Evangelical Manifesto

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/about/dan-wallace on 05 May 2008
Evangelicalism

Comments (47)

Related Posts

• Evangelical Manifesto
• Evangelical Manifesto - Part 2
• Will the real evangelical please stand up?
• What does it take to be an Evangelical?
• Michael Spencer on the Problems of Evangelicalism

47 Responses to “Evangelical Manifesto”

1. Grub on 05 May 2008 at 9:53 am #

   “how to execute that is the trick. Evangelicals should align themselves with biblical ethics, which are never fully compatible with either political party.”

   Pehaps then, the only way to win is not to play? My youngest asked me who I was voting for this election. I told her ‘no one’. I cannot, in good conscience, align myself with either political party. I know there are arguments that tell me to vote against the worse of two evils, but I cannot. It’s not my responsibility to vote for who I think will do the least damage.

2. The Boar’s Head Tavern on 05 May 2008 at 10:00 am #

   [...] and Pen has a post describing a self-critical document from the Evangelical community.  Between the culture wars, the failed promises for funding of [...]

3. Mitch on 05 May 2008 at 10:06 am #

   Dr. Wallace:

   Several years ago I heard Bill Bennett on a news talk show. He was asked about his position on Jesse Jackson. His exact words somewhat shocked me. He said that in his view “Jesse Jackson was a sham.”

   What is your view on the Jesse Jackson’s, Al Sharpton’s, Rev Wright’s, etc? All these “reverends,” many of which could not exegete a passage if their life depended on it, but are always looking to find a “black” issue to show racism.

4. Dale on 05 May 2008 at 10:07 am #

   I haven’t read the statement but I think the manner in which evangelicals are politically involved is a black eye on evangelicalism. I’m switched my party registration to Undecided because I came to realize that no party is interested in the gospel for the sake of the gospel. When speaking to people about Christ I want them to know my goal is for them to know Christ and not be another soldier in a Christo-political army.

   My political leanings have not changed much and I still vote roughly the same way but my focus is becoming more towards living Christianly. I eschew political speech in the pulpit and am thankful that very little of that occurs at my place of worship. One of my goals is that when I teach or speak publicly no one in the audience will know what my political views are.

5. Joel on 05 May 2008 at 11:04 am #

   I agree. “Evangelical” is in the popular culture is really more of a political label than a theological one. Many Christians will repudiate anything democrats do (we shouldn’t worry about the environment because that’s a “liberal” thing) and rubber-stamp everything the republican party does (Imagine if a DEMOCRAT had pulled something like the Valerie Plame scandal!) because they agree on a few issues.

   Some evangelicals seeing this will emphasize other issues that Christians often overlook, which is a good thing. However, many of them, such as Jim Wallis, make the opposite mistake and line themselves up with the democratic party too much. Wallis’s stance on abortion is frankly pathetic. It’s weak, floppy, and lacks conviction.

   NT Wright is a Christian who tends to be politically liberal and who talks a lot about things like the war and the environment, but at the same time he is not squishy or wishy-washy on the issue of abortion at all. In fact, he got in some trouble with the press around easter for some strong comments he made about abortion and euthanasia.

6. Jason Dulle on 05 May 2008 at 12:27 pm #

   While I agree that God is above politics, and while I agree that we should not align ourselves too tightly with any party/candidate, the tone of some of the comments seems to be that Christians should eschew politics. Government is instituted by God, the law is a moral enterprise, and in our country we are the government, so politics and theology cannot be separate. Since Christianity speaks to many social-political issues, it is appropriate to speak of politics in the church.

7. Stephan Boudros on 05 May 2008 at 12:37 pm #

   Grub, you will only lose if you do not play. Remember, in a democracy you are the government. You have a part in deciding the fate of this nation. If you do nothing because you are not satisfied with your choices, you increase the likelihood that the greater of two evils will prevail. How is that consistent with our obligation to promote justice? If your non-vote causes the greater of two evil men to get elected, and evil increases as a result, I think you are partly responsible because you could have prevented it, but chose not to. While your non-vote may make a moral statement, and while it may soothe your conscience, you will have done nothing to make a moral difference in the world. In fact, by allowing the greater evil to take hold, you may end up searing the conscience of the nation just to spare your own.

8. Susan on 05 May 2008 at 1:23 pm #

   Jason Dulle, I disagree that it is “appropriate”, as you have stated, to discuss politics in the church. Politics are divisive by nature. The minute a pastor speaks with political overtones people will begin to line up on either side.

   The church needs to be aligned with Jesus, with scripture, and with the true Gospel. Politics become a distraction from this. If people visit a politically minded church and don’t agree with the church’s leanings, they are out the door. We want people to know Jesus, and His saving grace. Politics never saved anyone (eternally).

