I've read the statement and am impressed. It is very well written, is humble while at the same time boldly stating what it means to be a Christian, reputes, in a civil way, those who seek to twist the faith into something it's not, and is broad enough to allow different Evangelicals to choose how to live out their faith in their communities.

The one criticism I have of it is that it doesn't clealy explain to the average, non-Evangelical reader how Evangelical Christians are different than just plain old Christians. But as the signers said, it wasn't written for these readers. But it would have been helpful to me as an Evangelical to have that spelled out too.

All in all, though, it's well done. I'd be interested in hearing other readers' thoughts.

Posted by: Eric | May 7, 2008 7:39 PM

Jim,

I'm looking forward to seeing how this is received in the broader evangelical community!

Brian Jones
www.brianjones.com

Posted by: Brian Jones | May 7, 2008 9:00 PM

I was impressed by the Manifesto's spirit until I read the ugly lies about a mainline denomination the chief author of the Manifesto (Os Guinness) wrote in the Washington Post : link

It's not just mean, it's ignorant.

Jim Wallis, I'm very surprised you'd want to be associated with those thoughts. Hardly civil. Hardly in the spirit of the Manifesto which calls for respect towards all faiths. Particularly gross misrepresentation of those faiths.

Your thoughts, please.

Posted by: John B. Chilton | May 7, 2008 10:06 PM

Jim,

As always, you make a good case for Christian faith. The problem is our ministries don't. Jesus says people are to "believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves." It's time for Christian ministries to bring to light the miracles God is making happen within them. Doing this not only will help give people a more Jesus-like idea of what we Christians are all about, but it also will generate believers who become ministry supporters -- just what every Christian ministry needs in these tough times.

Now that we've laid out the language, let's get our ministries to walk the talk.

God bless,

Bernice Sanders Smoot
Saint Wall Street

Posted by: Bernice Sanders Smoot | May 7, 2008 11:03 PM

Jesse,

Have you bothered to read the Manifesto? I hardly think what they're advocating is accepting the world's values and "being like non-Christians".

Posted by: Jake | May 7, 2008 11:36 PM

Steve,

Please stop assuming you know who is and who is not going to hell. You are not the judge and you do not have the wisdom to even speculate on it. You don't know who is and is not saved so please don't speculate on such things. Instead follow the most important commandment Love God with all your heart, mind, body and soul and your neighbor. If you do that you will have salvation as Luke 10 preaches.

p

Posted by: Payshun | May 8, 2008 1:01 AM

Jesse, being hated by the world because of Jesus or The Gospel is to be expected.

Unfortunately a very vocal contingent of us behave more like partisans of the Roman Empire than heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Posted by: Lisa | May 8, 2008 1:40 AM

"On the question of public life, the manifesto recognizes that the political categories of left and right simply don't fit religion, and it is a big mistake to try to fit religion into them. The people I meet across the country are yearning for a moral center to our public life and political discourse, with a fundamental emphasis on the common good. They want to understand better the moral choices and challenges that lie beneath our political debates. More and more people want to see a common-good politics replace the politics of individual gain and special interests."

I find this idea is so evident on this blog page. Despite the obvious disagreements and opposing stances on theological and political issues the regulars here more often than not display a togetherness that crosses all party lines and labels. There is a true sense of good- spiritedness that usually expells those that jump in with somewhat of a mean-spirited intention, and I like that as well. I find it very refreshing to listen and learn from such thinkers when so often my day gets consumed with distractions by unsolicited and meaningless conversations with folks that walk through life without ever seeking it's boundries. Thanks guys!!!

Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 8, 2008 7:59 AM

"Have you bothered to read the Manifesto? I hardly think what they're advocating is accepting the world's values and "being like non-Christians".
--My comments had nothing to do with the manifesto--they had to do with the poll Wallis cited. Certainly Christians aren't perfect, but I've never understood the meaning of those kinds of polls. Christians should care how the world perceives them to an extent, but then again, we should not be surprised if we are despised by the world--our values often come in conflict with it. The data Wallis cites seem to be just a reflection of that conflict.

I'm guessing that Wallis cites these data to influence evangelicals to take on his political beliefs (so they will be more well-liked by non-christians), but the assumptions behind this reasoning are flawed.

Posted by: jesse | May 8, 2008 8:35 AM

"too focused on the afterlife"

I never understand this criticism. If heaven is full union with God, and that depends on what we believe and how we act in the here and now, then a strong focus on the afterlife will only lead to a better here-and-now.

As Christians, an emphasis on that eternal union with God is imperative. It's the reason for being holy in life now.

Posted by: Bob | May 8, 2008 9:26 AM

Muddying the Evangelical Waters 5/7/2008
By Janice Shaw Crouse

This week, a select group of men (if there are any women involved, none have been identified) will issue a document they are calling “An Evangelical Manifesto: The Washington Declaration of Identity and Public Commitment.” We know just a bit about this embargoed document’s existence, not its content, because Warren Cole Smith, publisher of the Evangelical Press News Service, has written about the plan and process of producing the declaration that purports to represent American evangelical beliefs and values. Smith’s point in writing about the manifesto is that the timing of the release makes it a political document, and the closed group of people working on the content apparently excludes traditional conservative and pro-family evangelical voices.

