[Daniel_Cheung]

在CNN Anderson Cooper 360 的時事節目裡，有一個節目談論究竟甚麼是基督徒 What is a Christian? 再一次，他們的基調是承認美國有很多人自認基督徒，但是卻有很多不同的信念。而他們的焦點也是福音派，無他，因為人們認為福音派令布殊獲選，所以比較關注他們。

那節目的內容頗為持平的，即使福音派裡也會挑一些保守和開放陣營的人來表達不同意見，與之前我看 HBO 那個努力做得持平但只訪問較保守的 Falwell 和 Haggard 的不同。例如，今次他們邀請了 Sojourners 雜誌的創辦人 Jim Wallis 與某美南牧師及某位 U of Chicago 神學院畢業的一位牧師同台訪問。有趣的是，他們帶出了一個在美國福音派裡的內部爭議，就是環保或世界貧窮與社會道德孰重孰輕。不難想像，較保守的那端不滿意較開放或較中間的兩位對社會道德問題不夠緊張，雖然他聲稱環保也是聖經教導，但他堅持社會道德問題比那些更為重要，所以基督徒不得不作出取捨。這樣的戰爭論述和不顧一切的總動員心態，相信大家都不陌生。

無獨有偶，今天我收到 Sojourners 的電郵， Jim Wallis 要公開挑戰愛家協會的 James Dobson ，因為 Dobson 早前指摘某福音派組織的領袖叫人關心別的（有價值的）事，是擾亂了信徒對社會道德問題的關注。

Jim Wallis: Dr. Dobson, Let's Have a Real Debate

Last week, James Dobson and a number of other Religious Right
leaders wrote a letter to the National Association of
Evangelicals, claiming that work on climate change was a
distraction from "the great moral issues of our time." I
responded on our God's Politics blog on Friday, with the piece
"Dobson and Friends, Outside the Mainstream." So far this week,
we've had several other good responses from Brian McLaren, Bill
McKibben, and Lyndsay Moseley. And, I've invited James Dobson to
a debate on the question, "What are the great moral issues of
our time for evangelical Christians?"

James Dobson's letter attacking Rich Cizik of the National
Association of Evangelicals has caused a firestorm, and maybe
the beginning of a really good dialogue. Brian McLaren's post
yesterday pointed out that the letter from Dobson and friends
actually acknowledged that there is a real debate among
evangelicals about the seriousness of climate change and the
reasons for it. So instead of calling for Cizik's resignation
for saying global warming should be a moral issue for
evangelical Christians, why don't Dobson and his friends accept
a real debate on whether climate change is, indeed, one of the
great moral issues of our time? A major evangelical Christian
university should host just such a debate.

But I want to focus on the following very clear statement from
Dobson's letter:

"More importantly, we have observed that Cizik and others are
using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away
from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of
human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual
abstinence and morality to our children."

That is indeed the key criticism, and the foundation for the
real debate. Is the fact that 30,000 children will die globally
today, and everyday, from needless hunger and disease a great
moral issue for evangelical Christians? How about the reality of
3 billion of God's children living on less than $2 per day? And
isn't the still-widespread and needless poverty in our own
country, the richest nation in the world, a moral scandal? What
about pandemics like HIV/AIDS that wipe out whole generations
and countries, or the sex trafficking of massive numbers of
women and children? Should genocide in Darfur be a moral issue
for Christians? And what about disastrous wars like Iraq? And
then there is, of course, the issue that got Dobson and his
allies so agitated. If the scientific consensus is right -
climate change is real, is caused substantially by human
activity, and could result in hundreds of thousands of deaths -
then isn't that also a great moral issue? Could global warming
actually be alarming evidence of human tinkering with God's
creation?

Or, are the only really "great moral issues" those concerning
abortion, gay marriage, and the teaching of sexual abstinence? I
happen to believe that the sanctity of life, the health of
marriages, and teaching sexual morality to our children are,
indeed, among the great moral issues of our time. But I believe
they are not the only great moral issues, and Dobson says they
are.

So Jim, let's have that debate - the big debate. What are the
great moral issues of our time for evangelical Christians?
You're right, a new generation is embracing a wider and deeper
agenda than you want them to. I think that is a very good thing.
You think it is a bad thing, and want to get people fired for
raising broader issues than those connected to sexual morality.
So, today, I am inviting you to have that debate about what the
great moral issues of our time really are. Again, let's ask a
leading evangelical university to invite us both and host a
public debate, and perhaps ask a major evangelical publication
to co-sponsor it. Let's have that debate, Jim, and see what
America's evangelicals think the great moral issues of our time
really are. How about it?