   Our pastor was once asked: “If I become a Christian, does that mean I have to become a republican?”. His answer, as I recall, was: “Our first allegiance is to the church.” (meaning, all true believers in Jesus Christ).

   On the other hand, it is true that the Bible has things to say about many issues which become political hot-topics, such as abortion, homosexuality, justice, care of the needy etc.. Obviously it is important for pastors to keep a pulse on what is being discussed in the public sector and bring scripture to bear in the church. This helps Christians to become wise citizens ; wise voters.

9. historic salve on 05 May 2008 at 3:31 pm #

   Refusing to play the political game is the same thing as losing. I’m very disturbed by the number of people who don’t identify with any political party and who say they won’t vote. Maybe this Evangelical Manifesto should address political complacency, not compromised theology…

10. Dan Wallace on 05 May 2008 at 6:43 pm #

    This is an interesting discussion, with some views coming out of the woodwork that I didn’t realize were so strong. I think we all need to refrain from judgment about what the Manifesto is actually saying until we see it. But one thing I do want to mention: some of the discussion seems to put forth false dichotomies by suggesting that a person can’t be a true Christian and a member of any political party. I certainly hope that the Evangelical Manifesto is not arguing that point of view, but I also am hoping that what unites believers is and always will be Jesus Christ, even though our own political leanings may be different. At bottom, Christ must be elevated above politics; as the sovereign Lord over the universe he does not align himself with any political group.

11. Lisa R on 05 May 2008 at 8:40 pm #

    “From where I sit, evangelicals need to emphasize high ethical values in relation not only to abortion but also in relation to civil rights, justice, the environment, fiscal responsibility, etc.”

    Wow this is interesting not only because voting your conscience from a christian worldview was the topic of Sunday’s sermon, but because I posed this question today to one of my incoming classmates (I will throw in one of Dr. Wallace’s categories now just for fun).

    If you have only 2 candidates to choose from, which one do you choose

    Candidate A opposes abortion and gay marriage, supports and/or implements socially repressive policies against the poor and needy, and is fiscally irresponsible

    Candidate B supports abortion and gay marriage but also supports and/or implements social programs for the poor and needy and is fiscally responsible.

    I think we naturally gravitate towards A because of the moral issues but our lens must be wider, as Dr. Wallace suggest.

    Now I’m no liberal and I completely agree that we have to sift everything through a biblical colander. However I have built my professional career in affordable housing and homeless services and sometimes these choices are tough. And why I’m registered Independent. I do think we still have to choose.

12. Dan Wallace on 05 May 2008 at 8:45 pm #

    Lisa R., you have articulated the dilemma beautifully! This is why there are evangelicals who are Democrats and evangelicals who are Republicans. When we vote, we vote for the person who comes the closest to the values that we have. To me, the very sad thing is that evangelicals who run as either Republican and Democrat candidates all too often end up supporting the entire platform of their party, even on issues that are really not in line with the Christian faith. Again, at bottom, regardless of how we wrestle with the political issues, evangelicals are called to something infinitely more important and that is what should unite us.

13. bishopdave on 05 May 2008 at 10:18 pm #

    Just as (it seems) denominations are no longer “vital” to the expansion of the Kingdom, is it possible that soon the 2 major political parties will begin to decline and we will have viable 3rd party candidates? I’m reminded of the presidential election in Mexico where a minor party candidate won; will that day be possible as so many on both sides of the aisle are disillusioned with the system?

14. Mitch on 05 May 2008 at 10:39 pm #

    It is very hard for me to oppose abortion since my theology tells me that aborted children go immediately into the presence of the Lord without having to live in this evil world.

    Gay marriage is a no-brainer. If a candidate supports that, he/she is not an option.

    Does anyone have a list of issues positioned in some hierarchy? I guess we would have to vote for the one who honored the highest one(s) on the scale (like Norman Geisler’s Graded Absolutism).

15. Puzzled on 05 May 2008 at 11:11 pm #

    It is very hard for me to oppose abortion since my theology tells me that aborted children go immediately into the presence of the Lord without having to live in this evil world.

    Why does this strike me as being simultaneously a (the?) logical theological conclusion, as well as the wrong conclusion?

16. bethyada on 06 May 2008 at 4:40 am #

    I am not American and given your line up I probably would not vote in the coming election. But I feel it is important to note that a conservative approach to economics is not seen by many with this view to be anti-poor. It is possible to be concerned about the poor yet oppose welfare and funding supplements and promote low taxes. The disagreement is not over whether people should care for the poor, the disagreement is over what policies best do that in the short and long term. A useful primer on capitalism and Christianity can be found by Brent Hardaway here: http://www.tektonics.org/guest/bhcapital00.html

17. britphil on 06 May 2008 at 5:46 am #

    “From where I sit, evangelicals need to emphasize high ethical values in relation not only to abortion but also in relation to civil rights, justice, the environment, fiscal responsibility, etc.”