Indeed, releasing the document appears to be staking a claim for new leadership with different emphases from the traditional, mainstream evangelical movement; the declaration’s authors appear to be making a power play to launch new public faces for evangelicalism. Perhaps they heard E.J. Dionne, Jr., a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, opine about what he perceives as a “waning influence of the traditional religious right” and hope to move into the perceived vacuum.

Likely, they also want to subtly shift the understanding of what it means to be “evangelical.” Several prominent self-identified “evangelical progressives” have written books and launched speaking and media campaigns in order to distance themselves from the issues of the religious right — painting themselves as more sophisticated and nuanced in their understanding of evil in the world. One branch created a “Deep Shift” to describe their “new paradigm” for making Christianity more palatable to the world. Others object to the “very narrow” depiction of evangelicals as conservative; they want the leftist social justice issues to be at the heart of “moral and political decision making.” While they object to the political activism of the religious right, their own “vocation” to use “political involvement as a vehicle for social change” is viewed as a mission and high calling.

“Progressives” criticize traditional evangelicals because they are overwhelmingly Republican, without acknowledging that the Republican platform, which has been consistently pro-life, is congruent with the moral values of evangelicals whereas the Democratic platform is not. “Progressives” criticize traditional evangelicals because they focus on individual sins and the two major moral issues of abortion and homosexual marriage, instead of focusing on what they call “structural sins” like poverty, war, oppression and destruction of the environment. Typically, when “progressives” talk about “broadening the evangelical agenda,” they mean making their so-called “structural sins” the priority instead of emphasizing the “personal sins” that concern traditional evangelicals.

Sadly, progressives often dilute the gospel message of salvation with their emphasis on so-called structural sins choosing to focus on the imperfections of American capitalism (which pale in comparison to those of every other economic system) and painting it as the ultimate evil (greedy corporations and underhanded bankers), and conspiracy theories abound. Though American capitalism has been the greatest engine for growth and human advancement in the history of the world, the United States, especially “Christian America,” is frequently blamed falsely for poverty and war, paternalism and exploitation, as well as racism and materialism. More recently, a presidential candidate leveled a charge of “legalized discrimination” against his country as an explanation for the long-term black poverty rates; he did not mention that economists agree that poverty in America can be attributed to “changes in family formation” because less than 40 percent of black children in America live in a married mom-and-dad family.

The “progressives” package their thinking in traditional Biblical rhetoric fusing traditional values with populist ideals and themes of the liberal left (like a Marxist-flavored version of social justice and racial reconciliation) and latching onto trendy secular causes like climate change, poverty, globalism, immigration and political correctness. If they talk about abortion at all, it is in the context of preventing the “necessity” for abortion. While they haven’t yet embraced homosexual “marriage,” they promote “civil unions” and condone “blessing” ceremonies in churches; like all evangelicals, they emphasize loving the sinner, but the leftists make no effort to distance their love for the sinner from the sinful lifestyle. In fact, instead of relying on Scriptural authority and theological clarity, one progressive has called for a five-year moratorium on pronouncements about homosexual behavior; instead, he wants dialogue, reflection and provisional comments until there is consensus.

The left is obviously targeting evangelicals by blurring the distinctions between liberal and conservative, producing an amalgam that will become as impotent and barren in the 21st century as most mainline protestant churches became in the 20th century. They criticize the religious right for thinking in terms of monologues instead of conversations; they decry absolutes and preaching, preferring instead, tolerance, narratives and communal interaction. Writing in Christianity Today, Amy Sullivan reported that in 2006, pro-choice and pro-gay rights gubernatorial candidates held informal listening sessions with evangelical voters and were able to garner almost 50 percent of the evangelical vote in their states. As a result, the major political candidates now have consultants to advise them on religious outreach to conservatives.

Since the 2004 election, over 10 percent of Evangelicals have switched parties, leaving the Republican for the Democratic Party. We also know that some self-described evangelicals hold liberal stances on issues like healthcare, war, gun control and the environment. Further, a significant number of evangelicals (according to George Barna’s polling) live no differently than their so-called “progressive” counterparts. These lukewarm believers (who critics say are less concerned about their salvation than their status and more concerned about money than morals) are easy prey for feel-good faith that puts few limitations on the believer — making no demands and establishing no boundaries. They are theological sponges — absorbing anything that “sounds” traditional and/or religious.

A very high priority of these ostensible believers is the avoidance of conflict. It seems a pillar of their faith for everyone to “just get along.” So, when serious, strict evangelicals have the temerity to take a strong moral stance on an issue that brings him or her into conflict with someone else’s position, this makes the nominally religious feel uncomfortable. They are prime candidates to embrace a less controversial and less demanding perspective and set of beliefs. As the Oprah phenomenon illustrates, there’s a definite market for those who prefer not to take positions but to accept whatever least common denominator makes the fewest demands, whatever position is politically smoothest with no rough moral edges.

Consideration of conservative policies and positions are taken off the table when it comes to leftist discussions of issues like “inclusion” and “diversity,” to say nothing about the sanctity of life or marriage.

