The Manifesto and the Media (by Jim Wallis)
Last week, I wrote about the new Evangelical Manifesto, of which I was a signatory. It's been interesting to see the news coverage that followed its release.
On the one hand, CNN implied that the statement was pro-Democratic:
For Democrats, the timing is good. The party has been pushing to overcome the "faith gap," that many feel has hurt them with church-going voters. ... Evangelicals are now leading public support for many issues dear to Democrats: global campaigns against AIDS, hunger and poverty.
And on the other, a number of stories spun it as a repudiation of politics, at least in their headlines. Most of the stories, written by religion writers, were quite good, but their content was not reflected by the headline writers. The Los Angeles Times wrote, "Group of evangelical Christians writes manifesto urging separation of religious beliefs and politics," The Tennessean (Nashville) had "Evangelicals call for movement to shun politics," and an Associated Press story ran "Evangelical leaders say their faith is too politicized."
The Manifesto itself, while arguing that "evangelical" must be defined first and foremost as a theological term, not a political one, went on to say:
Called by Jesus to be "in" the world but "not of" the world, we are fully engaged in public affairs, but never completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, class, tribe, or national identity. ...
Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it as our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality. In our scales, spiritual, moral, and social power are as important as political power,
It's a point I have made many times: "God is not a Republican or a Democrat," and that is a good thing. There should be no religious litmus tests for politics - committed Christians will, and should be, on both sides of the political aisle. Indeed, people of faith should never be in any party's or candidate's political pocket and should, ideally, be the ultimate swing vote because of their moral independence from partisan politics.
But the media just can't help themselves and always want to squeeze everything into their old framework of left and right, Democrat and Republican. But "left" and "right" are not religious categories, and people of faith should define their political involvement in moral terms, not partisan predictability, and that's exactly what the Manifesto said. Even the media coverage of the Manifesto shows how much the statement is needed.
Let me make a prediction. In the future, we will see new alliances and campaigns led by people of faith on a wide range of moral issues - such as poverty, the environment, pandemic diseases, torture, and human rights, and a much wider and deeper focus on the dignity and sanctity of life, including war and peace and even the death penalty along with unborn children - that will involve people of faith across the political spectrum and will shake up politics. The social movements that really change politics are precisely that - public engagement defined by religious and moral commitment that defies normal political categories. Eventually, even the media will finally get it. Stay tuned.
Add to:
Category: Evangelicals, Faith and Politics, Media
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
"God is not a Republican or a Democrat"--but he sure seems to be opposed to Capital Punishment, eh, Jim? What if Christians oppose you on Capital punishment or other issues like war? How far does your tolerance for differing opinions stretch?
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | May 15, 2008 11:43 AM
Is the left-right narrative a media construction? Barack Obama used the terminology in his race speech, which received vociferous support here.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 15, 2008 11:53 AM
It is very encouraging to see that a number of evangelical leaders are signing on to an agenda that is more non-partisan and broader in scope than what we have seen in recent memory.
Posted by: Billy Strain | May 15, 2008 12:20 PM
I don't know how the people who wrote those headlines got that from the Manifesto. But that's the media for you. "Here's our paradigm...now how does this news story fit into it."
Way to point this out to 'em Jim.
Posted by: Eric | May 15, 2008 12:33 PM
People who are genuinely opposed to abortion ought to welcome Christians being involved in more than one political party.
Abortion will never end if opposition to it is kept confined to only one party.
When opposition to it is a majority view in both parties, things will change.
Or do some just want to keep it continuing so opposition to it can be a perennial voter issue to be used to pursue partisan power for its own sake, apart from genuine reform?
Posted by: N. M. Rod | May 15, 2008 12:38 PM
For starters, I'm a Jesus-loving non-Christian . . .
I'm "Jesus-loving" because Jesus rejected and challenged the political mechanisms and systems of his day rather than worked with them, doing so because he knew a unique Way (a different kind of "politics") was the key to building the "kingdom of God", to creating that ultimate state of human Oneness in wholeness and harmony. His followers were to be "in" the world without being "of" it. Would he not require the same of their "politics"?
I'm "Non-Christian" because Christians have become so outrageously counter-representative of what Jesus of Nazareth stood for, and to take on their label would seem a mockery to Jesus; non-Christian because Christianity is, quite frankly, an idol, in that Christians seem always to be too excessively focused on preserving (or endlessly attempting to reinvent) the various doctrinal, dogmatic, and theological frameworks of their numerous movements and institutions (i.e., their Church), which seem to be in constant competition with one another. In other words, they never seem to let their god worry about the preserving, with the result that they miss the point of Jesus and his message altogether. The result? They are part of the problem, not the solution.
Now, where your remarks are concerned Jim . . . what I'd like to see is how people or the media are responding to what "evangelicals" are doing, not what they're saying. The world doesn't need more statements. My goodness, haven't there been enough of those? It needs genuine, loving, engaging, and sacrificial action.