    Dan. I really like the tenor and content of your post but I do have a concern. I have expressed this concern to Michael in other posts and my problem is that there is a difference between having “high ethical values” in relation to civil rights /justice etc and doing anything with those values ie advocating action to right those injustices and ensure that civil rights are protected. Were not the people who did very little in the Civil Rights movement people those who maybe “valued” social justice but were unprepared to do anything about ensuring that it came to pass.

    “I believe he is alive today, and he is above politics.”

    I find myself partly agreeing with this statement, yet also see it as a very convenient cop-out in response to a tricky question. Surely being salt and light in the world involves us in actively flavouring the political process positively and not just a matter of holding high ethical values. Yes he is alive and it is incumbent taht we bring the mind of the Risen Lord Jesus into these situations and the power of the Lord Jesus to effect real change in situations where injustice has reigned for far too long. What is the point of holding such values if it does not translate into behaviour and action? If Christians are to be above politics were Martin Luther King and the Christians in the civil rights movement wrong in trying to end racial segregation and discimination?

    Again my concern is that often holding high Christian values does not translate itself into the appropriate forms of action; indeed often such values reinforces inaction as if possessing the right ethical values are enough in themselves and all that Jesus requires of us. One of the best days of my life was when a couple of years ago we took a minibus of protesters to Edinburgh for the UK stage of the “Make Povery History Tour”.. It really felt as though many Christians who regard themselves as fully evangelical in every sense had had enough of the church standing idly by whil injustices deepen around the globe.

    The question I would like to ask those who have drafted the report is this. Is it possible to be truly and fully evangelical
    yet not be involved in the political process? If we adopt the “Jesus is above politics, so I will be too” approach, do we not diminish and impoverish evangelicalism?

    I know where you are coming from on the “not preaching politics from the pulpit” scanario, but what is your take on the minor prophets? Most of their prophetic life and ministry, including much of their preaching/public speaking focussed on highlighting the many injustices which abounded at the time and they were determined to be obedient to God’s calling on their lives which was to bring God’s inspired and authoritative and challenging Word right into the very heart of those situations with a command almost that God’s people must respond to right those injustices.

    “Lisa R., you have articulated the dilemma beautifully! This is why there are evangelicals who are Democrats and evangelicals who are Republicans. ”

    Dan I agree with you wholeheartedly on this re Lisa’s statement. It was brilliantly articulated and requires hard thought before deciding which way to go.

    “Gay marriage is a no-brainer. If a candidate supports that, he/she is not an option.

    So Mitch, if you have a scenario where the choice of candidates is a man or woman who is “married” to their partner but in all other respects is financially responsibly, supports egalitarian plolices for the poor etc as was brilliantly summarised by Lisa R, yet the other candidate is known to be morally dubious, has had several affairs (yet is still married) is less financially repressve and likely to back policies that make the wealyth wealthier and the poor poorer, you say there is no choice for a Christian but to support the latter.

    A man who cheats on his wife is just as”sinful” surely as the man involved in the gay marriage. It may be that he is far more faithful to his partner than the man who is not faithful to his wife!

    Immdiately dismissing the issue on the “gay marriage” question, which is just one of may questions in the mix is the stance that is the real “no-brainer”.

    “What is your view on the Jesse Jackson’s, Al Sharpton’s, Rev Wright’s, etc? All these “reverends,” many of which could not exegete a passage if their life depended on it, but are always looking to find a “black” issue to show racism.”

    Mitch it may astound you to understand that on this issue I am in general agreement with you. However, sadly it is only too easy for them to find a “black issue” as they still abound (and just in case you are wondering, I am a white man!) Just out of interest, where do you stand on the Christians who campaigned in the civil rights movement?