The bottom line in terms of defining “evangelical” is that, according to Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Inc., a leading Democratic research organization, three-fourths of all evangelicals describe themselves as “mainstream” — over 70 percent go to church once a week, nearly 70 percent believe the Bible is the Word of God, nearly 85 percent believe that personal faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, and over 70 percent believe that moral values in America have declined. On the social issues, 85 percent oppose homosexual marriage, 74 percent oppose civil unions, and nearly 70 percent believe that abortion should be illegal. Isn’t it ironic that we must look to a secular organization to cut through the rhetorical fog to clarify what it means to be an evangelical?

However, no amount of pious-sounding rhetoric about our common American values will obscure the policy litmus tests on the great moral issues of the day upon which our humanity hangs; nor should it. As Christ warned the Disciples, standing for truth is not the route to public acclaim. The term “evangelical” means a Biblical worldview and this dictates a philosophical/theological perspective on the timeless moral issues of Scripture. Those positions ought to be clear and unequivocal, rather than muddied by sophisticated rhetoric and clever obfuscation. The subtle danger is, as the old axiom states: “Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.”

Posted by: The Patriot | May 8, 2008 9:30 AM

too focused on the afterlife"

I never understand this criticism. If heaven is full union with God, and that depends on what we believe and how we act in the here and now, then a strong focus on the afterlife will only lead to a better here-and-now.

As Christians, an emphasis on that eternal union with God is imperative. It's the reason for being holy in life now.

Posted by: Bob | May 8, 2008 9:26 AM

I disagree only from the standpoint that too much emphasis on the after-life distracts the focus from the current relationship and calling from God. "The Kingdom is at hand" mentality is an understanding that eternal life has already begun and we are indeed expected to promote the plan of salvation to those that know not of it. I have always like the idea that in A.W. Tozar's Pursuit of God he talks of our relationship with God being imperative yet only with minimal reference to the after-life. Some may only be motivated to "do good" or be holy in life now as you put it Bob, because of the promise of a heavenly reward, yet I beleive we should live this lifestyle because we are called to be imitators of Christ.

Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 8, 2008 9:47 AM

"But if the Manifesto merely masks a continuing evangelical drive to dominate the public square and legislate a ban on abortion, restrictions on the civil rights of gay people and a church-state relationship where separation is more a façade than a reality, it’s just more of the same-old, same-old." The Patriot

It sounds like you want the 'same-old' --- like you want the 'same-old' that never was.

They, with abundant clarity, state they represent only their own voices; and that they seek to provide a clarifying statement as to who Evangelicals are. It is a helpful contribution.

I agree with the Manifesto. But I don't for a second think they are speaking for me.

They wrote about an assault on the unborn. Why not step out of your box, use your imagination, and take them at their word. Maybe this assault they perceive is something other than you think. There are a whole range of ideas, behaviors, policies, around the globe--that together constitute a grievous crime against voiceless, unborn human life. Their statement allows for dialogue in a civil public square about the freedom, rights and responsibilites of individuals and societies around reproduction and all of human life. You apparently don't want the civil public square--more content to create straw enemies and define Evangelicals as a boogeyman so you don't have to bother with dialogue; so you don't have to bother seeing a grievous assault on humanity because you wish to advance a particular US policy on abortion-rights.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | May 8, 2008 11:29 AM

I'm also interested in knowing what makes John C. think Os Guinness played a role in the Manifesto. He's not on the list of signers and Jim doesn't mention him. What's the connection in the first place? John Yates signed it, but not Guinness.

Posted by: Eric | May 8, 2008 11:59 AM

Something about this manifesto bugs me. Something about it doesn't carry a good spirit to me. I think if you really want to bring people together, you have to focus on all their strengths and contributions first, which I don't see many people here wanting to do.

As far as the poll numbers -- duh -- can this generation name one of said hypocrites? Some were jilted by the Church, and I get that. But most view the committed of any religion to be hypocritical. It's one of the great prejudices of our time.

Remember when the only homosexuals you saw on tv programs were the joke character? For years now, the more religious they portray someone, that character will either develop into a great hypocrite or mentally derranged.

There's an article on the web where a homosexual writes that he looked through Jerry Falwell's FBI file because he was sure it would prove that Falwell was a closet homosexual. He was disappointed to read that nothing in the file implicated Falwell as a homosexual. There's an urban myth out there that says, "If you preach strongly against something, you are doing it yourself." Which will not be disproven by this Manifesto.

I'm not saying the Manifesto is wrong in and of itself, I'm saying that we have to change the above perception by living a real life in front of people.

As for the Manifesto itself -- I'd have to think about it a long while before I signed it. What is it saying, what is it not saying, and do I agree with all of it.