So instead of making predictions, how about leading the charge anew. Two major books in the past few years, a great blog, TV interviews, etc., it's all good. Offering your voice is certainly important. But what is needed is a little less opening of the mouth and a lot more stretching of the feet, like many are already doing without a care for what the media says (there's a saying I recently heard: "If the Devil can't seduce you, he'll distract you.").
As for politics and today's political mechanisms and systems, I say reject them all. Not one of them seeks the advancement of "God's kingdom." Do it the way Jesus did it and let's see what happens.
Posted by: R J Pearson | May 15, 2008 12:55 PM
N.M. Rod,
I think the vast majority of people who work to end abortion would welcome greater participation by all political parties.
Posted by: Eric | May 15, 2008 1:04 PM
"Or do some just want to keep it continuing so opposition to it can be a perennial voter issue to be used to pursue partisan power for its own sake, apart from genuine reform?"
No, I'd like to see the Democratic party embrace the pro-life platform. But absent that, I want them to suffer for failing to support it.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 15, 2008 1:24 PM
I, too, would like to see both parties embrace a truly pro-life platform. For the GOP, it would mean that they would have to admit that for the past 25 years they have held that life begins at conception and ends at birth. This is why they remain silent about the infanticide of Sun Hudson, who was killed under a law signed by then governor of Texas, George W. Bush, with the endorsement of Texas Right to Life.
Posted by: RJohnson | May 15, 2008 1:28 PM
"His followers were to be "in" the world without being "of" it. Would he not require the same of their "politics"?"
This does not answer the question of whether one might can influence political mechanisms without embracing them. I don't think it is inherently of the world to be involved in politics.
"I'm "Non-Christian" because Christians have become so outrageously counter-representative of what Jesus of Nazareth stood for, "
Some have and some haven't. But there are Christians in the Bible who behaved badly. I don't see where we are called to reject the label simply because others who carry the label do so falsely.
"In other words, they never seem to let their god worry about the preserving, with the result that they miss the point of Jesus and his message altogether."
But God uses human beings to preserve the religion. If we do not preserve doctrine, then on what basis can we embrace Christ's call to love?
I agree that we have more than enough Christian statements and press releases.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 15, 2008 1:31 PM
"God is not a Republican or a Democrat"--but he sure seems to be opposed to Capital Punishment, eh, Jim?
Biblically speaking, the way capital punishment is carried out in this country is illegal anyway, so I'm not sure what the point is.
But what is needed is a little less opening of the mouth and a lot more stretching of the feet, like many are already doing without a care for what the media says (there's a saying I recently heard: "If the Devil can't seduce you, he'll distract you.").
Jim has since the 1970s put his money where his mouth is.
I'd like to see the Democratic party embrace the pro-life platform. But absent that, I want them to suffer for failing to support it.
Neither will happen as long as conservative anti-abortionists -- calling them "pro-life" I find a bit of a stretch -- insist in uncoupling abortion from a general "sanctity of human life," which includes issues such as torture, economic injustice, unneccesary war and the environment. But that will never happen because conservatives have nothing to gain politically or economically by supporting a truly "pro-life" agenda and in fact regularly slam others as "leftists" because of that.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | May 15, 2008 1:39 PM
I'd like to see the Democratic party embrace the pro-life platform
Maybe you should get the "capital punishment/make war not love" Republicans to go pro-life first and then we'll work on the Democrats :)
Posted by: splinterlog | May 15, 2008 2:29 PM
"Neither will happen as long as conservative anti-abortionists -- calling them "pro-life" I find a bit of a stretch "
I know you do. I just find "opposing pro-choice policies" to be a bit cumbersome.
"which includes issues such as torture, economic injustice, unneccesary war and the environment. "
I oppose torture, unnecessary war, and economic injustice. I also support the environment.
But I could also suggest that the opposite is true. Liberals (or whatever I have to call them to avoid a banal conversation about labels) will not garner support for their vision of social justice so long as that vision accommodates the right to kill babies.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 15, 2008 2:37 PM
I oppose torture, unnecessary war, and economic injustice. I also support the environment.
Even if doing so will cost you power, money and/or votes? That's the true test of being "pro-life."
Liberals (or whatever I have to call them to avoid a banal conversation about labels) will not garner support for their vision of social justice so long as that vision accommodates the right to kill babies.
You're totally right so long as the "pro-life" side focuses only on that, which has been the case over the last 30 years. When abortion was banned at the turn of the last century the vision was far greater because its opponents recognized the economic and social vulnerability of "girls in trouble" and thus attacked all of the root causes of unwanted pregnancy. They also did that work quietly and let the politicians catch up to them.
But let's not get too off the track. Virtually everyone agrees that, even though there's always been considerable diversity in evangelicalism, it has of late been associated with right-wing politics (and we have Christian media "ministries" to thank for that). Yesterday I read a frothing commentary in response to the Manifesto on the website of Concerned Women for America that said, essentially, "How dare anyone who calls himself a Christian not agree with us!", as though its views are not to be questioned. Obviously those days are over, thank God (and I'm not blaspheming here, either).
