i's a-hoping you guys would get around to this topic; been reading the comments here and there around the web. i posted some thoughts at my blog here.

briefly,

(a) i'm as excited by who hasn't signed it as much as who has; take that however you wish.

(b) i like the 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 good news. imagine that - the gospel being good news.

(c) i liked this: 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. at the very least, we've all got to figure out how we are going to share the same bathroom over the next few decades in our ever-shrinking world.

(d) we now have an opportunity to take this EM (Evangelical Manifesto) and align it with the other EM (Emergent Manifesto), get our EM & EMs in a row, and stop each side from demonizing the other.

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa

The opening line of the summary is enough to disuade me from buying into this whole thing:

"Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth."

Please. By that definition then all "Christians" are evangelicals, thus rendering them not "useful idiots" but just "useless idiots."

Now, I understand, in reading the rest of the manifesto, that the authors seem to claim more than just the above statement, but the fact remains that they felt it was most important to portray a broad definition of "evangelical" before anything else, and that I believe is telling of their true position.

The problem with evangelicalism in America is not that they are too much like the world, it's the fact that too many people are coming in to wave that banner. If you look at the research that is done by the Barna Group using a strict defintion of what "Evangelical" means, you see that only 8% of Americans are actual considered evangelical Christians, and only 3% between the ages 19 and 44. But by the look of things on the TV and internet you would think that we were all evangelical.

Just because a name is sexy doesn't mean that it fits everyone.

just wanted to post the larger context where the seattle times reporter drew the quote from. fwiw since i've been getting my share of angry emails.

http://eugenecho.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/faith-and-politics/

peace.

"Do you think evangelicals have become useful idiots for the Republican Party?"

lol, yes.
Dobson! Boy come here, front and center.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you Republican tool, #1: James Dobson.
Yes, he's so full of himself he actually believes he has a say in who will be the next Republican Presidential candidate. Some one ask the boy hows that working out for him?

"Are we in danger of becoming equally useful and idiotic tools for the Democrats?"

Not anytime soon, as the Democratic party is still trying to figure out how to fit in the few disaffected "religious faithful" from the Republican party looking for spiritual absolution from their former political affiliation.
Square peg meet round hole.

"And do you resonate with Claiborne’s label? Are you a political misfit?"

Oh yeah, political misfit...perhaps people have gotten tired of being labelled, categorized, and "marketed" too by those who are far more interested in political power than they are in people.
Anyway, I wish the signatories of this new manifesto a whole lot of "Good luck with that!"
They still haven't gotten it...but I have hope that they'll get it...in fact I know they will...probably a lot sooner than they wished, and in a sufficent enough dose that it'll break their appetite for the whole mess.

What's interesting for me is Land's stated rationale for not signing: it's a document forged by a group and not an individual; consensus never contributes, but only ever detracts. The sovereignty of the individual that characterizes the liberal economic policies of the Republicans has simply been baptized for matters of doctrine.

What's interesting for me is Land's stated rationale for not signing: it's a document forged by a group and not an individual...

...and that individual would be...him?

my bible professor in seminary (dr. kem oberholtzer) told me to keep two things in mind as i read scripture: land and seed.

sonuvagun - i never thought he meant Richard land...

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

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you Republican tool, #1: James Dobson.

Yes, he's so full of himself he actually believes he has a say in who will be the next Republican Presidential candidate. Some one ask the boy hows that working out for him?"

Yes, but that's a dumb example to criticize Dobson on. The same could be said for the myriad other celebrities and public figures who hold a press conference or film a commercial to announce who they are endorsing. I get a little sick of it too, but this just puts Dobson in the same league as Jack Nicholson (Clinton), Oprah Winfrey (Obama), Chuck Norris (Huckabee) and Jerry Springer (Clinton).

We're always going to come to a crossroads where we will be asked to define ourselves as a group of Christians and that is the reason why we have so many church groups, denominations and movements. These will always be capitalized by those in places of influence as evident from past history. I feel that we, as followers of Christ, need to remember the words of Jesus in Jn 13:34-35 stating that love (modeled by Jesus) is the defining characteristic of true discipleship. Hence, however others feel led to re-define, use or otherwise persecute the group defined by His love will be nothing new to Christian history. I wonder sometimes if our goal as Christians in this world is to call people to God or to build a better world to live in (as in making heaven on earth), sometimes disguised in the form of politics, power or projects. I opt for the former as the latter is imminent upon the return of Christ. Thanks but I don't think I need a manifesto to clear up my identity in Christ, however misunderstood and misused by others. God's word will suffice.