Posted by: frankie | May 8, 2008 12:57 PM

Well,so much for no politics from "the Left". Jim Wallis is the most politically partisan voice of the Evangelical community. This is simply an attempt to redefine the Leftist positions of many of the signers as that of a "centrist" "voice of compassionate consensus"--since it is implicit in the language that anyone who rejects the concept of "the Common Good" for the idea of individual achievement---in other words, traditional Republic and Capitalist positions---are somehow LESS concerned for the "oppressed". The concept of "the Common Good" is one that has ALWAYS been the basis for Socialism...but it is NOT the Government's responsibility to care for the poor (the public domain )..It is the job of the Church--apart from Government. (see Acts,chpt.6---Jesus never addressed his concern for the down-trodden to the Roman government. He addressed his concerns to religious leaders and to the multitudes he addressed on the hillsides and synagogues..

Posted by: Roberta | May 8, 2008 1:46 PM

Thank you for sharing this, Jim. Here at Harvard Div, I just finished a paper looking at how the Barna report might open up not onlin an inter-Christian, but inter-religious dialog for Evangelicals about something at the very heart of many's faith- sharing the Gospel of Jesus in a way that is truly Good News.

I believe the most important way to do that, since Jesus' teaching on serving Him through those in need, is in how all Christians can come together with each other and all peoples around the most vital issues of human and eco-suffering in our time. In a very real sense, talking about salvation while Lazarus is starving outside the gate seems something the Barna report is very critical of.

Timing is amazing, I was just discussing the Barna developments with a Christian-pagan dialog e-list run out of our Emerging Church, the Gathering in Salem. I've already shared this post, and the manifesto with them, many of whom were just pondering ways Jesus interacted with the many diverse, and often outcast groups of His time.

Posted by: Kieran Conroy | May 8, 2008 2:10 PM

"Something about this manifesto bugs me. Something about it doesn't carry a good spirit to me."

I get the same vibe. Did they really embargo the manifesto? Seems a bit calculated.

"You left out greed, sloth, envy, and pride."

America likes the idea of being charitable, industrious, magnanimous and humble, even if they don't walk the talk. The church gets a bad rap for focusing on sexual immorality, but one of the reasons for this is that this is what the world feels most threatened by.

How about this poll? Read the passages describing the actions we are to take if our body parts are causing us to sin, and then see how people like Jesus.

Posted by: kevin s. | May 8, 2008 2:21 PM

Jim, as a Christian who is Catholic, I read your article and the "Manifesto" with great interest. Oh God, is it possible that my prayers for Christian unity, ecumenical and interfaith dialogue are being answered positively? I'm thrilled by your statements, and by those of the document. As we dig deeper and deeper into what Jesus meant and still means, we can't help but be filled with more love and peace. I can't blame some of my friends for cringing when they hear the word "Christian," since indeed some of us have given ourselves a bad name - those of us who prefer to divide, hate, discriminate and reject. But thanks be to God for those who truly hear His voice and are moved by His Spirit. Of course there are doctrinal differences among all the world's faiths. But our love for God, for our fellow humans, and for the Earth must draw us all together. Thank you for having the courage to share your remarks.

Posted by: Grace | May 8, 2008 3:05 PM

Jim wrote, and I quote:"So it's time to change the image."
Jim, it is the behaviour, the praxis, that needs to change.
It is not a question of image; it is a question of credible substance.
As our Canadian Bishops once put it, it is time ( long past time!) to move from words to actions.
Keep up the great work of truth telling to the powers down there!
Jean Ann

Posted by: Jean Ann | May 8, 2008 3:19 PM

It's interesting and odd to here evangelicals mentioning union with God being the most important thing. I am actually really happy about that. I know many evangelicals fear Catholic theologians and a lot of their theology but they are a lot more developed on the subject and can offer a lot of wisdom and love on the path to union.

I wanted to say something else about the afterlife and I realize this might be a little zen but heaven is where your heart is. You are one with God here now. Since he is in heaven guess what you share that positional and spiritual reality now. By focusing on the afterlife so much evangelicals miss the mark on knowing and experiencing God in the here and now in deeper and more powerful ways. I am not saying I have achieved union or that my spiritual beliefs make me better (they don't) but I am saying that heaven is where you believe you are because of what Jesus did, and because of the union God has in us through the Holy Spirit.

p

Posted by: Payshun | May 8, 2008 3:27 PM

Hey conservative viewers,

Here is a helpful hint as to why you all are sometimes portrayed as uncaring. There is a lot of self-righteous hypocrisy in your churches and it pushes people alway that don't want to live like you. Not only that but the legalism that masks itself as spirituality portrays some of your loudest voices as judgmental jerks. When you don't go about cleaning your own house of those people it pushes folks like me and others away from your church. Using the government to help end poverty is only a small thing in the mind of most liberal Christians. It's everything else that is a bigger deal for a lot of us.

p

Posted by: Payshun | May 8, 2008 3:38 PM

All Christians, Evangelicals or otherwise, need only keep a few things in mind to be a follower of Christ and His way. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "The kingdom of God is within you." - wheather on earth or in heaven and working for the common good is what Jesus would work for too. "Love one another as I have loved you."

Posted by: Margaret Barry | May 8, 2008 4:06 PM

This may seem trivial, but many conservative Christians will not even read this because of the connotations of the word "manifesto". To many it conjures radicalism (Communist Manifesto, writings of deranged people like the Unibomber). A less loaded word would be less threatening.

Otherwise, I am impressed. What it has done, in this very space, is to get people of different perspectives to talk to one another.