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | May 15, 2008 3:05 PM
Gee -- I'd just like to see people realize that not everyone who is pro-life is pro-war or pro-gun, and not everyone who supports a woman's right to choose anti-war and anti-gun.
Those old stereo-types have met the same death that the GOP and religious right have. People feel all sorts of different things now about all sorts of things. Or they may only be 80% anti-gun or anti-war -- and the same is kind of true for pro-life.
Posted by: frankie | May 15, 2008 3:27 PM
I'm not sure why we needed a manifesto to begin with. The Bible is the only authority needed here. It deals with any issue you'd need to look up. Helping those less fortunate is as important as the unborns right to life. Both issues are dealt with by Jesus. As far as the media is concerned, they are not afraid to attack Christ or His workers because there aren't the same risks as with the Islamists. Why is it ok to tear down Christianity, at any and every chance, when most Christians are only trying to follow the lead of the Master? Most of the secular world doesn't like being reminded of their sin. We all have been there before. No one want to be convicted.
Posted by: Mark | May 15, 2008 3:42 PM
I have news for you we alreay have a manifisco its called the BIBLE!
Posted by: Kewnneth Svelmoe | May 15, 2008 3:47 PM
this article is so sound yet profound- ah I wish more churches understood this- including catholic. I also understand well the many who would back any kind of pro life statement while not supporting action against government which is shorting resources for families, single parents, teen mothers , the elderly, and mother earth.
Posted by: P Murphy | May 15, 2008 3:56 PM
It's sad how things tend to be reduced to one-sentence sound-bites because that's what TV is good at. When all that's available is a sound-bite, pigeonholing people inevitably happens. The development of the net as a replacement for newspapers can hopefully erode that trend.
I have yet to hear a decent pro-abortion counterargument to the following hypothetical: if sex-selective abortion is wrong (which they'll reluctantly agree in order to avoid showing themselves as sexist), then how can one argue that abortions for any or no reason are OK?
The notion that for Republicans life ends at birth is false. Simply not supporting a broad safety net doesn't mean that they don't value life. But yes, those who cheer unnecessary war can't realistically be called "pro-life."
From a political perspective, I wonder how many elections the Democrats will have to lose before they realize that they've LOST (and rightly so, IMO) on the abortion issue, and that their fanaticism on this issue is killing them. The Iraq War's killing the GOP, but electionswise, that's short term. Prediction: as much as I don't want McCain to win in November, I predict he will in a squeaker. Maybe he'll even win while losing the popular vote.
Posted by: Ngchen | May 15, 2008 4:09 PM
The Manifesto is a much needed call to action. For far too long the right wing agenda has defined our policies and politics, and not for the good. We have seen how in the hands of what could be defined as "true believers" (the Bush Administration) what true evil is. A war without end? Please! Money for the top, but nothing for those in true need? Puleeze! Food crisis, where people are starving (because of our energy policies, or should I say lack of them). A Justice Department whose only agenda is to give GW Bush whatever he wants. What did you expect from this bunch? It's time we all asked ourselves, what would Jesus do? And you know what, He would be leading marches, hunger strikes, any kind of civil disobedience to stop this. And that is what we should be doing. Amen!
Posted by: Debbie Lackowitz | May 15, 2008 4:29 PM
One of the underlying concerns here is one I have seen at play very noticeably in this campaign season: that the "headline writers" sensationalize even moderate articles. I actually find very reasoned positions and stories on all sides of our debates being distorted through headlining in print,e-media and TV to attract readers - and I find it unacceptable. I have written a few times about these trumped-up headlines that sometimes don't even connect to the story. Sometimes I saw them modified as a result of my - and no doubt others' - reactions. So when you have the time hit the "contact us" button (which is generally the smallest print at the bottom of the page)and point it out; sometimes it works!
Posted by: MP Flinn | May 15, 2008 4:48 PM
On abortion: Our welfare "reform" policies speak volumes about how much we value the lives of babies. As a direct result of these policies, the infant mortality rate among America's poor actually surpasses that of some Third World nations. Living conditions have significantly deteriorated for America's poor since the mid-1980's. Poverty often has a permanent impact on the health/lives of children. We are unique among modern nations in rejecting the idea that basic food, shelter and medical care are human rights -- even for those who are unable, regardless of reason, to provide for themselves. If we can uphold policies that kill the preborn, that damage children, and that increase the suffering of "the least of these", on what grounds can we oppose abortion?
Posted by: DHFabian | May 15, 2008 4:51 PM
it's about time that people of faith are willing to take a stand on poverty, fraud, economic catastrophe, not to mention our reckless ways leading to global warming, etc.
why has it taken so long? and when will the people of faith take a stand on reverend Hagee?
Posted by: gail | May 15, 2008 4:56 PM
Let us work towards a consensus across our political spectrum upholding a "seamless fabric" approach to the sanctity of life. This would be a wider pro-life perspective, not just a narrow anti-abortion stance.