18. Dan Wallace on 06 May 2008 at 5:56 am #

    Britphil, you raise some interesting points. But I think that you, too, are putting forth a false dichotomy. I never advocated not getting involved in the messiness of life, of not working toward righting wrongs, of not voting for those who will bring about social justice, a solid economic policy, etc. I’m not sure how you read that into what I wrote. Indeed, just the opposite. My essay, “Granville Sharp: A Model of Evangelical Scholarship and Social Activism” (posted at http://bible.org/page.php?page_id=1547) argues very strongly for just such an involvement. In fact, it puts forth a man (who, judging by your handle, was a fellow-countryman of yours) as a model that evangelicals need to follow when it comes to social justice. I would encourage any of the Parchment & Pen readers to see that essay (which was also published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society) as a stimulus to them to think through how to live for what is right and to be active in pursuing it in an unjust world. In short, Granville Sharp was the real reason why slavery was abolished in England; he was the force behind Wilberforce. I regard him as one of the great unsung heroes of the modern era. We need more Granville Sharps today. What he stood for was hardly in line with most conservative Christians in England, but he was able to do for England what did not happen in America: a strong, theological conservatism coupled with a strong sense of social justice to the point of abolishing slavery. In America, the southern states for the most part remained theologically conservative while the northern states went liberal but were promoting abolition. Today in the States, we are reaping the harvest of creating such a false dichotomy. This is a major reason why conservative Christians to this day are not aligned with social justice as they should be. For this reason, I believe that we are called to be above the political parties and, although we should be involved in the political process, there is so much more we can do and so much more that we should do to bring about the most just, merciful, and ethical society that we can.

19. britphil on 06 May 2008 at 6:13 am #

    “It is very hard for me to oppose abortion since my theology tells me that aborted children go immediately into the presence of the Lord without having to live in this evil world.”

    Puzzled…I am equally as puzzled by this statement, if not more so than you.

    I am not a one issue, abortion is the only thing issue that matters kind of bloke. However, surely it can and must be
    conversely argued that we oppose abortion in general (although there are some specific situations where I feel it can be justified) on the grounds that it denies future human beings the opportunity of enjoying all that God has created for them to experience in the world that he took such time, effort and energy to create for our benefit.

    If a candidate is wantonly pro-abortion without any reservations whatsoever it is one factor (though admittedly not the overriding factor) to be borne in mind when deciding who to vote for.

    Far from the initial statement being a reason not to oppose abortion, it is actually a justification for supporting it wholeheartedly. ie they go staright to heaven so it doesn’t really matter whether or not they get a chance to enjoy life on earth! I am in full agreement with Mitch that they do go straight to heaven, but the fact that they do so before they have had a chance to experience God’s good creation is something which is to be grievously lamented reather than celebrated.

    This is one of the problems that I have with the doctrine of “Total Depravity” in that it leads to an incredibly negative view of life itself. Many of the things that were tarnished by the fall are still “very good” and are meant for us to enjoy. Aborted children do not sadly get that opportunity.

20. Grub on 06 May 2008 at 7:03 am #

    Just a short post in defense of my original position. Choosing a thrid option is not the same thing as abdicating responsibility. Jesus himself refused to be involved with the politics of the day except in a subversive end around. Imagine telling Him that he must either side with the zealots or the ascetics. From my reading of the New Testament, even his ‘render unto Ceasar…’ statement was a political rejection not a advocation of political engagement. With that said, I am trying to work out what Jesus ‘ Kngdom message means practically in my community. This involves politics. I feel that a ‘values vote’ is generally a wasted vote.

    With this background you now know where I’m coming from. So answer a question of mine: If its my civic duty to vote for the lesser of two evils, who is more evil? Whose policies down the road will cuase more death and destruction? Whose policies will cause more poverty? Whose policies will disenfranchise more widows and orphans? None of us know…there is no crystal ball. The chaotic world, the instability of individual personalities in power, natural disasters, and so on, create an infinite number of possibilites for future outcomes. Therefore, your vote of ‘good intentions’ could very well be the path to hell.

    This is not an excuse to opt out of the process entirely, but at what point do we say that a vote against the system that supports such power to do harm is the best vote of all?

21. historic salve on 06 May 2008 at 9:37 am #

    “It is very hard for me to oppose abortion since my theology tells me that aborted children go immediately into the presence of the Lord without having to live in this evil world.”

    Mitch, this view is almost full-blown Gnosticism. I almost can’t understand that you really believe it. Some non-Christians draw a caricature of Christianity by making arguments like this.

22. Jerry B on 06 May 2008 at 9:46 am #

    If the politics/faith issue is about be opened with this manifesto, as you suggest, and if it is saying that evangelical faith has become too closely tied with conservative politics, then it will perhaps be instructive to go back to the exact same debates that took place in the late 70’s and early 80’s with the rise of the Moral Majority. Could we be seeing a pendulum swing and does that bode well or badly? I have no idea but it will be interesting to see this manifesto in its entirety.

23. Jason Dulle on 06 May 2008 at 12:53 pm #

    Susan,

    When I say “discussing politics,” I am speaking in a narrow sense. For example, I live in CA. A few years back we had prop 71 on the ballot, which would create a constitutional right to engage in human cloning and destructive embryonic research. These issues touch on Christian moral values, and as such I think it is entirely appropriate to speak of the proposition in church, and encourage the saints to go out and voice their values in the voting booth. I am not referring to politics in a general sense, in which we are taking positions on economic plans, foreign policy, and the like.

