriage vows.
The place to start is for heterosexual Christians to be faithful parents and spouses.
Primarily, certainly. Mostly that's a task for the churches and synagogues and mosques. But government can do some things. I mean, Bush has gotten rid of the marriage penalty in the tax code. That's a good thing.It's a good thing in the welfare bill to encourage marriage. The one exception, interestingly, to the elimination of tax penalties for marriage is in the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is what affects the working poor. I would urge him to get rid of that tax disincentive for marriage as well. The stats are just so overwhelming. Sociological study after sociological study show that children need their mom and their dad. There wouldn't be any debate about that whatsoever on the basis of the science if there wasn't so much prejudice around in some communities, a fear and unwillingness to simply say straightforwardly, kids need both parents.
Why do you think there's unwillingness to say that children need both parents?
For more than thirty years, we've had a significant section of American society abandoning historic norms with regard to sexuality, and embracing promiscuity, suggesting that single parenthood is just as fine as two-parent families, and so on. The facts simply contradict that. So we've got to work at that.
What's issue #2?Second point would be poverty and economic justice. The poverty level has grown in this country in the last three years. The number of people without health insurance has increased in the last few years. And globally we're not even coming close to meeting the goal set out in 2000, the Millennium Goals of reducing poverty and hunger by half by the year 2015. The president has actually endorsed some major increases in American economic development for overcoming poverty and working on HIV-AIDS. He endorsed increasing American funding for economic development by ten billion dollars, and in fact this past year has increased it by several billion. It's the first time in more than a decade that we got any significant increase. That's economic development money to dig wells and do micro-loans and any number of things--
So in other countries? Like USAID money?
That's right. But the Congress has not funded that at the level that Bush has proposed it. So that needs to increase. The other major issue we need to deal with is the growing poverty in this country. One of the principles that comes out of biblical faith, that evangelicals have to agree on, and Americans generally, is that if somebody works full-time responsibly, they ought to get out of poverty and have health insurance. We've got millions of people who don't do either of those.