（由於電郵是宣傳呼籲性質，加上要登記才可以看到，所以我把全文抄出來。http://go.sojo.net/ct/w7_Ovhp1ARPb/ ）

[筆是大遲]

我都收到那電郵，心有戚戚然。美國的福音派....唉
雖然美國有很多墮胎，但死於貧窮的嬰孩我估是最多嬰孩死亡的原因。外債、經濟不平等，使貧窮國家繼續無望翻身。我很不明白美國的左右之爭，為甚麼居然可以把議題也定性左右。
不知道是否與撥款等實際政策有關？是否政府以氣溫、貧窮等理由，來拒絕在其他項目上撥款？

[筆是大遲]

Wallis在God's Politics裡指摘布殊政府以反恐來shift了國內慈惠撥款，左右兩派都對貧窮無真正的關心，只以貧窮問題來打擊對方陣營。

[wonggk]

Originally Posted by 筆是大遲

我都收到那電郵，心有戚戚然。美國的福音派....唉
雖然美國有很多墮胎，但死於貧窮的嬰孩我估是最多嬰孩死亡的原因。外債、經濟不平等，使貧窮國家繼續無望翻身。我很不明白美國的左右之爭，為甚麼居然可以把議題也定性左右。
不知道是否與撥款等實際政策有關？是否政府以氣溫、貧窮等理由，來拒絕在其他項目上撥款？

One thing Christian's outside the US often don't understand or realize: In HK (or UK, Europe, etc.), there is not much money (or power) to be gain from being an "evangelical" Christian. But in the U.S., many hypocrites like Dobson have long realized that there is fame and power that comes with being "conservative" or "evangelical". But reproductive issues are what separate "conservatives/evangelicals" from other Christians. If they start talking about anything else, they have to compete directly with others. They will have no unique "product" to "sell".

In reality, these hypocrites are not serving the Christians; they are serving their real bosses -- the big oil companies, the defense contractors, the big chain stores etc. Asking them to worry about global warming or poverty is like trying to pull a bone from the mouth of a dog. They need to use reproductive issues to get their poppet politicians elected into office, then interest of their real bosses will be taken care of. ? This is exactly what happened in the 2000 and 2004 election.

[蒲先生]

mmmmmm.....dr. wong......u truly sounds like a american left.....and i like that.....

jim wallis及其同仁確有馬丁路德金牧師的影子.....真正的自由派-福音派基督徒....... 當之無愧.....希望此大辯論真的舉行......美國就係可以咁拎出來講.....唔會為自己人的穩定團結而將大是大非掩蓋......不怕犧牲和諧.....好野.....

[wonggk]

Originally Posted by 蒲先生

jim wallis及其同仁確有馬丁路德金牧師的影子.....真正的自由派-福音派基督徒....... 當之無愧.....希望此大辯論真的舉行......美國就係可以咁拎出來講.....唔會為自己人的穩定團結而將大是大非掩蓋......不怕犧牲和諧.....好野.....

I really doubt this will happen. Dobson has nothing to gain and everything to loose. Among the public, Dobson is 100 times more well-known than Wallis. This is like me challenging Bruce Lee to a fight when he was alive. It didn't matter who's the better fighter, Bruce Lee just won't be that stupid to fight me. Dobson may be a hypocite, but he is not stupid.

[Daniel_Cheung]

可否解釋為何 Dobson 是偽君子？　我對此君認識甚少。

[nkcwong]

Originally Posted by 張國棟

可否解釋為何 Dobson 是偽君子？　我對此君認識甚少。

我也不知道是否可以指控他為偽君子，可能thickheaded會比較貼切﹕就是頭腦生硬，明明是有力的反對論證，但也無法轉過頭來改變自己信念的人。Anyway，我對他也沒有好感，因為他反對多元文化，也因為我是美國少數族群。他懷疑或恐懼多元文化，因為他怕會搞出relativism。但是multiculturalism根本不necessarily implies relativism，是兩回事。

[蒲先生]

咁dodson先生就不是偽君子咁嚴重了.......呢個名真係好嚴重架.....少用為妙.....除非佢律己以寬.....待人以嚴.....搞多重標準.......我認為佢似回教國家的保守教士......希望力挽世俗化狂瀾於既倒.......希望治亂世用重典.....維持思想純淨忠於祖先與傳統的國度.....十足係對照.....基本教義主義 vs 基本教義主義......

[wonggk]

Originally Posted by 張國棟

可否解釋為何 Dobson 是偽君子？　我對此君認識甚少。

One well know incident: see how he criticized others compared to how he protected his friend Ted Haggard.

Another example: this one is less mentioned in the media, perhaps with all the events going on during that time. After the Mark Foley story broke, Dobson claimed that this was just "a joke and a prank".

(For those from outside the US, Foley was a gay republican who tried to solicit sex from teenage interns. His story came out just before last year's election and was often quoted as one reason causing congress to change in control.)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610060004

There is also some evidence that Dobson is involved in the Jack Abramoff scandal (the largest corruption case in the US federal government in recent years).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ab...andal#_note-24

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Originally Posted by 蒲先生

咁dodson先生就不是偽君子咁嚴重了.......呢個名真係好嚴重架.....少用為妙.....除非佢律己以寬.....待人以嚴.....搞多重標準.......

Exactly because of these reasons (as seen in the above examples), I standby my accusation

(If he sues me in court, that will be a golden opportunity for me to fight him man-to-man )