Then, having defined our ends in common, we can discuss different means and choose after debate, which we will use to try to meet those common ends. That offers plenty of healthy scope for differing political approaches in a democracy.
It also means that politically-inclined Christians who are "pro-life" need to see being involved in political parties other than Republican as a calling.
Posted by: N. M. Rod | May 15, 2008 5:04 PM
From a political perspective, I wonder how many elections the Democrats will have to lose before they realize that they've LOST (and rightly so, IMO) on the abortion issue, and that their fanaticism on this issue is killing them.
Uh -- abortion is hardly the linchpin of political outrage that many people seem to think it is. Many of the places where Hillary is winning are pretty "pro-life," even though she's supported by Emily's List (a pro-choice feminist concern). Polls I read years ago noted that the percentage of people on both sides who really care about the abortion issue didn't get out of single digits.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | May 15, 2008 5:11 PM
I don't know if the manifesto is needed but I think it will be a lightning rod for discussion and solidarity for some.
p
Posted by: Payshun | May 15, 2008 5:29 PM
The Friendship Collaborative such as the May 2 meeting at Ohio State's Byrd Polar Research Center (see www.friendshipcollaborative.org)is a great example of evangelicals and scientists searching for common ground and to develop relationships to address major issues
Posted by: Gary Nielsen | May 15, 2008 5:48 PM
"As for politics and today's political mechanisms and systems, I say reject them all." RJ Pearson
I noticed you were using the internet and electricity in your posting. It wouldn't surprise me if you also have housing, use money, and eat food. All matters in which the government is engaged up to its eyeballs. So maybe the question is not whether we accept or reject political systems but rather the faithful thought, dialogue, relationships, organization, and actions we undertake as we seek to manifest and express the love of Jesus more fully.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | May 15, 2008 6:28 PM
Too bad those of you who won't support issues other than abolishing abortion, and trumpet your pro-life stance, didn't choose to support life and vote against the party which lead us to war...Jesus weeps at how we've managed to compartmentalize our faith, pick and choose a certain issue and ignore all others, or affiliate with one political philosophy which is pro-war, but paints itself as founded in Christian fundamentalism, or another which supports abortion on demand and yet wants to paint itself as a party of faith.
Read what the Manifesto expects, then listen to the voice of Jesus in your heart, and ask Him for guidance.
Pray for Peace!
Posted by: Doug & Jan in CO | May 15, 2008 6:47 PM
Kevin: Who are the Christians in the Bible?
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 15, 2008 8:02 PM
You might want to be aware that Catholics are wrestling with the same issue. A father-son pair of Catholic political scientists, one of them a deacon (ordained clergy in Catholicism) call the politically-split Catholics to be faithful and go "beyond Left and Right" in their book, The Catholic Vote: A Guide for the Perplexed (140 pgs), by Clarke E. Cochran and David Carroll Cochran, 2008. They write, and substantiate with an excellent overview of Catholic social teaching, the following "Our nation's political life is in serious need of creative renewal....As one of the few sophisticated and comprehensive traditions of social reflection not hostage to either the Left or the Right, (the Catholic tradition) has the resources to articulate a political vision beyond these categories. ..." For those who want to know more how to talk with your Catholic friends about this, the book description, table of contents and entire chapter 1 (19 pgs) are at http://www.maryknollmall.org/description.cfm?ISBN=978-1-57075-742-6. The last two are under "Product Details" as T of C and "Chapter Preview"pdfs.
The sort of leadership Jim calls for by faith leaders is exemplified, i think, by a world-wide effort dated April 17, 2008: the Faith Leaders' Appeal for an International Treaty to Ban Cluster Munitions, which consists of a one-page statement and 9 pages of signatures: "As people of faith, we raise our voices for the protection of life and promotion of peace by calling on all governments to end the production, transfer, stockpiling, and use of cluster bombs. For more than 40 years, cluster bombs have killed and wounded innocent people, causing untold suffering, loss and hardship for thousands in more than 20 countries across the planet. These weapons cause death and injury to civilians during attacks and for years afterwards because of the lethal contamination that they cause. Cluster bombs hamper post-conflict rebuilding and rehabilitation and the dangerous work of cluster bomb clearance absorbs funds that could be spent on other urgent humanitarian needs...."
Thanks, Jim.
Posted by: E. Sabath | May 15, 2008 8:15 PM
I appreciate the manifesto. Thanks.
one recommendation for the future would be to seek out more charter signatures who are women.
Posted by: rand | May 15, 2008 9:27 PM
"I noticed you were using the internet and electricity in your posting. It wouldn't surprise me if you also have housing, use money, and eat food. All matters in which the government is engaged up to its eyeballs." -- letjusticerolldown
The Internet is a communication medium, much like a roadway (i.e., a "net"work, hence Inter"net"). To offer an analogy: Jesus traveled roads (networks) that were maintained and paid for by the Roman and Hebrew governmental systems. He used money minted by the government of Rome. He ate food provided by his fellow Jews via the supply mechanisms of Hebrew society. Yet his use of roads and money and his consumption of food did not mean he supported or advocated the dominant political systems (whether religious or secular) as viable means for advancing the "kingdom of God". He in fact rejected them as such (as in when he rejected the temptation to rule the world via its earthly political systems).
