My father’s former student Richard Mouw (president of Fuller Seminary, philosopher, theologian and blogger) announces the release of a very fine statement that deserves more attention than it has yet received: The Evangelical Manifesto, a Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment. The full text is on the website in PDF, a summary is here. Signed by Dr. Mouw and many other leading evangelicals, it is a most welcome manifesto.
In the introduction, it says We Evangelicals are defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally. Amen, amen, amen. When I continue to describe myself as an evangelical — one who is pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, pro-environment — I am regularly accused of misrepresenting the “evangelical” brand. This splendid manifesto reminds us that to be an evangelical is to believe a few key things about Jesus of Nazareth and His role in our lives and the redemption of Creation; there are no litmus tests — not even on abortion or homosexuality — that define the movement.
…we repudiate two equal and opposite errors into which many Christians have fallen. One error is to privatize faith, applying it to the personal and spiritual realm only. Such dualism falsely divorces the spiritual from the secular and causes faith to lose its integrity.
The other error, made by both the religious left and the religious right, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth. That way faith loses its independence, Christians become the “useful idiots” for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology. Christian beliefs become the weapons of political factions.
Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, economic system, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, or nationality. The politicization of faith is never a sign of strength but of weakness.
That’s really good, and very timely. I liked this bit as well:
As the global public square emerges, we warn of two equal and opposite errors: coercive secularism and religious extremism. We also repudiate… two other positions.
First, those who believe their way is the only way and the way for everyone, and are therefore prepared to coerce them. This position leads inevitably to conflict.
Second, those who believe that different values are relative to different cultures, and who therefore refuse to allow anyone to judge anyone else or any other culture. This position sounds tolerant at first, but it leads directly to the ills of complacency.
In a world of such evils as genocide, slavery, female oppression… there are rights that must be defended, evils that must be resisted, and interventions into the affairs of others that are morally justified.
Not everyone will agree with every aspect of the manifesto, even in the broad and disparate evangelical community. But it’s high time that prominent American evangelicals divorce themselves from captive status as foot-soldiers for conservative politics, and this is a good and exciting step forward.
I call myself a liberal evangelical. Liberal, in that I believe passionately in the notion that the personal freedom to exercise the will matters, and that one of the chief roles of the state is to provide for the maximum exercise of that freedom by all living creatures. (I do not limit myself to human beings.) Evangelical, in that I have found that for me, freedom and responsibility are balanced in a commitment to the love and forgiveness uniquely embodied in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. And I want dialogue about the great issues, dialogue that takes place without either coercion or complacency.
I could sign this evangelical manifesto with few reservations. But I could also sign Edward Abbey’s, which appears on my Facebook page as a summary of my weltanschauung:
My loyalties will not be bound by national borders, or confined in time by one nation’s history, or limited in the spiritual dimension by one language or culture. I pledge my allegiance to the damned human race, and my everlasting love to the green hills of Earth, and my intimations of glory to the singing stars, to the very end of space and time.
I think a lot of both Rich Mouw and Edward Abbey.
I am excited about this. I think modern-day Christianity is changing in the sense that people like James Dobson don’t have as much weight as they used to. Also, the pastor of Paznaz is careful to never discuss his personal political views. A couple of Sundays ago, he drew support from the Bible to say that the Church should be healing people with AIDS in the world. That is quite different from what people like Focus on the Family think, which is basically that anyone who has AIDS deserves it. I am thankful that the tide is turning in some respects — the church is not dying out, and it will be interesting to see what happens to the American church in my lifetime. I am hopeful.
There was a story, Mermade, that James Dobson turned down the manifesto and refused to sign it (according to the LA Times on Saturday). That says a lot about him, and about his waning influence in evangelical circles.
WOW! Well, I am not surprised, given that FotF is almost entirely political now. We still get their newsletter and, last month, it was trashing Obama. Aren’t they a not-for-profit organization? I didn’t think that they were allowed to endorse one candidate over another.
Thanks for writing about this, good to know that James Dobson and FotF may be declining in popularity.
I used to have a kneejerk response to the term “evangelical” — it got my guard up because I didn’t want to be witnessed-to. But as I’ve grown deeper roots into Judaism, I’ve become more comfortable with various forms of Christianity, and have come to have a lot of love and respect for many evangelical folks.
Anyway, this post is fascinating to me; thank you.
good thoughts; good comments.
i’m enjoying reading the various opinions here and there around the web. i had some hesitations and misgivings before reading the document, but i’m actually quite impressed and invigorated after taking in the whole of what it addresses.
one of the things i like is that the authors have chosen not to list creationism and inerrancy as non-negotiables. for the first, there’s very little biblical justification anymore behind whatever the latest flavor of anti-natural-selection dessert is being served up; for the latter, somehow we can admit that we can’t prove the existence of God, but goshdarnit we have a golden egg this unprovable God laid right here. still, some people hold to these positions; so be it. there’s simply too much of a tendency to add items to the ever-increasing laundry list of ideas and doctrines to which we have to pledge allegiance before we’re allowed into the room marked “Christian.”
nothing’s going to please everybody, and there are a few things i object to. for instance, i don’t agree with this statement: We Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally. Jesus’ message uses “action” verbs: teach them to DO as I have commanded you, LOVE God and LOVE your neighbor, by this will all men know … if you LOVE one another. any theology that defines us must have feet.
i did, however, like these words: We are also troubled by the fact that the advance of globalization and the emergence of a global public square finds no matching vision of how we are to live freely, justly, and peacefully with our deepest differences on the global stage. somehow, we’ve got to figure out how we’re going to peacefully share the same bathroom over the next few decades in our ever-shrinking world.
one interesting thing: maybe i missed it, but there doesn’t seem to be a great emphasis on evangelism in this Evangelical Manifesto. do you think that was intentional? i didn’t see a single chick tract referenced in the bibliography…
more than anything, i find myself motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece - that it isn’t yet another “here’s everything we’re against” rant but an effort to make the gospel again a message of good news. imagine that - the gospel being good news. American Christianity has lost this defining characteristic that once served it well.
perhaps one unintended benefit of the proposal is a clear opportunity to take this EM (Evangelical Manifesto) and align it with the other EM (Emergent Manifesto) and finally have all our EM & EMs in a row without demonizing the other side.
one can only hope…
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com