Evangelical Manifesto May 3 08
Cnn.com has broken a story on the Evangelical Manifesto, a statement made by a host of evangelical leaders about the evangelical faith of the last several decades.
Keep you eye out for this when it releases in detail Wednesday. I will have more to say about it then.
Cnn.com has broken a story on the Evangelical Manifesto, a statement made by a host of evangelical leaders about the evangelical faith of the last several decades.
Keep you eye out for this when it releases in detail Wednesday. I will have more to say about it then.
Until then, there is some hype around who and who are not included among the original signees. More clarity on that issue is coming with the release.
9 Comments
[Rob G. Reid
Come On!
Please tell me this manifesto isn’t going to pit “evangelical” faith with anti-abortion/homosexual/immigration folks, again, is it? For the record I’m not a democrat (or a republican), but if this manifesto in any way a) supports the war, b) calls for a support of the president, c) aligns Christians against people of any sort (alternative lifestyle, race, immigration status, etc.), and bears any signs of patriotism, nationalism, or Western-centrism, I think many people, myself included, will seriously consider whether “evangelical” is an association that is worth having.
I remain hopeful about this statement—hopeful that “evangelical” might be a term redeemed from the grip of fundamentalist right-wing conservatives, who highjacked it years ago when the “Christian right” (which is mostly wrong) rose to power. I’m holding my breath!
Keith
RE: Come on!
Rob says, “…if this manifesto in any way… aligns Christians against people of any sort” then he will reject it. But surely he isn’t serious? Surely the point of such distinguishing names such as ‘Evangelical’ or ‘Catholic’ is just that, to distinguish them. If being Evangelical DOESN’T pit me against anyone, then it’s not a name worth having (where “pit me against” means I reject what the other stands for, not that I don’t long to see the other come to have a right relationship with Christ).
Rob G. Reid
Reply to Keith
Keith,
Thank you for taking the time to respond. However, I think the whole attitude of being pitted against another Christian, until “they get it right” (= believe like me), undermines the very reality of following Jesus. It is predicated on modernity’s quest for absolutism, certainty, and the every illusive term “truth.” I am decrying exactly what you are hoping for, another creed to “set the truth (= what I believe)” over against other expressions of Christian theology.
I don’t know if you realize it Keith, but the watching world does not, in general, take evangelicalism very seriously because evangelical expression has be hijacked by the so-called “Christian right.” It seems the only valuable contributions evangelicalism has expended any effort towards revolve around three crux issues: abortion, homosexuality, and creation/evolution. What about matters that Jesus actually spoke about like war, violence, the poor, the immigrant (maybe especially this latter one). Evangelicalism has become a cipher for Republican policy and that must change. I think either the age of religious toleration and appreciation of different expressions of Christianity will take back the title “evangelical” or else the movement will be eclipsed. Think about it, evangelicals in the media are always portrayed as religious fundamentalists, which is rather unfortunate.
Keith
RE: Come on!
Rob,
Yes, well it’s a discussion worth having. Now, I see you’ve changed your position. You initially reacted to Evangelicals being aligned “against people of any sort.” Your second comment reacts to Christians being “pitted against another Christian.” Those are quite different positions. Naturally my disagreement is with the former. Perhaps a simple example will help: I take it we agree that the Pharisees of Jesus’ day count as “people of (some) sort”? That much is obvious. But notice: Jesus spent considerable time disagreeing with the Pharisees. That is, he delineated his own teaching from theirs; he aligned “Christian” against “Pharisee” (with the caveat I noted above: “aligned against” means I reject what the other stands for, not that I don’t long to see the other come to have a right relationship with Christ). But surely we could replace “Pharisee” with “Hindu” or “Muslim” or “atheist”? The point, then, is that Evangelicals believe things that just do distinguish us from others (our beliefs about Jesus’ divinity, Scripture, etc), and to that extent we reject what the others believe. And they do the same (how many Muslims do you know who call themselves Christians?). This, of course, doesn’t mean we hate or shun others, it simply highlights the reason why we have a different name.
Thus, your a priori rejection of anything that “aligns Christians against people of any sort” is, I think, untenable.
Rob G. Reid
Reply
Keith,
You have rightly pointed out the clarification or rather precision I have offered to my first comment. I realize, by seeing your blog, what it is you are aiming at. And yes “any sort” is rather general isn’t it. So I will grant you that much. However, what is it that must be believed about Jesus’ deity? About Scripture? Do all evangelicals agree? Which so-called ‘evangelical’ determines the rules for everyone else? Who controls the term? And in that regard, I meant “any sort” of professing Christian. While your focus is analytic (on the terms that are used), my focus in this matter is someone different. Since, you have on your blog advocated a personal interest in philosophy of religion I would love to hear you speak about the limits of religious epistemology. And after having established what is possible to be known, then lets discuss how to adjudicated who is “in” and who is “out” when we demarcate the limits of ‘evangelical.’
And by the way, I find your repeated reference to “longing to see the other come to a right relationship with Christ” as a rather untenable approach to dialogue indicative of the problem I have been arguing against from the outset. I would like to *know* how you *know* what *right* is? What justifies your hermeneutic?
Since, I have found your interaction engaging, I have also commented on our discussion at my blog.
Jim Martin
CNN
Thanks for the “heads up” on this story. I look forward to seeing how CNN handles this.
David Teh
Timothy George, Os
Timothy George, Os Guinness……
Just those 2 names is enough to get me yawning…….ECT redux no doubt……..
bock
George and Guinness dlb
David:
ECT, redo? Hardly.
There are no Catholics in this document. There are several evangelicals and the signatory list is growing by the hour.
Here is the question: Can we/should we engage in some self-reflection about how we engage as believer-citizens on issues of the day, both spiritual and political? The Manifesto argues, "Yes, we should."
Jesus has much more to say about a whole host of issues than the ones that have been targeted over the last few decades, INCLUDING the ones that have been discussed and defended (sometimes very well, sometimes not so well). Does tone matter as well as content? I think so. To these questions the Manifesto also calls for reflection.
Rather than simply dragging out the old labels and categories (Liberal, conservative, Catholic, atheist, ECT), can we ask what in the document is a problem or what is well said? Rather than being concerned with who was initially asked to sign a document that was designed to invite ANYONE to sign, should one not ask if one should sign on and why or why not? Can or should one as a believer-citizen today engage with conviction for their values without doing things that fuel the present cultural war? Is this question worth asking and pondering? The Manifesto says, "Yes."
dlb
Rob G. Reid
Pleasantly Surpised
Well, the Manifesto is out, which I’m sure Dr. B., will update us on soon. I read it, and it was pleasantly surprising in light of my previous skepticism. However, i still find several aspects of the document that are wanting. I was happy to see a diversity in charter signatories. I just wanted to be on record saying, “It wasn’t *as bad* as I had anticipated.” Thanks!