Posted by: Vicki | May 8, 2008 4:18 PM

And yes, I was very threatened by the word "Manifesto" Vicki. So much so that I actually read it to make sure it wasn't a Communist plot to take over my church! We conservatives get frightened over words like that so I appreciate your suggestion to the authors.

Actually, since there are several people who signed it who I'd definitely consider conservative or orthodox Christians, I wonder why they chose that word if it's so frightening. Hmmmm... I'm going to take a few minutes to ponder Vicki's wise thoughts.

Posted by: A conservative viewer | May 8, 2008 4:38 PM

This Manifesto is a Marketing Gimmick. You Evangelicals don't have an IMAGE problem. You have colossal BEHAVIOR problem. You have a SIN problem. You Evangelicals are so busy looking for the specks in everyone else's eyes, you ignore the humongeous Lumber yard of planks in Your Own Eyes. You think God is bamboozled by your "Lord, Lord, Praise the Lord" noise?
"Image Problem!!??!" It would be hilarious if it was not so bloody bloody tragic.

Your Ministers led the flock into mindless lockstep support of a President who makes a mockery of the laws of our Country AND the Laws of God. (Vote for Bush or sin and go to Hell.)

Let's take a little stroll through the Ten Commandments. For example, MY Bible says:
DO NOT STEAL. (For instance, the Iraqi Nation's resources, funds for the poor, funds for education, funds for infrastructure, funds for the nation's people. This President has pillaged our Nation's coffers to enrich his already wealthy friends and you Evangelicals are in there with him stuffing your pockets too.)
DO NOT MURDER. (Apparently you only mean the unborn, but not Iraqi children already born or American kids sick and dying without health care. It also does not seem to apply to the wrongly convicted prisoners and people tortured to death.)
DO NOT LIE. DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS. Bush (and you sanctimonious Evangelicals
have LIED about the reasons for this War. Have LIED about Iraq's responsibility in the 9/11 attack. Have LIED about the Torture, the Renditions. Have LIED about outting one of our own CIA officers fighting on Our side. The LIES go on and on, but you have decided that this commandment is irrelevant.)

This administration's offices and departments are filled with young energetic Evangelicals who have been programmed to believe that GOD is spelled GOP. They act in conflict with the Bible, and diligently work to dismantle the very Laws and foundation of this great Nation. They have no moral compass but political expediency.

"By their ACTIONS you will know them".

For a number of years I have watched Evangelicals loudly spouting "Jesus' words" out of their mouths as "Satan's work" springs from their hands.
Hypocritical + Christian = Hypochristian. Since when did Jesus tell us to rip off the poor to enrich ourselves? Since when did Jesus tell us to destroy the gift of this great planet to make a ton of money in the short term? (You believe Jesus loves the RICH best right?) I have looked, and I cannot find "I got mine too bad for you" anywhere in my Bible. You must have a different Bible than me.

Newsflash: IMAGE is not your problem. Evangelicals owe Jesus a huge apology for destroying HIS image and distorting and despoiling his teachings. Get off this hokey idea of a Marketing Image re-make and REPENT the damage and evil you have done. It is long overdue.

Posted by: Deborah | May 8, 2008 4:43 PM

Prooftexting indicates, to be sure, that if everyone likes us, we are doing something wrong. But it would be fallacious to conclude from this that if no one likes us, we must be doing something right. Hardly anyone liked the Unabomber, either, but he was hardly a moral paragon.

Personally, I've had my fill of experience with smug abusers of hospitality, who like to be loud, rude, and thoughtless in the name of Christ and then complacently wear the unpopularity that inevitably results as a badge of honor. They do Our Lord no service.

Posted by: Paul Emmons | May 8, 2008 4:55 PM

I think that Christ's message, or gospel, is intended to light the way, or in other words to shape, inform, enlighten and guide us in our journey through life, and to lift our spirits when they need lifting. Jesus himself acknowledged that others had similar messages and further insights, which as long as they did not contradict the core of his message, were equally valid, and he encouraged his followers to go outside scripture and illuminate their understanding of the world through other sources.
Christianity has never rightly been an exclusionary religion, and those who try to make it so, or pretend that it is, are not following the teachings of Christ.

Posted by: eldon rollins | May 8, 2008 5:11 PM

Actually, if we wish to talk about our similarities, self-righteousness and hypocrisy unite all of us -- left, right, conservative and liberal, Christian and non-Christian. If 'you've arrived and I have not,' you're pretty much guilty of it. When we look in the mirror and see it, we have to do something about it. That's about the best we can do.

I agree with Keith -- Jesus clearing the Temple came to my mind too. He doesn't tolerate sin, and really gets angry when people jack with His church.

As for the gripe with mega-churches -- just because they're big doesn't mean they aren't preaching the truth. The Church is supposed to grow. I've been to 3 of 4 of them in my journey, and those I went to were very committed to the gospel. Since I haven't attended all of them (and probably never would go into some of them) I can't speak for all of them.

As for the word Manifesto, it reminded me of Francis Shaeffer's book, A Christian Manifesto.