24. David Teh on 07 May 2008 at 10:31 am #

    Timothy George, Os Guinness……

    Just those 2 names is enough to get me yawning…….ECT redux no doubt……..

25. britphil on 07 May 2008 at 11:45 am #

    “Britphil, you raise some interesting points. But I think that you, too, are puttin
    g forth a false dichotomy.
    ]
    Hi Dan

    Many thanks for your reply, but I am not so sure that I am putting forward a false dichotomy.

    If anything I would contend that the Christian church, especially here in the UK has been in a struggle to reclaim the true sense of the word evangelcial from the Christian conservative right.

    Please let me explain. I am very much aware of the influence that Granville Sharp had on the Clapham Sect. We have tried this side of the Atlantic during the laudable celebrations to commerorate the 200th anniverary of the abolition of slavery, to ensure that Sharp et al received the credit that they should have had a lot earlier than now.

    However, it must never be understated how much sacrifice and courage it took for Wilberforce, Shaftesbury et al to fight the massive vested interests within their own parliamentary Party to be successful in getting slavery outlawed. I can only compare it to like trying to get the Republican party to legalise abortion!! That is how hard the battle was. There were vast amounts of money tied up in slavery their fellow Tories did not want to give it up without an almighty struggle. Indeed part of the conditions of giving it up was that the slave owners would be compensated for their loss of earnings!! The emotional and spiritual toll it took upon their lives was truly immense not to mention the damage to their credibility and reputation amongst their peers.

    Surely the example of Sharp, working as a Christian influence outside the parliamentary process, and the experience of Wilberforce, Shaftesbury et al working inside the political parties providing a Christian influence from within were both equally as important in repealing the repressive slavery legislation. It took both sets of people working together and supporting each other to bring about, with God’s help, such a tremendous achievement.

    With regard to the influence Christians can have, it is surely a case of both/and, not just either/or. Jesus may not have aligned hinmself up with a political party, but I cannot see him, or the minor prophets that matter seeing themselves as being “above politics” or being apolitical.

    Jesus’ excoriating treatment of some of the religious leaders of his day were in their own way as politically scathing as they were morally scathing.

    I take it as a success that in the UK the word evangelical is no longer seen as such as a dirty word amongst more liberal scholars as it once was. Thanks largely to John Stott, Joel Edwards, the Lausanne Convention etc massive strides have been made to ensure that social action is at the very heart of evangelicalism and not consigned to the peripheral sphere.

    I for one could not envisage anything worse than being persuaded to vote for a “Christian” party at an election. We have them here in the Uk and I would avoid voting for them wherever possible.

    I would much rather be salt and light from within than separating ourselves from the centre of political influence.

26. An Evangelical Manifesto « Pursuing the Truth on 08 May 2008 at 1:45 am #

    [...] interview with Os Guiness, who was on the Steering Committee for this document. Dan Wallace had a few words about the manifesto just prior to its release. II’m sure we’ll see many more posts and [...]

27. Evangelical Manifesto | Parchment and Pen on 08 May 2008 at 3:47 pm #

    [...] by evangelical leaders that is scheduled for release on Wednesday, May 7. Here’s a portion ofRead More… These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web [...]

28. Lisa R on 08 May 2008 at 9:02 pm #

    Bethyada (#16),

    While I do agree that conservative policies are not necessarily anti-poor, in more cases than not they are detrimental to the poor. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for personal accountability. But juxtaposed to polices that would stimulate the economy should be policies that have at their foundation, a basic understanding of the roots and redresses of poverty. I usually do not see this union.

    In my little tiny state, we have in place an inept Republican administration that has not only been fiscally irresponsible, and egregiously so, but is also in the process of decimating housing and service programs that will most certainly have a long term impact on the state’s neediest citizens and the agencies whose mission it is to serve them.

    Now let’s say this governor opposes abortion and gay rights. I could not in good conscience vote for him.

29. Lisa R on 08 May 2008 at 9:07 pm #

    Dr Wallace,

    I was very surprised to see Jim Wallis in the committee that drafted this.

30. Lisa R on 08 May 2008 at 9:30 pm #

    Brit,

    Your comments bring an added dimension to this issue, regarding the influence we should have on government. And here is where I would recommend a wee bit of caution.

    1) Comparisons to old testament prophets are not really reasonable. Israel was a theocracy, God’s chosen nation and the prophets provided warnings because they were violating their covenant with God. Our countries have no such foundation.

    2) I’ve pondered often to what extent should christians influence government through inside the political machine. Yes we are called to be salt and light on this earth, but considering this statement in context of Jesus’ redemptive purpose and church age introduction, I find the vehicle through which we do this germane to the gospel not the political process. I also do not see in scripture, either by command or example, where we are to influence government towards implementing a christian ethos. I have not come to definite conclusions concerning this but that’s where my thoughts have taken me thus far.

