By Adelle M. Banks
Religion News Service
Washington — Evangelical Christians should be defined by their theology — and not their politics — to avoid becoming “useful idiots” of a political party, a group of leaders said Wednesday (May 7) in a new statement.
The document, “An Evangelical Manifesto,” reflects the frustration of some within a movement that claims about one in four Americans over how they are perceived by others and who can speak for them.
The 19-page document declares that evangelicals err when they try to politicize faith and use Christian beliefs for political purposes.
“That way faith loses its independence, the church becomes `the regime at prayer,’ Christians become `useful idiots’ for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology in its purest form,” the document reads.
The statement, however, resisted calls to privatize or personalize the faith, saying their is an important place for evangelical voices in the public square.
“Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality,” the document says.
The manifesto, which at times upbraids evangelicals for contributing to their own image problems, comes about six months after a poll showed that many young people grade Christianity as being judgmental and hypocritical. Drafters of the new document said they knew other evangelicals who were “ashamed” or “reluctant” to describe themselves as evangelical.
A nine-member steering committee spent three years working on the manifesto. The document’s initial 75 signatories are evangelical leaders from major coalitions, educational institutions and denominations. They include National Association of Evangelicals President Leith Anderson, best-selling author and megachurch pastor Max Lucado and the Rev. Jack Hayford, president of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.
Critics claim some key names — including conservative evangelical leaders such as Focus on the Family founder James Dobson and Southern Baptist public policy executive Richard Land — are missing from the statement.
“The select group drafting the manifesto apparently excludes traditional conservative, pro-life and pro-family evangelical voices,” said Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America, who also questioned the timing of the document’s release at the end of the primary election season.
The Rev. John Huffman, pastor of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Newport Beach, Calif., said the statement’s steering committee had conversations with Dobson, though his board recommended he not sign it.
Dobson spokesman Gary Schneeberger confirmed this and said the board’s reasoning was a private matter.
“Our umbrella is large,” said Huffman. “Not all will sign it but we do feel we do need to bring our particular perspective.”
Land, the president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said Wednesday he had not seen the statement before it was released.
“People have a right to invite who they want to to their party,” Land said, but he added that the question about religious involvement in politics is a “false dichotomy.”
“It’s not an either/or,” he said. “It’s both.”
David Neff, editor-in-chief of Christianity Today magazine and a member of the steering committee, said the media’s equating “value voters” with evangelicals have contributed to the confusion about who evangelicals are.
“If there’s an election that this is about, it’s the election of 2000, not the election of 2008,” said Neff.
The document is intended to explain evangelicals to those outside their fold, as well as to challenge evangelicals to better represent their faith.
” … We are troubled by the fact that the confusions and corruptions surrounding the term `Evangelical’ have grown so deep that the character of what it means has been obscured and its importance lost,” the manifesto reads. “Many people outside the movement now doubt that `Evangelical’ is ever positive, and many inside now wonder whether the term any longer serves a useful purpose.”
The statement calls for a reaffirmation of evangelical identity — including the importance of sharing the belief that Jesus is the only Savior of mankind. It expresses concern that “a generation of culture warring” has created a backlash against religion in public life.
It also called for an openness to work with people of good will, including those of other faiths or no faith. The document also calls for reform of behavior within evangelical ranks.
“All too often we have set out high, clear statements of the authority of the Bible,” it reads, “but flouted them with lives and lifestyles that are shaped more by our own sinful preferences and by modern fashions and convenience.”
Others among the 75 initial signatories are Nueva Esperanza USA President Luis Cortes; Wheaton College President Duane Litfin; Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; Jim Wallis, founder and editor of Sojourners magazine; and Frank Wright, president of the National Religious Broadcasters.
Copyright 2008 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.



posted May 8, 2008 at 8:27 pm
There was a write up in the news today about “Manifesto discourages Christian political ties”. Other interesting inputs from people not in this article. Janice Shaw Crouse, director of the Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, said the manifesto was “blurring the distinctions between liberal and conservative” and would confuse Christian voters about the issues that are most important; opposition to abortion and gay marriage.
John Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, said the document held a message for both major parties. “Republicans need to realize that evangelicals care about a lot of things,” Green said. “The message to Democrats is similar: Don’t ignore us. If you pursue the right issues and have the right platform, there are many evangelicals who will consider voting for you.”
The declaration also condems anti-intellectualism among fundamentalists and the “pose as victims” that many U.S. evangelicals adopt.
So good luck to the younger evangelicals, your older relations are the same as they were in 2000, 2004, and right now in 2008.
posted May 8, 2008 at 8:40 pm
It sounds like a very positive step. I hope it represents a lot of them.
posted May 9, 2008 at 12:07 am
The conflict over this Evangelical Manifesto will, hopefully, help to make clear something that a lot of outside observers don’t realize: evangelicalism is extremely diverse, both theologically and politically. Some of the evangelicals who have signed this thing, like Miroslav Volf, a Croat theologian at Yale and author of an award-winning book on the ethics of reconciliation, is worlds apart in nearly every way from people like, say, Pat Robertson, and most outsiders probably wouldn’t even recognize Volf as an evangelical if they sat down and talked religion with the man, because he doesn’t fit the stereotypes made popular by the more obnoxious evangelicals who have bought the television and radio waves.
The definition of “evangelical” is very broad. In America, it basically includes people who put a strong focus on individual conversion and the authority of the Bible. Beyond that, there’s a lot of variance.
posted May 9, 2008 at 8:51 am
Nate W,
You said, “evangelicalism is extremely diverse”. I both hope and believe you are correct. I likewise hope that others will recognize that some evangelical faiths are very progressive (I hesitate to use the word ‘liberal’ for fear of upsetting various carts).
They do not all share the same views, and I hope that people will remember that when it comes to the “divisive” issues.
As for “the authority of the Bible”, we would need to settle on WHICH VERSION of the Bible, wouldn’t we?
posted May 11, 2008 at 11:35 pm
r ex-P wrote, “As for “the authority of the Bible”, we would need to settle on WHICH VERSION of the Bible, wouldn’t we”
OK I suggest we use the New Revised Manga Bible. That’s only because the Classics Illustrated versions are so outdated and hard to find. If not these, then we should all use the LEGO Brick testaments by “rev. Brandon Smith. Now that is settled, who is bringing the pastry for coffee-hour?