Posted by: frankie | May 8, 2008 5:18 PM

Many of the messages that take issue with the manifesto seem to believe that it isn't important what the world thinks of Christians. Unfortunately, once that is the mindset it opens the way for obnoxious, foolish and divisive behavior. If you believe you are getting brownie points from the man upstairs for how many people are critical of you, what motivation is there to be fair and loving?

It's no coincidence that one of Ann Coulter's favorite Bible verses is the one about being hated. It's certainly not too much to examine how evangelicals are interacting in the world and attempt to adjust it when necessary.

Posted by: I and I | May 8, 2008 5:40 PM

Jesus does tolerate sin, he does all the time. If he had not tolerated Peter's sin Peter would have died when he got in the way of his Father's will. If he had not tolerated sin then he would have ditched those foolish, and bumbling disciples he picked up. God's grace is bigger than this. He forgives sin and puts up with it. Jesus clearing the temple is about one thing, prayer and man's access to God.

The temple was the only place all people could pray to come to God and that was being denied Gentiles because of greed. When that happens Jesus gets mad. He has no problem with people "jacking" with his church and as a matter of fact he promised all sorts of "jacking" murder, stoning, disrespect... for all who truly follow him.

p

Posted by: Payshun | May 8, 2008 7:13 PM

To those who who believe the world must hate us if we follow Jesus: If Jesus was hated by the world why was he mourned? The ones who hated Jesus, His crucifiers, (the world) were the vested and religious power mechanisms. Jesus was loved and embraced by the majority poor and downtrodden of his day (remember the 5,000 not counting women and children?). Christians are promised persecution from the Beast and the Dragon, neither of which are numbered among the general population.

"But it also will offer a new kind of life, a citizenship in the kingdom of God, that dwarfs the promise of the American Dream."

Posted by: carl copas | May 8, 2008 12:07 PM

Well said, Carl. You left out, "he that sows discord among brothers" (Prov 6:16)

Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 8, 2008 7:59 AM

Hear, Hear, the subsequent post notwithstanding :)

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 8, 2008 8:21 PM

Shadow, the Evangelicals themselves set this tone for the great political divide when they decided to become the GOP avenging angel. They have condemned and marginalized those of us who as Christians believe that GOD is neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Unlike the "Evangeligops", there are Christians who believe that we show our faith by the work of our hands, and not the noise from our mouths.

Posted by: Deborah | May 9, 2008 6:47 AM

Pastor Jeff writes; "To those who who believe the world must hate us if we follow Jesus: If Jesus was hated by the world why was he mourned? The ones who hated Jesus, His crucifiers, (the world) were the vested and religious power mechanisms. Jesus was loved and embraced by the majority poor and downtrodden of his day (remember the 5,000 not counting women and children?). Christians are promised persecution from the Beast and the Dragon, neither of which are numbered among the general population."

Good point!

Reading this and other items on this thread reminded me to look up at the board above my desk and read one of the many quotes that I copied down a few years back.

"It's good to know who hates you, and to be hated by the right people." Johnny Cash

I would probably add that it's imperative to be "hated" for the right reasons as well.

Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 9, 2008 7:42 AM

Paster Jeff, perhaps people "hate" Christians because rather than embracing Jesus' teachings and practicing his principles, they use him as a blunt club to beat them up. Maybe the smug righteousness at being "hated" is ill conceived?

Posted by: Deborah | May 9, 2008 8:18 AM

Hey Payshun: according to you, Jesus would have been a judgemental jerk too.

Wrong. Jesus, because he was God in the flesh, consistently judged with true and righteous judgment, so he never was being a "jerk" about it. The same cannot be said for those Payshun is talking about.

D

Posted by: Don | May 9, 2008 9:16 AM

There are many Christians in the past who have advocated and lived a "both/and" belief and lifestyle--Walter Rauschenbush, Culbert Rutenbur, etc.(both a passionate personal conversion and committment to Christ AND a committment to bringing the Gospel to bear on the social issues of our day and world. Sad to say, most presentations of the Gospel I've heard are "either/or"-one of these passionate concerns to the exclusion of the other.

Posted by: Dr. Donald H. Hillyard | May 9, 2008 10:06 AM

I grew up with Evangelicals who were either democrat or republican. Most of them did not listen to Christian talk radio -- even though many of them listened to Christian music. Even the churches I've attended over the years that were republican spoke from the pulpit about being open-minded about it. The Christian talk shows were much more republican than any of the evangelicals I knew. There were a few exceptions who fit the stereo-types, but they hardly represent the whole.

If young people hate us for saying they have to be saved to get to heaven -- or be part of us -- whichever is more important to them -- that is not a new arguement. Nor is there a lot I can do about it. I don't believe all roads lead to the same truth. You are free to disagree with me, you are free to call me narrow-minded or whatever. But I don't hate you for feeling that way. I would expect a Buddhist to accept that about me, but I would not expect a Muslim to accept me (or think I am right) because I do not accept Mohamed as a prophet. It's the nature of a belief system.