Posted by: R J Pearson | May 15, 2008 9:29 PM
"No, I'd like to see the Democratic party embrace the pro-life platform. But absent that, I want them to suffer for failing to support it."
When you say pro-life, do you include capital punishment, a holistic approach to dealing with poverty, and the like... or are you focused on anti-abortion? I can see voting one just one or two issues like a lot of the Religious Right does, because it makes life easier. You don't have to think about unfair tax laws, policies that favor fossil fuel industries, the insurance industries, etc.
I wonder how many "pro-life" voters have had to walk a mile in the shoes of those less fortunate than them.
Posted by: ando | May 15, 2008 10:45 PM
You mean the Humanist Manifesto Jim. Your lib views are one and the same as Humanism. Why not be honest about what you really are? Your partners attacked Jesus in California Jim, like Humanists always do. What's next in your cause to alter the Gospel?
Posted by: Not a Humanist | May 16, 2008 12:48 AM
As usual, Jim, you cut to the heart of the matter; which necessarily ruffles some feathers on all sides.
I disagree on one point: I'm sorry, but God is a Democrat.....
Posted by: Chris Black | May 16, 2008 1:09 AM
I certainly hope you are correct.
The problems we face certainly seem to have outgrown the institutions of government that were put in place long before the automobile, the telephone, petrochemical pollutants, and a host of other ills.
The existing structures don't seem to be addressing the magnitude of the problems we face. And it will have to cross existing social boundaries. That can't happen soon enough.
Posted by: readerOfTeaLeaves | May 16, 2008 1:31 AM
"Even if doing so will cost you power, money and/or votes? "
Yep. But don't let that dissuade you from indulging in your pet stereotypes.
"Yesterday I read a frothing commentary in response to the Manifesto on the website of Concerned Women for America that said, essentially, "How dare anyone who calls himself a Christian not agree with us!", "
Is that a direct quote? If not, then why not simply quote what they said, instead of putting what they didn't say in quotes?
"why has it taken so long? and when will the people of faith take a stand on reverend Hagee?"
People of faith have rejected dispensationalism for quite some time. Have you bothered to investigate this issue, or have you only been made aware of Hagee since his endorsement of John McCain?
"When you say pro-life, do you include capital punishment, a holistic approach to dealing with poverty, and the like... or are you focused on anti-abortion? "
I use pro-life as a short-hand for opposing legal abortion. I am opposed to capital punishment generally, but would invoke a different short-hand. As it related to this terminology, I am focused on opposing abortion.
For those who believe abortion should be legal (which, I suspect, is nearly everyone reading this) and also believe capital punishment should be illegal (ditto) how do YOU reconcile those positions?
"You don't have to think about unfair tax laws,"
I think about whether tax laws are fair.
"policies that favor fossil fuel industries,"
I disagree that this is the case. As it stands, we are pouring billions of dollars worth of subsidies into bio-diesel. I suspect you won't be mounting a defense of this tactic.
"the insurance industries, etc."
I have worked in the reinsurance industry (which exists almost solely as a function of insurance regulation), and I am curious as to how you feel government policy favors insurance industries?
"I wonder how many "pro-life" voters have had to walk a mile in the shoes of those less fortunate than them."
I certainly have. But that is meaningless. Rich or poor - and I do not know a single wealthy person who is pro-life, and I know many - we can offer reasonable arguments as to whether abortion should be legal.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 16, 2008 1:39 AM
I found it interesting after reading, once again, that God is not a Republican or a Democrat, that the Sojourners study guide on Christians and the Environment asks, "Is God Green?" As a Christian and a member of the Green Party, I wish the discussion about politics could include those of us in the so called, "third parties." I'm certain that many followers of Jesus are registered as Independents, non-affiliated, Libertarians, Greens, etc. Please allow us to be included in your tomes on faith and politics.
Posted by: Gary | May 16, 2008 4:24 AM
Oh thank Charles Darwin we have you progressives to rule us little folk. Unless you plan more reeducation camps other than what you're doing in our school system, trolling your humanist nets of death trapping the lemmings of hedonsim. . ., you are still going to have to deal with us dissenters of your ways and take care of us in your poverty campaigns. And there is going to be a lot of us as you make poor people out of everyone that isn't a rich elitist leftist actor, reverend or politician. Your fruit is humanism Jim. Not good man.
Posted by: Questioning you | May 16, 2008 8:30 AM
When there is a clear division between the parties on a moral issue, it ought to be acknowledged. The Republican Party is the party of torture, as manifested by its unified backing of Bush's veto of legislation banning torture. That's not to say that there can't be a bipartisan realignment on the issue in the future, but that's not how it is now.