31. Dan Wallace, Jesus, and Politics | Kubecki.com on 08 May 2008 at 9:38 pm #

    [...] Great comment from Dan Wallace: I was on the radio in Montreal last week, on the Joe Cannon Show at 940 AM. I was interviewed about the Albania manuscripts that CSNTM photographed this past summer, but the interview quickly turned to politics. Mr. Cannon asked, “If Jesus were alive today, where would his political alignments be?” I responded, “I believe he is alive today, and he is above politics.” [...]

32. britphil on 09 May 2008 at 3:47 am #

    “In my little tiny state, we have in place an inept Republican administration that has not only been fiscally irresponsible, and egregiously so, but is also in the process of decimating housing and service programs that will most certainly have a long term impact on the state’s neediest citizens and the agencies whose mission it is to serve them.

    “Now let’s say this governor opposes abortion and gay rights. I could not in good conscience vote for him.”

    Lisa.. I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. Very well said. I do find the “one issue and the rest is immaterial” stance very difficult to come to terms with.

    With regard to point 1 I would take on board your advice to tread cautiously. I know where you are coming from, my concern is that this leads to us not taking the minor prophets very seriously in our biblical teaching. I believe that God still has much to teach us and say to us through their life and ministry.

    With regard to the second point my problem is that there has been far, far too much caution displayed by many fine Christians down the years. I am not sure whether Dan Wallace was implying that Granville Sharp’s way of doing things outside of the political process was the correct way, but it has to be said that without the influence, determination, courage and perseverance of the British evangelical parliamentarians it would have been many, many, many years before the slavery legislation would have been repealed in the UK. I dread to think what would have happened (or more accurately, what might never have happened), if the British parliamentarians had adopted the approach you appear to be advocating.

    I would even dare to contend, and I am sure that I may be about to be overwhelmed with posts un return, that it was the distinct lack of the right kind of evangelical social awareness which allowed racial segregation to continue unchallenged in the USA until the emergence of the Civil Rights movement.

    The fact that this action carried on too long could be because good, fine Christians were far, far too cautious, primarily considering their own good and not standing up for the good of others.

    Please let me make it clear. I can see from your previous posts that you possess really keen social conscience and I love that, but I just think we Christians need to be a bit less risk averse sometimes.

    Lisa I know you are a fine person, but do you feel that the Christian involved in the Civil Rights movement were wrong in the actions they took? The other question that has to be asked is that if they had not become involved in the political process, would there have still been white only and black only buses in Alabama. My own personal view is to praise God to the highest heavens for the Rosa Parkes of this world.

33. Lisa R on 09 May 2008 at 5:13 am #

    Brit,

    No, I don’t believe christian motivation to correct civil rights infractions is wrong, per se. Most certainly, the abolition of both slavery and racial segregation was much needed and if christian involvement expedited that process in anyway, the better. I am african-american, btw. And while I have not experienced racial discrimination and segregation first hand, many in my family history have, including slavery. So no, I am not advocating that christians should not have been involved.

    But there is a fine line between civil rights and christian rights. I guess my issue is with how far to we go to legislate morality. Aligning ourselves with biblical ethics is one thing but imposing christian values through the political machine is quite another. And that’s where I wrestle with our role in government to create a christian foundation.

    Concerning your other point about the prophets, I agree we need to heed their warnings seriously. But I believe the application in this church age, is to us as God’s chosen people that we should take seriously belief in Christ and how that plays out in the sanctification process.

34. britphil on 09 May 2008 at 10:27 am #

    Hi Lisa

    I need your IT assistance again. Is there a keyboard shortcut to a very embarassed red face symbol, hopefully simultaneously indicating a man digging a very deep hole for himself while eating huge slices of pie of a paticularly strong humble flavour!

    After I had posted the previous message to which you have just responded, I took the time to access the link you provided to you own site and found out a bit more….including your fantastic work in the area of social housing for the vulnerable…and now to compound the
    error(s) I learn that you are African- American, discovering this after, rather than before my previous comments about your thoughts on civil rights and slavery!!

    May I just say that I truly paise God for both the Rosa Parkes and the Lisas of this world!!

    I am now going to climb back into my box and shut up!!

35. britphil on 09 May 2008 at 10:45 am #

    Lisa

    Sadly, as you probably expected I didn’t shut up for long.