Posted by: frankie | May 9, 2008 10:37 AM

payshun wrote; "He (Jesus) has no problem with people "jacking" with his church and as a matter of fact he promised all sorts of "jacking" murder, stoning, disrespect... for all who truly follow him."

ie, from the Voice of the Martyrs folks today:

On March 9, 2006, Pastor Bentar was visiting relatives in West Java when he was attacked by a group of Muslims who beat him severely. They rolled over his van and helped themselves to its contents, including the new clothing merchandise. As the melee continued they were joined by other Muslims and began shouting, “Burn him!” The group set fire to his van, but police arrived just in time to rescue him.

Pastor Bentar was originally detained in the Tasikmalaya police station for security reasons, but was later charged with blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad. At his trial, he was sentenced to 4 1/2 years and then transferred to the local prison in Tasikmalaya.

Sentenced to 4 1/2 years for blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad - there doesn't seem to be any acceptence of hypocracy on the Muslims part in these types of situations. And some claim Evangelicals are the only one that have an "our way or the highway(to hell that is)" approach.

Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 9, 2008 11:24 AM

The comments on Jim's article have diverged in so many different directions that I fear we are losing touch with the main ooint. Jesus' message was to love God to the utmost, and our neighbors as ourselves. To me, there is little point in arguing about the attributes of God, because God is beyond description. We can make progress with loving our neighbor. The difficulty, as I see it in mysel, is that a life of service is darned uncomfortable, and it's easier to waffle about the minutiae of Jesus' teaching, when truth to tell, we can only know these through a series of manuscripts which differ from one another in literally thousands of details, not to mention the diff iculties of translation. The cluster of meanings around a Greek word are always different from those around its English equivalent. One more point: Art Rubin, please don't think of yourself as an outsider. Jesus was a Jew. I think he was the greatest in the line of the Hebrew prophets. I returned to the church and remain there, for one reason. I am convinced that his gospel of love and non-violence is the best, perhaps the only, hope for an increasingly violent world.

Posted by: Ex-limey | May 9, 2008 1:29 PM

Deborah,
This is Sojourners' "God's Politics" blog. It's not Daily Kos or FreeRepublic. As Christians we try to keep our comments constructive. While we sometimes disagree with what others have to say, we try to do disagree respectfully and without malice. We don't always succeed, but we try. Please try to keep this in mind should you continue to comment here.

Thank you.

Posted by: Trying to help | May 9, 2008 2:51 PM

"It restores my faith that there are some Americans who are Christians first"

Trust me, Florence, there are plenty of us. We're as frustrated as anybody else.

Posted by: Another nonymous | May 9, 2008 3:46 PM

Pastor Jeff
"the world must hate us if we follow Jesus"

Thanks for your comments on this--you made me think of this in an entirely different way. If we are to be hated because of Jesus, the question is "why was Jesus hated?" It occurred to me that we have a few definitions of what Jesus means by "Kingdom of This World". If we are to understand His mission for us, we need to understand what He means by that. And if we are to be hated for Jesus' sake, let's be hated for the reasons He was hated.

In my experience, I have always defined "the world" as the "immoral", especially pertaining to sexual sin. This was the reasoning for why Christians would be hated by the world, because we challenge their sexual sin.

Was Jesus hated because he took a stand against sexual immorality? Certainly, He is clear that sexual immorality is sin, but those caught up in it He treated with compassion, grace, and forgiveness. He was never judgemental or condemning towards them. The world didn't hate Him because of his stand on sexual immorality. In fact, if anything, the Pharisees hated Him because He didn't condemn those in sexual immorality.

The world He challenged was the world of Ceasar and the Pharisees--Those who relied on and abused wealth, influence, and power, and who didn't care about those who had no wealth, influence, and power.

Jesus, over and over again, elevates those who are nothing over those who are everything in the world's eyes. It is not the world of the sexually immoral that is supposed to hate us. It is the world that values wealth, power, and influence over God's children and creation that is supposed to hate us. THAT was the world that hated Jesus.

We should be hated not because we take a stand against sexual immorality. We should be hated because we show compassion for those who the world does not have compassion for--for those the world has deemed worthless because they don't or cannot ultimately serve the god of this world---power, influence, wealth. So it isn't the people that will hate us, but the power structure that rules this world that hates us.

Posted by: squeaky | May 9, 2008 3:53 PM

Let me clarify something. There are various words in the New Testament that get translated as "world." I believe the one in question in the passage about the world hating those who follow Jesus is "aion," which literally means "[this present] age." It refers to a time in history dedicated to a system of values and priorities that are different from those established by God in the act of making a good creation. It does not mean the world as God's creation, and it does not mean the people in the world, insofar as those people are capable of perceiving and responding to a different set of values.

The irony pointed out by the manifesto is one that I have been aware of for some time: in many cases, it is precisely the people who are most disgusted with the values of the present age who are simultaneously drawn to Jesus and repelled by the messages they too frequently pick up from Christians. That's what's wrong, and it's what this document is honestly trying to address. Godspeed!

Posted by: Another nonymous | May 9, 2008 4:11 PM

"Christians are promised persecution from the Beast and the Dragon, neither of which are numbered among the general population."

We are promised persecution from the world, which Jesus refers as "they". From that point forward (Acts 13, for example), the Bible is pretty clear that we can expect persecution from people.