Posted by: Tom Edmondson | May 16, 2008 8:40 AM
Yep. But don't let that dissuade you from indulging in your pet stereotypes.
It has nothing to do with stereotypes. The "religious right" embraced a "pro-life" stance only because it would win votes; Ralph Reed admitted as such.
Is that a direct quote? If not, then why not simply quote what they said, instead of putting what they didn't say in quotes?
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=15163&department=BLI&categoryid=dotcommentary&subcategoryid=blirel
I'll let it speak for itself. Only the most ardent conservative will disagree with what I posted earlier.
As it related to this terminology, I am focused on opposing abortion.
Not good enough.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | May 16, 2008 10:57 AM
I never cease to be amazed at how the ability to think critically seems almost always to get trumped by ideology. And ideology seems to be less a function of intelligence than character and/or conditioning. Anyone reading Sojomail articles and the posts which follow them and who still believes human beings are going to be able to settle their differences and solve their problems is in laa-laa land. This is a task only God is up to. I wish we would all acknowledge our impotence, repent of our arrogance, and launch a campaign focused on prayer and fasting from the notion that we have all or any of the answers.
--Ray
Posted by: Ray Hollis | May 16, 2008 11:30 AM
It just keeps amazing me how people can get on here and bash other people who are God's created beings and/or fellow Christians. No two people in the world are going to agree 100% on everything. Does that mean one of them is evil? No, it just means they disagree. Christians can disagree on lots of things, including how to best tackle the problems of abortion and poverty, capital punishment and gay marriage. We need to quit seeing everyone who does not agree with us on every point as an enemy to be eradicated, and instead start WORKING together toward solutions. God is not a Republican or a Democrat, nor is He going to be happy with us if we do not take care of the least of these so we have time to argue semantics.
Posted by: Diane in Idaho | May 16, 2008 11:48 AM
In his play "Thomas Cranmer of Canterbury" (written in 1936), the writer Charles Williams puts these words into the mouth of "Figura Rerum":
Once in a way, once in an age,
when men's spirit's rage, I set the images free,
all idols of hall, chapel and marketplace,
spectral images, lacking love's grace, of me.
Their foreheads' phosphorescence shines;
they make signs; then one man walks, one talks, under those moons, and in action and speech
each grows a wicked automaton to each,
a diseased bone, to be flung to Gehenna;
....
Brother reason and sister experience spew at each other,
sister dogma and brother denial run askew.
Then all but the hearts of the blessed ones dance
askance from love of Christ to love of corruption,
crying maniacally "Abracadabra,
abracadabra, abracadabra."
But through their delirium I walk like a blind
beggar, pleading for a man to be kind;
the Son of Man walks backward on their way,
crying "Do you hear me? where is the way?
O my people, where is the way?"
O my people, where is the way?
Do you hear me zealots? where is the way?
Let those who have ears to hear listen.
Posted by: Tony Dickinson | May 16, 2008 12:27 PM
"I'll let it speak for itself. Only the most ardent conservative will disagree with what I posted earlier."
I didn't find the quote you cited. They do conflate theological liberalism with political liberalism, though I share their concerns about moving in the direction of a feel-good faith.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 16, 2008 12:42 PM
"I disagree that this is the case. As it stands, we are pouring billions of dollars worth of subsidies into bio-diesel. I suspect you won't be mounting a defense of this tactic."
Actually I do. Many people are using ethanol and that's actually hurting the environment and chipping into the global food supply.
p
Posted by: Payshun | May 16, 2008 2:01 PM
--It's a point I have made many times: "God is not a Republican or a Democrat," --
You ever wonder why it's only the Christian liberals who want to say that?
--It just keeps amazing me how people can get on here and bash other people who are God's created beings and/or fellow Christians.--
I agree. But after all, isn't that what this this place is for, the bashing of those who disagree with 'progressives'?
--Christians can disagree on lots of things, including how to best tackle the problems of abortion and poverty, capital punishment and gay marriage. --
Umm, yes, there is plenty of room for disagreement and differences in Christianity. No, we can't disagree all that much on things like abortion and gay marriage.
Sorry, but the thesis-antithesis-synthesis cop-out runs smack into the truths of "You shall not murder" and "Homosexual sex is an abonimation to God".
--We need to quit seeing everyone who does not agree with us on every point as an enemy to be eradicated, and instead start WORKING together toward solutions.--
But the only solution is Christ. Not Christ and social change, not Christ and socialism.
Posted by: jazzact13 | May 16, 2008 2:22 PM
As is typical this tome includes the majority options of Democrats and Republicans (God being neither), left or right. There are other options. I note that the Sojourners study guide on Christians and the environment," Is God Green?", is placed in an interesting juxtaposition. As a Christian who has been a long time member of the Green Party, I wish we who are members of so-called, "Third Parties" and independents/non-affiliated could be taken seriously as people who also matter in discussions of faith and politics.