    I hope I am on safer ground here, but I wouldn’t be so bold as to guarantee it, each Sunday, if you are a “good Anglican”, which as you may guess I could not hold my hand on my heart and say that I am, we are meant to have each Sunday an Old Testament Bible reading, a reading from the Epistles and a reading from the Gospels incorporated into our worship each Sunday. Sshhh…please don’t say anything to anyone, but we usually only have one of the three readings (either the gospel or the epistle)…although our vicar is trying his hardest to wean us onto the Psalms…although we are resolutely refusing to a man or a woman to chant them given the context we minister in ie pretty solid blue collar/working class)which means that I am probably not even semi-Anglican!).

    Given your thoughts on applying Scripture in “this church age”…please enlighten me, is this a particularly Calvinist notion that I as yet unaware of …ie the treinnial age or something similar which I ought to know about.

    Would you contend that we should give more attention to interpreting the latter two of the three readings, which if so might cause us a bit of bother as we have sensed God bringing us back on several different occasions as a church to the principles enshrined in Isaiah Chapter 58.

    It seems as though we may be in a bit of bother

36. Lisa R on 09 May 2008 at 7:45 pm #

    Britphil,

    No apologies necessary! Sadly this is what happens when trying to push multi-dimensional conversations through a one dimensional medium. Yes, my entire professional career has been dedicated to assisting most disenfranchised through housing development, program management and funding distribution. And my race is of no consequence in comparison to my heavenly citizenship. I am a Christian first and everything else second. So chin up! All is well

    Regarding your question about the church age, this will certainly detour the conversation down another road, and I’m not sure I want to test those waters so much here by getting way off topic. Shhh…Dr. Wallace is a prof at the seminary I will be attending and on the chance that I might one day end up in one or two of his classes, I would rather not be remembered as the woman who caused disorder on his post.

    But since I’m quite the risk taker, here is my answer. While there is a continuity of God’s sovereignty and love for His creation throughout the bible, there is a distinction in His revelation and requirements of man through different stages, or dispensations. Each stage yields a progressive and connected revelation of God’s dealing with man, otherwise known as progressive revelation. (Read more here about it here http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=535 ). Specific to our topic of the prophets, they were addressing concerns of Israel, to whom God had chosen as His nation, and given specific promises. So in consideration of Isaiah ch 58, look at vs. 1. God is addressing Israel but this has nothing to do with us.

    When Christ came, His sacrificial death and resurrection accomplished 2 things. 1) it provided us Gentiles with redemptive promises and 2) it changed the manner in which God moved and requires obedience through his people. Consider these verses

    Hebrews 1:1-2
    Ephesians 2:11-19
    Colossians 1:26-27

    Step back and think of the way God moved in the Old Testament, the ebb and flow of the Spirit, the filling of the temple, the communication through prophets, the requirements of the law. But when Christ came and died, the veil was torn in two. Hallelujah! This changed things. He told His disciples to wait so they would receive power (because they had HIM while he was there) and on the day of Pentecost, they were filled with the Spirit. The baptism of the Spirit into the kingdom is our mark as believers. We are the temple of God. This is the church age, otherwise known as the age of grace.

    I love this passage in Romans 8:1-4, which I think so marks the church age:

    Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of sin and death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

    ps. There are some who believe that the church replaced Israel but I do subscribe to that point of view.

37. Mitch on 09 May 2008 at 8:09 pm #

    Sorry for being so long in responding.

    Regarding Abortion, I have no problem with abortion. If a woman wants an abortion, I’m all for that. After all, with all Paul was blessed with, he wanted to be in the presence of the Lord (Phil 1:23).

    On the Gay issue, what I was doing was picking (randomly) an issue that is higher up on the hierarchy scale (Graded Absolutism). A gay person is just as wrong as a husband/wife having an affair. I’m not sure how I confused you on that.

    Political involvement. I don’t see that in the NT, with Christ or with Paul. The Church is about worshiping the Lord, and giving the gospel to unbelievers when appropriate. But I would not see any Christian mandates regarding political involvement. Better to emulate Christ or Paul in this issue.

    Surely if we have an opportunity to vote and can vote for a candidate that we believe will help us live a peaceful and quiet life, by all means vote for him/her.

    I try not to write too much in Dr. Wallace’s posts. I have no business “debating” a man of his academic standing. He’d eat my lunch, and we all know that. Better to keep silent than to go against him.