That said, I think it is possible to have a Christian nation, or one rooted in Christian principles such that Christians do not earn violent persecution.

"Was Jesus hated because he took a stand against sexual immorality?"

No, but sexual immorality wasn't the sin that ran rampant throughout the culture.

Posted by: kevin s. | May 9, 2008 4:55 PM

Squeaky: If my musings spark that profound thinking in you, I am truly humbled. You developed the point much more eloquently than I could have. I guess that's the blessing of the "Body of Christ" where one sows and another reaps. Thank you.

Kevin: Are you saying that the world today has shifted in it's morality? If so, how did this shift come about? On the first point, you may want to consider that the Beast and Dragon animate flesh and blood human beings drunk with the power granted to them by these evil ones. BTW- I appreciate your passionate stands for Jesus and your work for Him in your community.

Carl: Thank you for your prayers.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 9, 2008 5:57 PM

I thank each person here with whom I can share this precious gift of life; and who have chosen to consider and turn their faces and hearts towards Jesus; and for each person who has not been convinced to do so, but have inclined their lives to seek that which is true and good.

I obviously cannot decipher everything that is behind comments expressing great displeasure or hurt. I am given to Jesus -- not Evangelicalism. But Evangelical, in the sense explained in this manifesto, does describe much of the landscape of my faith.

I would be interested to know if there are particular elements of the manifesto that any commenters look at and feel like it is very hard to enter the 'civil public square' with someone like myself.

Let justice roll down like a river
And righteousness like a quiet stream

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | May 9, 2008 6:07 PM

"He was quite graceful toward sinners"

That depended on the situation , the folks who mocked the sanctuary allowing the greed of the world to particpate know that , when was the last time you threw over a table ? Jesus did it , and I would not want to be near that table when he did .

No we should all know the world , the evil of this world will hate those who are in Christ . The Lord told us , the Bible teaches how to handle it , with love . Not easy to do , but better for the kingdom here and in heaven when we do . To cater or concede to sin, is easy , its much harder to show resistace and love at the same time . Carl , Wolverine , and some others are good examples around here .

23He who hates me hates my Father as well. 24If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason.'[a

22Blessed are you when men hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.

Posted by: Mick | May 10, 2008 1:59 AM

"O.K. so why are there not mainline institutions represented as signers of the manifesto--such as Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School, Andover Newton, Union (NYC), Union (Richmond, Va)etc. Perhaps we need to rethink the meaning of inclusiveness." Jim

The writers were clear they represent themselves--not all Evangelicals nor all Christians.

"You need more dialog with those you call "liberal revisionists." The way you describe them does not fit the folks I know whom you seem to put into that category. For example, where is your recognition of the faithfulness of those who hold to the Christus victor sense of how Jesus has saved us?" A Wayne Schwab

The point of the document is a statement about Evangelicalism. It uses 'short-hand' to differnetiate some basic ways they understand their Evengelicalism to part ways with other veins of the Church. "Short-hand" inevitably becomes a poor statement of what it references--but the point of the document is not an explanation of that, but of their definition of Evangelicalism.

I am always dumbfounded when one group of people say, "We are writing to explain what we mean;" and a host of voices complain that they don't mean it, that they hold the wrong view, that the document doesn't represent them, that someone else should have written their views, etc.

Why aren't there more female signors? I don't know. They didn't say they were writing to represent all Evangelicals; nor all men and all women. They are who they are. They didn't ask me, my sister, my mother, or my daughter. They are who they are. Evangelicals have a mixed history in terms of whether women fulfill roles as theologians, pastors, organization heads, etc.--but at the end of the day it is mostly men--likely explaining why there are not more females signing. Why not take the document for what it claims to be and respond to it as such?

If you want a different document or a different group of people writing it--------is there something stopping you?????

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | May 10, 2008 8:46 AM

. He was quite graceful toward sinners

Unless they were making money in the House of God . Then I would not want to be in his way . Quite the temper actually over certain things .
But your version helps you win a debate , which is what matters to you I see.

Posted by: truth | May 10, 2008 1:41 PM

In any case the "God" of Christianity (which, I believe is so far distanced from the real Jesus as to be unrecognizable to Jesus) lost me a long time ago when it consigned all the beautiful people of other faiths to "eternal hellfire." It turned your God into the commander of a concentration camp, with a 24/7 never-ending crematorium. Even the Nazis weren't able to go that far.

Understand that God is holy and cannot tolerate sin -- it that weren't the case there would be no need for Jesus to go to the cross. And BTW, He Himself talked more about hell than any other subject.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | May 10, 2008 2:01 PM

Unless they were making money in the House of God . Then I would not want to be in his way . Quite the temper actually over certain things .
But your version helps you win a debate , which is what matters to you I see.

Me:
Um we are not debating. There is no debate. As a matter of fact we agree on what you just said.

p

Posted by: Payshun | May 10, 2008 4:13 PM

"Kevin: Are you saying that the world today has shifted in it's morality?"

Depends on what you mean by "shifted". If you mean that the morality has shifted away from God, I'm not sure that is the case. If you mean that