Posted by: Gary | May 16, 2008 2:59 PM
You ever wonder why it's only the Christian liberals who want to say that?
Because the Republican Party basically bought Christian conservatives in the 1980s.
But after all, isn't that what this this place is for, the bashing of those who disagree with 'progressives'?
This is tame compared to the bashing we "progressives" have always gotten on conservative sites. Just a few months ago a "conservative Christian" blog with otherwise good theology referred to the ardor for the senator from Illinois as "Obamanation" and has personlly attacked him elsewhere; that, unfortunately, is all too typical of how conservatives often act toward someone they don't care for. Here, however, you will see entries based on principles, not "I-Hate-Bush-Dobson-Falwell-[insert your favorite conservative boogeyman here]" mentality. (The people who post in response -- that's another matter.)
And besides, many conservatives hate -- or perhaps more accurately, fear -- us "progressives" because they have always wanted the exclusive franchise on Christ and we won't allow it. (And "progressive" in this context means, in practice, not following the conservative line to the letter.) In my experience, conservatives often take personally any criticism of its agenda, witness the CWA piece I posted above -- which I take as a sign of their insecurity about what they believe.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | May 16, 2008 3:21 PM
"If we do not preserve doctrine, then on what basis can we embrace Christ's call to love?"
--I don't understand this argument posed as a question. Are you saying that we need the doctrines that early and/or recent church leaders came up with to choose lovingness as a way of living? With 6 billion people alive today, and 4 billion of them not calling themselves "Christian" there are a lot of people who act more Christ-like and have more Christ-like hearts than you and I and many are in that 4 billion, and that doesn't even count those throughout history who are not alive today.
We can embrace the way of the Christ, which is the way of love, without believing in or agreeing with a whole list of what are considered Christian doctrines.
Whoever became a better person or more like Christ by believing that Mary was a virgin?
Whoever became more like Christ by believing in bodily resurrection?
Whoever became more like Christ by believing that the bible is infallible or inerrant?
The fundamentals just don't seem fundamentally helpful or correlated in any way with the extent to which one is like Jesus.
People become more like Christ by being more loving, less judgmental, less divisive, less arrogant and more humble, by leaving behind the erroneous understandings of God that Jesus taught were misunderstandings at the time, but they persist today. God is love and heaven is within you, yet it is deep within and clouded by our needs to feel superior to others and attached to our "stuff" and vanity, all of which must be surrendered daily to God so that we can become more like Christ, which is free from such burdens that hinder and prevent love from arising within us.
Posted by: Aaron | May 16, 2008 4:30 PM
I see the manifesto certainly addressing many good principles but as void for vagueness and being overly broad and sweeping.
I see a focus on charity versus a call to repentance. Indeed, the words repent, repentance, fornication and idolatry do not appear in the manifesto. Prevention is the key and lifestyle and social issues should be more clearly spelled out.
Talk all you want about abortion or 'pro-life', the gospel is clear, do not fornicate, and do not eat meat offered to (in time of) idols.
I agree with the concept of sola scriptura, and yet see quotes from secular authority. Isn't scripture good enough? I would further amplify that to fully understand scripture we must read more widely but certainly in relevance to scripture.
I accept the concept of a civil public square and that being one open to debate. Evangelical means we are to teach the truth of God's word, and the truth shall set you free. Not only should we not condone every religion and cult, we must engage them, teach, exhort and call them out. Jesus is clear in this, I did not come to bring peace but a sword (or division) and that by engaging the false systems of the society.
I am not sure what "...the arts and the creative centers of society." means. Certainly we need to increase our stewardship of the earth and it's resources, apart from an "economic environmentalism" approach, again calling for abstinence and repentance. I also see the use of the word 'creation' in this context and fear more confusion in terms and concepts, Jesus being the new creation, and the author and perfector of the faith. Genes-is 1:1 is trumped by John 1:1 ... "IN THE BEGINNING ..."
I see references to woman's suffrage, and fear women's liberation, and feminism, even to the point of women's ordination.
I believe it is a cop-out and generalization to say "the bible is our only source of authority" when we cannot in just two pages out of twenty (ten percent) review the social and behavioral issues of our day and take a firm position relative to them.
Overall, I see the manifesto as a plea bargain with government and media to "accept us too", as if we need to. Instead, I believe that the truth is what sets us free (and the manifesto contains many truths, albeit broadly) and that we need to more fully and clearly assert scriptural positions on issues of behavior, sociology and psychology.
Posted by: digital_angel_316 | May 16, 2008 4:34 PM
As any Christian who looks at the platforms of both the Democratic and Republican parties can clearly see, neither party supports basic Christian beliefs. Each supports some but not others, it becomes a process of holding your nose and picking the one you find least distasteful.
Why is it that in the United States, Christians do not form a party that supports substantially all their beliefs? In many other countries there are political parties with Christian in their names (I will let others debate if their actions merit their name).