38. mike rucker on 09 May 2008 at 9:35 pm #

    good thoughts, all. i’m enjoying reading the various opinions here and there around the web. i had some hesitations and misgivings before reading the document, but i’m actually quite impressed and invigorated after taking in the whole of what it addresses.

    one of the things i like is that the authors have chosen not to list creationism and inerrancy as non-negotiables. for the first, there’s very little biblical justification anymore behind whatever the latest flavor of anti-natural-selection dessert is being served up; for the latter, somehow we can admit that we can’t prove the existence of God, but goshdarnit we have a golden egg this unprovable God laid right here. still, some people hold to these positions; so be it. there’s simply too much of a tendency to add items to the ever-increasing laundry list of ideas and doctrines to which we have to pledge allegiance before we’re allowed into the room marked “Christian.”

    nothing’s going to please everybody, and there are a few things i object to. for instance, i don’t agree with this statement: We Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally. Jesus’ message uses “action” verbs: teach them to DO as I have commanded you, LOVE God and LOVE your neighbor, by this will all men know … if you LOVE one another. any theology that defines us must have feet.

    i did, however, like these words: We are also troubled by the fact that the advance of globalization and the emergence of a global public square finds no matching vision of how we are to live freely, justly, and peacefully with our deepest differences on the global stage. somehow, we’ve got to figure out how we’re going to peacefully share the same bathroom over the next few decades in our ever-shrinking world.

    one interesting thing: maybe i missed it, but there doesn’t seem to be a great emphasis on evangelism in this Evangelical Manifesto. do you think that was intentional? i didn’t see a single chick tract referenced in the bibliography…

    more than anything, i find myself motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece - that it isn’t yet another “here’s everything we’re against” rant but an effort to make the gospel again a message of good news. imagine that - the gospel being good news. American Christianity has lost this defining characteristic that once served it well.

    perhaps one unintended benefit of the proposal is a clear opportunity to take this EM (Evangelical Manifesto) and align it with the other EM (Emergent Manifesto) and finally have all our EM & EMs in a row without demonizing the other side.

    one can only hope…

    mike rucker
    fairburn, georgia, usa
    mikerucker.wordpress.com

39. Random Acts of Linkage #60 : Subversive Influence on 10 May 2008 at 9:32 am #

    [...] Evangelical Manifesto: “Conservative Christian leaders who believe the word “evangelical” has lost its religious meaning plan to release a starkly self-critical document saying the movement has become too political and has diminished the Gospel through its approach to the culture wars.” [...]

40. Random Acts of Linkage #60 : Subversive Influence on 10 May 2008 at 9:32 am #

    [...] Evangelical Manifesto: “Conservative Christian leaders who believe the word “evangelical” has lost its religious meaning plan to release a starkly self-critical document saying the movement has become too political and has diminished the Gospel through its approach to the culture wars.” [...]

41. Mitch on 10 May 2008 at 10:31 am #

    Okay, I read it. Here’s my only issue:

    This should not have come from a “religious” group of people AT ALL. You’ve just put non-religious issues in a religious context. This is just plain stupid. (oops, there I go again, being negative)

    This manifesto should have been written by concerned human beings or citizens, not initiated by some religious appellation. This is why the sons of darkness are far more shrewd than the sons of light.

42. mike rucker on 10 May 2008 at 10:59 am #

    This is why the sons of darkness are far more shrewd than the sons of light.

    and your comment is exactly the reason people felt obligated to write this manifesto in the first place.

    hey - look! over there! a rock! i wonder what’s underneath it?

    mitch, of course, already knows before looking…

    mike rucker
    fairburn, georgia, usa
    mikerucker.wordpress.com

43. Mitch on 10 May 2008 at 6:45 pm #

    Mike

    What?

44. mike rucker on 10 May 2008 at 7:10 pm #

    

    aw, c’mon, mitch, if i have to explain my jokes that takes all the fun out of telling them…

    my point is that Satan ain’t hiding under every rock (like the common phrase says), even if your previous comment seemed to imply that you believe he is.

    i’ll try reheasing in front of a mirror before my next comedy gig…

    mike rucker

45. Lisa R on 10 May 2008 at 9:45 pm #

    “This manifesto should have been written by concerned human beings or citizens, not initiated by some religious appellation.”

    Huh? Are you suggesting that concerned citizens who have no idea what it means to be evangelical define what it is to be evangelical? That makes no sense.

    The whole point of the document is to reinforce the identity of evangelical that aligns with biblical truth and to disassociate with politicizing faith, which has done much harm to confuse the definition.

    It’s giving teeth to what it actually means to be christian so the sons of darkness will not be confused about who we are or what we stand for.

46. Liquid Community » Nothing Like a Manifesto to Spark Conversation! on 13 May 2008 at 2:31 pm #

    [...] Evangelical Manifesto, Check these out: Catalyst Leader Feeder, Cerulean Sanctum, John Stackhouse, Parchment and Pen, Denny Burk, USA Today, Generous Orthodoxy and Emergent Village (lots of links on this [...]

47. David Teh on 16 May 2008 at 9:07 pm #

    Given the history of some of these framers and signatories, we should not sign it.

    Remember they signed the ECT document? Haven’t heard any repentance yet. If they can’t get the Gospel right, anything else they say, whether it has to be do with civil or political responsibility is tainted.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail