Especially in light of the fact that many of the signatories are denizens from the last two decades of the manipulation of evangelical faith for political purposes. Or, in other words, those who are now ‘denouncing the politicization of faith’ are the very ones who once promoted it so forcefully and widely.
In the trenches we call that sort of thing hypocrisy.
The whole account can be read here.
I don’t care for the “Evangelical Manifesto”, either, but for different reasons.
First, it’s a pretty shabby document. Did it really take three years to draft it? It reads like it was written overnight.
Second, with its language of “following Jesus rather than Constantine”, it’s transparently a product of the so-called postconservative evangelical movement, which is composed mostly of a bunch of lemmings whose brains have been filled to the brim with anti-foundationalist rhetoric.
Third, although it defines “Evangelical” over against “fundamentalist”, some of the signatories are undeniably fundamentalists. (I realize, Jim, that you don’t see a difference between the two. This document might support your case.)
Fourth, it’s poorly titled: an “Evangelical Manifesto” should be about theology, *not* politics (or about politics disguised as anti-politics).
By: John C. Poirier on May 8, 2008
at 9:22 am
You think “Evangelical Manifesto” translates to “we don’t want to vote for McCain”?
I know I’m not thrilled with any candidate this election cycle, so I can understand their apprehension.
Of course I’ve been less than thrilled that since about 1992….
By: Chuck Grantham on May 8, 2008
at 10:03 am
and if there are two things christians know, they’re that (1) hypocrisy is the unforgivable sin and (2) there’s no such thing as repentance.
By: Tim Ricchuiti on May 8, 2008
at 10:24 am
by the by, though i’m sure it’ll be here for only a moment, i like this theme.
By: Tim Ricchuiti on May 8, 2008
at 10:24 am
i’m enjoying reading the various opinions here and there around the web, but i’d say you guys are a bit off base. i had some hesitations and misgivings before reading the document, but i’m actually quite impressed and invigorated after taking in the whole of what it addresses.
one of the things i like is that the authors have chosen not to list creationism and inerrancy as non-negotiables. for the first, there’s very little biblical justification anymore behind whatever the latest flavor of anti-natural-selection dessert is being served up; for the latter, somehow we can admit that we can’t prove the existence of God, but goshdarnit we have a golden egg this unprovable God laid right here. still, some people hold to these positions; so be it. there’s simply too much of a tendency to add items to the ever-increasing laundry list of ideas and doctrines to which we have to pledge allegiance before we’re allowed into the room marked “Christian.”
nothing’s going to please everybody, and there are a few things i object to. for instance, i don’t agree with this statement: We Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally. Jesus’ message uses “action” verbs: teach them to DO as I have commanded you, LOVE God and LOVE your neighbor, by this will all men know … if you LOVE one another. any theology that defines us must have feet.
i did, however, like these words: We are also troubled by the fact that the advance of globalization and the emergence of a global public square finds no matching vision of how we are to live freely, justly, and peacefully with our deepest differences on the global stage. somehow, we’ve got to figure out how we’re going to peacefully share the same bathroom over the next few decades in our ever-shrinking world.
one interesting thing: maybe i missed it, but there doesn’t seem to be a great emphasis on evangelism in this Evangelical Manifesto. do you think that was intentional? i didn’t see a single chick tract referenced in the bibliography…
more than anything, i find myself motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece – that it isn’t yet another “here’s everything we’re against” rant but an effort to make the gospel again a message of good news. imagine that – the gospel being good news. American Christianity has lost this defining characteristic that once served it well.
perhaps one unintended benefit of the proposal is a clear opportunity to take this EM (Evangelical Manifesto) and align it with the other EM (Emergent Manifesto) and finally have all our EM & EMs in a row without demonizing the other side.
one can only hope…
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
By: mikerucker on May 9, 2008
at 9:59 pm
I stand corrected- it seems some are fooled by it- even though it is the theological equivalent of George Bush suddenly announcing that he renounces war as a means to peace in Iraq.
By: Jim on May 9, 2008
at 10:21 pm