As the Republicans found when they sought the endorsement of the so-called Religious Right, there are enough voters concerned about Christian "values" to influence the outcomes of elections. Unlike Libertarians or Green parties, Christians would have enough numbers to make an impact! A Christian party can advocate without compromise.
This election cycle will see the Republican party lose seats not because the Democrats has better embraced Christian values but because it has become clear to some that the Republicans have ignored too many. That and while some may value their pro-life stance, they have also realized that nothing will change on it in the next 4-8 years but there are other values they see the Democrats will to help make changes around. In other words, the Democrats smell less. Why can't the Christians have a party that doesn't smell at all!?
Posted by: Doc | May 16, 2008 4:38 PM
Why is it that in the United States, Christians do not form a party that supports substantially all their beliefs? In many other countries there are political parties with Christian in their names (I will let others debate if their actions merit their name).
The United States is unique in that the institutional church has never had any ties to the central government, which was the case in most of Europe. That is to say, there was no "official church" on a national level. (At one time, however, individual states had official churches.) The role of the church was generally a critique of power rather than a partner in power, which is as it should be.
What's also unique to America is its theological diversity, with most of the multiplicity of denominations birthed here and that, compared to Europe, the various sects got along OK.
For those reasons, there's no way that we can have a Christian political party -- you have evangelicals, main-liners, black Christians who don't fit neatly into any category, etc. that often cannot agree on a platform.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | May 16, 2008 5:11 PM
Awesome post digital. I don't agree with sola scriptura, I don't worship the bible, I worship God.
Aaron,
I agree with you but here is the thing. You are trying to serve meat to babes. Going deep with people that have a fundamental understanding of the scripture is giving your pearls to swine. They are not ready for it.
p
Posted by: Payshun | May 16, 2008 6:10 PM
You are right Gary, God is Green.
Posted by: Oak | May 16, 2008 8:12 PM
I would be happy to support this manifesto, were it not for the obstinate insistence that "Christians" have the God-given right to control the size of women's families --- or decide for individual women if they should have families at all. This is a deal breaker for me, which will no doubt earn me plenty of "good riddance" sentiment...
Throughout history women of all faiths and none have made decisions to control their fertility and reproduction. Nothing Evangelicals say or do will change this.
I suspect this need to control and dominate women is at the heart of much Evangelical thinking and behavior, although I wish it were otherwise.
Posted by: Mary Reid | May 17, 2008 10:12 PM
I suspect this need to control and dominate women is at the heart of much Evangelical thinking and behavior, although I wish it were otherwise.
This evangelical who has no desire to control anyone would disagree -- and any man who desires that kind of control over his wife is, to say the least, a fool. That said, we believe in responsible sexuality, which in practice means fidelity in marriage, and the Scripture makes very clear that a wife's body, in one sense, does belong to her husband (and the converse is also true). I also personally believe that the man should lead the household but should always seek input from his wife and, if they're old enough, his children. If more men would "take care of business" in the right way feminism wouldn't exist (we must admit that it's result of men's failures).
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | May 17, 2008 11:22 PM
Aaron:
how about one doctrine: Christ is God.
Christ spoke of bodily resurrection, so if I speak of bodily resurrection am I not being more like Christ?
I agree that love is not only what we say we believe, however what we believe determines what we do (if we really believe it). So, love may come from right belief which may be formed by loving. We cannot dismiss one without the other. Love God and people/enemies. Not one or the other.
If I truly believed that Christ were God, I would act accordingly, including an understanding that doctrine (loving God) and service (loving people) both matter.
Posted by: bradley | May 18, 2008 1:51 AM
Wow, you sure nailed it Mary. Controlling women really is at the heart of Evangelical thinking and behavior.
Seriously, do you really believe this? Do you really believe that controlling women is at the heart of Evangelical Christian thought and behavior? Do you really believe that the Evangelical Christians that think that abortion is morally wrong do so simply because they want to control women? Do you not think it has anything to do with concern about the baby or what abortion does to our society and our culture?
Please, get outside your narrow box.
Posted by: Ross | May 18, 2008 7:51 AM
The reality of modern life is that politics is the tool we must use to further humanitarian/humane ideals. The money and the means to enact large-scale change exists only within the political realm.
Posted by: DHFabian | May 18, 2008 8:59 PM
With all of your earnest political talk, you remind me of children playing in the attic while a conflagration is spreading on the lower floor.
Things are much worse than evangelicals on the left OR the right are willing to acknowledge. Rogue elements of our government were involved in the 9/11 events, and our whole government and corporate media are complicit in covering it up.
But, of course, all of the scholarly books written on this subject by David Ray Griffin, Barry Zwicker and others (which you haven't read) are just "conspiracy theory", and all of the architects at AE911truth.org, pilots at pilotsfor911truth.org, high ranking former CIA agents and government officials at patriotsquestion911.com (which you haven't visited and probably won't visit) are just tinhat-wearing conspiracy nuts.
Play on earnestly, children.
Posted by: Dan Vander Lugt | July 17, 2008 9:54 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?