This from my husband:

This afternoon my daughter sent me the URL to an Op Ed piece entitled "Evangelicals a Liberal Can Love" which appeared n the NY Times on February 3, 2008. It was sent to her by a friend and she kindly passed it on to me. I must confess that when I saw the author's name my initial enthusiasm was somewhat abated.

Nicholas Kristof once again took his pen in hand and ventured onto the playing fields of the Op Ed section of the Times. Most everyone agrees that this venue hardly constitutes a level playing field. Nevertheless Mr. Kristof's decidedly left leaning stance appears quite balanced when framed in the skewed windows of our nation's "paper of record." The Times, a paper proudly claiming to bring its reader "all the news that's fit to print," appears to be convinced that any viewpoints not presented therein are unworthy of the ink it would take to print them. Almost uniformly contributors to the Times' Op Ed pages on any regular basis show a decided liberal bias. They require very little evidence to convince themselves of the fact they are not only brighter than their adversaries, but superior in their eclectic moralities. The Times' self congratulatory viewpoint often turns to Mr. Kristof as its champion. He is benevolent, if condescending, and oh so tolerant … to a point. St. Nicholas believes his positions take the moral high ground so often they do not require oxygen. Like many east coast liberal writers, Mr. Krisof is so damned pleased to be correct that he often, with all due beneficence, dispatches dispensations of grace to those who occupy lesser stations in life. This time the supplicants receiving his literary indulgences happen to be a few Christian evangelicals. That is, he is willing to acknowledge certain evangelicals if they march to his unchallenged agenda. The items of that agenda, in his eyes at least, are manifestly superior in their morality to all the other concerns of those who would align themselves to the right of his throne which proudly sets quite far to the left of the political spectrum. So, self assured of his correctness, Mr. Kristof is not above bestowing from time to time faint praises upon those less enlightened than he. Noblesse oblige. Thus he looks upon a few evangelicals worthy of his love.

Liberals, Mr. K. intones, "believe deeply in tolerance." This may come as a surprise to the countless conservatives who have been shouted down on major university campuses around the country, physically intimidated and even hit in the face with the ubiquitous pie. Neither should the myriad of conservative academics that have been denied their just credits and tenure be forgotten in this rush to baptize the left in the soothing waters of toleration. The chairman of a major university's department of religion once told me, without blinking an eye, that he would never appoint a self professed evangelical Christian to his faculty for no other reason than that he was an evangelical. Sic semper liberal tolerance. So when Mr. Kristof says "scorning people for their faith is intrinsically repugnant," all manner of red flags begin to wave before me. My caution was quickly rewarded when it became obvious that Mr. Kristof reserved tolerance for the religious right only if they focused on acceptable moral priorities: "poverty, AIDS, sex trafficking, climate change, prison abuses, malaria and" (are you ready?) "genocide in Darfur." One wonders if genocide elsewhere, say in the abortion chambers of the United States, is acceptable? I'm sure other diseases such as yellow fever and gonorrhea could easily be added to Mr. Kristof's fab five list plus one along with things like fetal research and socialized medicine. However, it is clear that to Mr. Kristof issues such as the advocacy of premarital celibacy or opposition to homosexual marriage, or efforts to restrict pornography when it masquerades as free speech and artistic expression, are non-issues. They are not pragmatically useful to a secular society though they are inherently more closely aligned to evangelical beliefs than the issues Mr. Kristof favors. Such evangelical concerns are beneath his standards of tolerance and unworthy of his love, even though they are clearly issues anchored in Judeo-Christian orthodoxy.

Mr. Kristof proves this observation in his praise of the tired radicalism of Jim Wallis whose biggest claim to being an evangelical is that he came out of Chicago and from among the corridors of Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College. Mr. Wallis, nonetheless, merits Mr. Kristof's "love" because he finds climate change and poverty more compelling moral concerns than the abortion deaths of 1.2 million American infants yearly. Mr. Kristof is delighted that the "purpose driven" pastor Rick Warren is willing to put the American social blight of promiscuity and sexual insanity behind the need for AIDS awareness in South Africa. But God help, no pun intended, any and all evangelicals who may favor a different moral priority than the one espoused by Mr. Kristof. And, by the way, when did Mr. Kristof reserve the right to define a more acceptable evangelical moral agenda? It's bad enough that CBS is attempting to do that with its questionable poll data. Mr. Kristof makes his contentions for what is "more moral" out of nothing save his own view point, and that the view point, not of an evangelical Christian, but of a sort of benign non-Christian secular pagan. Thus, with a back handed note of gratitude to a few non-conforming emerging church types, Mr. Kristof brings his mailed fist down once again on the tired head of Pat Robertson and the deceased pate of poor Jerry Falwell.

Yes, Jerry Falwell, the evangelical liberals loved to hate. Like the remains of Oliver Cromwell, who was disinterred in order to be more properly punished, Mr. Kristof resurrected Rev. Falwell's statement that AIDS was "God's judgment on promiscuity." This dictum, St. Nicholas solemnly noted, "constituted far grosser immorality than anything that ever happened in a bathhouse." One wonders just what bathhouses Mr. Kristof frequents to draw such a conclusion. Is he also in possession of statistics showing AIDS running rampant among those who restrict their sexual activity to monogamous marriage? Save for the intravenous drug users, the larger number of whom are sexually promiscuous anyway, and the statistically insignificant number of those infected from tainted blood supplies, Rev. Falwell's observation deserves consideration regardless of the opinion one may have as to its messenger.

When stripped of its contemporary facade Mr. Kristof's view is nothing more than the tired liberal opposition to evangelical Christianity and its heart felt mission to preach the Gospel seeking the salvation of eternal souls. It is another attempt to reduce the evangelical agenda in order to place it on a par with many other groups who, ignoring the soul, seek only to alleviate social evils and provide material relief. Admittedly Christ called for his disciples to give "cups of cold water" but it was always to be done under the aegis and clear articulation of His divine Name. Mr. Kristof seeks a utilitarian marginalization of biblical Christianity. It is the same liberal song and dance that attempted to delegitimize Christian foreign missions at the beginning of the 20th century. It was sought then and is still desired by many today to replace missionary evangelists and preachers with the more politically correct, and, to the liberal mind, more noble, medical professionals or anthropologists or sociologists. Mr. Kristof would prefer to send Margaret Meade back to Samoa instead of Billy Graham. This is his right. But it hardly qualifies him to determine who the more acceptable evangelical should be. I am not worried about the New York Times being deluded, they are already there. I am, however, concerned with those evangelicals who would take Mr. Kristof's viewpoint seriously and question the urgency of Jesus' command to make disciples of all nations through baptism and teaching. It is this command that explains Jesus' statement that he came to earth not to bring peace but a sword. The Gospel will inevitably divide people. That is only desirable if it is the truth. But, the Gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be labeled false simply because it does what Jesus said it would do and refuses to march in step with the New York Times. The message of Christ is the sword of the Spirit, but Mr. Kristof fails to get the point.