I have to say that I've felt like a political misfit my entire Christian life. I'm 32, a former teacher, a current stay-at-home mom, and an conservative Christian. Politically, however, I've always "leaned to the left" because of many of the things you mentioned in your article. It's not that I'm not horrified by abortion, or that I don't think families are important, but I'm tired of those being the soapbox issues, while other issues are just swept aside because they are too "liberal". The minute a Christian starts spouting the right wing agenda, or a pure left-wing agenda, I lose a lot of respect for them. When did God tell us to stop thinking for ourselves and just go a long with what our leaders tell us? Even though my close Christian friends jokingly call me a liberal, I'm really more of a moderate, although in some groups, that has become my dirty little secret. It's frustrating, honestly.

"Yes, but that's a dumb example to criticize Dobson on."

Considering the whole host of Dobson's excesses in regards to politics, I picked the one that symptiomatic of his thinking. Dumb perhaps, but then again, accurate.

"I get a little sick of it too, but this just puts Dobson in the same league as Jack Nicholson (Clinton), Oprah Winfrey (Obama), Chuck Norris (Huckabee) and Jerry Springer (Clinton)."

Yes, I can see your point, however, Nicholson isn't claiming Christianity as his platform for political support. Nor is Oprah, and in fact, to her...Jesus is a "Nice guy." Chuck Norris is a moralist, and Jerry Springer...well, as you can see, only Dobson, and I'll throw in Robertson as well [note, I'm leaving out Falwell because he's dead] use their "christianity" as political leverage.
The others you mention...they mean nothing to me...but when someone claiming to be Christian uses Christianity as a political tool...oh yeah, that gets my attention.

But the thing is, with Dobson, Oprah, Norris, and whoever, they are claiming their support based on some particular beliefs. And besides, it may leave a distatste in our mouths to hear Dobson give his support based on his Christianity, but I much rather this over politicians using Christianity as a name-plate (i.e. Obama) while showing a complete lack of respect for the Bible as God's Word.

To date, Obama has said that his mom wasn't a believer but he knows she will be in heaven anyways because she was a good person, and that he wants his daughters to be responsible, but that if they make a mistake he doesn't think they should be "punished with a baby." He also said that he believes that Jesus' teaching on loving people in the sermon on the mount supercedes the Apostle Paul's writings decrying homosexuality in "some obscure passage in Romans" (that passage being Romans 1:26-31).

There is tasteless Christian leadership and then there is complete rejection of everything God says.

Todd,

1.) We do not know who will be saved. That one is not for us to know- and there are many different positions on the issue.

2.) Do you not see how premarital sex (while not advised, wrong, etc) that leads to pregnancy could be seen as something unwanted if the sexual activity had nothing to do with the hopes of procreation?

3.) The homosexuality issue also is a multilayered one. If you would study biblical interpretation outside of your own small circle you would realize that.

4.) In case you would suggest that you just take the Bible literally while others don't, there are plenty of biblical instructions that you do NOT apply literally- stoning adulterers, forcing women to wear head coverings, etc., etc. And please don't play the "well, those are just cultural observances that aren't relevant for today" card. That line is not easily demarcated. And that's exactly why we have so many views and interpretations of "what God says".

Do you not realize this?

Stop being so quick to judge. We all apply God’s will with fear and trembling in the midst of plenty of unknowns and our own cultural, contextual flavors/biases.

Obviously, Darren King, you would not meet the criterion laid out by the Barna Group as an Evangelical. In turn,

(1) To be considered a Christian it is across the board necessary to declare faith as the primary cause for salvation, even if your theology holds that works are necessary to maintain it. If you believe that faith in Christ is not a necessary component of salvation then I can not call that belief Christian. Period. That might seem harsh, but we can't just let people wear this name because they want to. It has to mean something.

(2) Guess what? Actions have consequences, and sexual actions sometimes have procreative consequences. Would you say that if someone was driving their car and accidentally hit some else (their fault, if you want to be nitpicky) that they aren't responsible for the damages done? Besides, try rectifying that action with Scripture and not doing any hand-waving.

(3) Please provide a Biblical interpretation that actually maintains the integrity of all of Scripture which says that homosexuality is not a sin. I have yet to see this done. As RC Sproul says, we all have to agree that the Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin, the question we are arguing over is whether of not we are going to obey that.

(4) How do you know I don't stone adulterers or require women to wear head coverings in church (those are so original by the way)? I believe that we have to take into context the whole canon of Scripture, which is my point on all three of the issues above I believe, and when we do that faithfully I think we can come up with well founded Biblical principles as relates to all of these.

It cracks me up how we are so quick to judge people like Dobson and Robertson (who I do not claim to agree with either) and yet so quick to defend people who are obviously missing the point like Obama or Oprah.

If you want to have a conversation, let's hve a conversation. But having a conversation doesn't mean that people's feelings won't end up getting hurt sometimes. Hard words make soft people, while soft words, though they may make us feel good about ourselves, make us hard to the actual offense of the Cross.

darren, todd -

are you guys sure you're commenting on the right post?

if you're trying to set up the first round of the new church celebrity deathmatch, it's on a different page...

but you two make the perfect picture of the paradox we have to work within: darren errs on the side of grace (as do i - guilty as charged), todd errs on the side of law.

so - to your corners... come out at the sound of the bell, and let's settle this thing once and for all.

but never forget that scripture calls us a peculiar people...

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa

We usually only have two candidates in most races with any chance of winning (with the exception of the race where Minnesota chose Governor Jesse Ventura). The result is we always seem to be choosing between the lesser of two evils or the more palatable of two distasteful compromises.

Todd,

Your response basically proves my point. You made all sorts of assumptions about what I was saying in my post. Which goes to show, interpretation happens. Believe me, you took what I said down some avenues I certainly didn't point you down.

Secondly, before you cast me outside the evangelical pale, please understand, I wasn't suggesting that all of the interpretations I mentioned are MY interpretations, merely that they exist.

You write:
"I believe that we have to take into context the whole canon of Scripture, which is my point on all three of the issues above I believe, and when we do that faithfully I think we can come up with well founded Biblical principles as relates to all of these."

By your own admission here, the issue of deciding how and when to apply various aspects of scripture involves levels of interpretation. It is an art, not a science. And as such, we're going to have some differences of opinion.

Personally, I do not defend homosexuality. My point was merely to suggest that the issue is not as black and white as you would make it out to be.

Lastly, you completely missed my point (and I think, Obama's) when you wrote about the consequences of sexual activity. You wrote:

"Actions have consequences, and sexual actions sometimes have procreative consequences. Would you say that if someone was driving their car and accidentally hit some else (their fault, if you want to be nitpicky) that they aren't responsible for the damages done?"

Sure. No one's debating that. I was merely pointing out that one can act sexually irresponsibly, get pregnant (or get someone pregnant) and regret the consequence. The point being: as with the Catholic Church and its stance on birth control as pertains to AIDS in Africa (for instance), of course we want to call for abstinence. But we also want to, knowing the erring nature of human beings, take advantage of additional tools, such as birth control, to mitigate even more serious consequences.

Now that you've read what I really meant, I hope you'll see just how much interpretation can lead us in different directions.

Peace,
Darren

More fuel for the fire (no pun intended!)

In a recent dialogue on Christianity Today, Tony Jones drew attention to a letter he recently received- that speaks to this issue of Biblical interpretive diversity. Tony writes,

Just last week, someone wrote me a letter, which I posted, in which he surveyed the books by Christian publishers on multiple views of doctrines, and he came up with 119 views on 29 topics. That's some serious diversity.

Indeed.

mike,
Your post is right on target, thanks for lightening up the debate. This is a paradox that we have to be willing to hash out, but at the same time we do need to keep from spilling too much blood (either real or clay).

I do want to make one defense though, both for myself and for my conservative/orthodox/reformed brothers in arms. I don't think we feel any less strongly about the awesomeness and wonder of God's grace than anyone else, but I think the rub comes in balancing the wonders of God's grace with the upholding of God's holiness. In as much as God is gracious He cannot at the same time neglect being just in esteeming his holy name or declaring his infinite value and honor, and it is that point which I feel often gets compromised with arguments of the nature presented by darren.

2 Timothy 2:12-13, "If we have died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful— for he cannot deny himself."

in light of where this thread is at this point, i put some thoughts together and wrote a piece on my blog called, "half & half, but twice the pounds."

rather than stick all those thoughts at this site, you can go read them here, if your day finds you running out of productive things to do.

Took an untrodden path once, where the swift don't win the race,
It goes to the worthy, who can divide the word of truth.
Took a stranger to teach me, to look into justice's beautiful face
And to see an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
Bob Dylan, I and I, 1983

mike rucker
fariburn, georgia, usa

Take political party out of it for a moment. The bottom line is that when I ask political Liberals who claim to be Christian to define their faith, they inevitably fall back on their works as the means of salvation.

Political liberalism and theological liberalism go hand in hand.

That is not to say that political conservatism goes hand in hand with saving faith. Far from it. I have simply found that in 21st century America, political conservatism is where my faith has led me.

Todd,

Please don't misunderstand a difference in opinion for a lack of appreciation for the holiness of God.

My friend, what you are defending (at least from the perspective of those of us with a more emergent understanding) is not the holiness of God, but the integrity of your own interpretation.

But here's the thing: is it reasonable to get so fired up about issues that are clearly understood differently across the Christian spectrum?

Lets stick to the main and plain; not get caught up in lambasting people over secondary issues.

I think your treatment of Obama suggests a lack of Christian charity and hermeneutical humility.

@Richard Dennis Miller: disagree strongly. Theological conservatism and social/political liberalism go hand in hand for me. Because Jesus is (crucified, risen, and returning) I am free (from Latin 'liber') as never before. Not only this, but am free to participate in God's kingdom ahead of time. This theology calls into question the status quo that social and political conservatives fight so hard to defend.

It's been interesting to read this exchange of thoughts and I have a few observations. Prior to Roe vs Wade (abortion on demand compliments of the Supremes - 1973) few Christians were actively involved in politics, but with the legalization of the killing of innocent babies things had to change. Many Christians opened their eyes to the fact that to some degree they had allowed this to happen because they found politics so distasteful - and it is! Thus was born the "Moral Majority". Why? because a group of judges who were appointed for life found an unwritten 'right' in the constitution that none had found before and the American people (not just the church) were caught completely by surprise. These people were not politically savvy and began to look for representatives who would champion this cause and the only ones they found were in the Republican party. One can hardly call these people 'useful idiots' with any degree of honesty. While for some, the life issue has become a form of self-righteousness, this does not diminish the necessity of staying the course.
The Democrat party on the other hand, had already become self-righteous by caring about the poor - with other people's money. I think this is where Shane Calibourne may find himself a 'political misfit'. He cannot justify the pro-abortion stance of the Democrats but is drawn to the re-distribution of wealth philosophy they hold. The problem is that if I take money from you that you have rightfully earned by your work and give it to my choice of poor people, I am not thereby made righteous in God's sight. However, if I allow you to give of your own free will, then it is a different story.
Sadly, the Republican party today is not much better than the Democrat party. Christian people gained a tremendous amount of influence there in the '80's, but the old guard has fought back and wants to dump the true conservatives.
So, to the Evangelical Manifesto: After having read it and then Richard Land's explanation as to why he did not sign it, I would definitely side with Richard Land. Why do we need "manifesto's" anyway? It sounds so Marxist to me.

It seems wise for Christianity to try to get away from identifying with a political party or one specific political ideology. This is for the simple reason that I (and others, including some of the signers of this EM) suspect it has had an unfavorable impact on conversions. I know several people who have left Christianity (or at least stopped going to Church) due to their politics. How many others have not turned to your Christ due to having been alienated by the politics? Are Christians prepared to give up on ever winning the people residing in the blue districts? If Christianity becomes a religion that only appeals to conservative Republicans, won't it necessarily lose a lot of demographic clout?

That's funny; my faith in Christ has led me to become a leftist. I see most right-wing Christians claiming to defend the unborn and protect marriage. Yet, the only thing they really have made progress in is instituting right-wing economic theories all on the back of the unborn.

The "morel issues" have no chance to get instituted while right-wing theories concerning the state are being instituted at a rapid rate. And let's not forget the way the modern right-wing Christian embraces mass death and the destruction of families with all the wars they have been lusting after. Right-Wing Christians in the United States have embraced blind nationalism and warmongering just like the Christians in Europe who embraced their “patriotic traditional Christian values” with their nations.

The modern Conservative Protestant embraces nihilism with the fervor of newly converted pagans in the Roman Empire. They have baptized their lust for war and nationalism with the language of scripture.

It’s disgusting how Conservatives have been embracing the State to institute mass death on other cultures.

CJW

"Not only this, but am free to participate in God's kingdom ahead of time."

The idea that you can usher in the kingdom through socialism is just as nonsensical as thinking we can do so through a right wing agenda. There is nothing theologically conservative about what you said. You made my point for me.

To the Liberals who have commented: You are everything you have accused the Religious Right of being. That you don't see it is a tesimony to your lostness.

Hummm... Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world otherwise would My servants fight."

Why are His servants fighting for a system (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist, etc., etc.) that has rejected Him?

"...all indeed who desire to live piously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted."

Do we somehow expect something different??

@Richard Dennis Miller:

No one has said that we can "usher in the kingdom of God through socialism". We can, however, anticipate it, and we must begin to make it a reality in however humble and incomplete a way we can, as we wait for it's ultimate fulfillment when Christ returns.

My gut is conservative (small-government) too, but think of it this way. We live in a democracy. I have some say in my government unlike anything anyone in the Bible experienced. What kind of country do I want to live in? Melody (above) is right that we don't "get credit" for the good that is done with our forcibly taken tax money. But since when is that the point? Who is it that God cares about? Based on my high view of Scripture, I can only answer: the poor.

You can very easily be theologically conservative and politically liberal on many issues. I'm not even asking you to change your libertarian mind. Just stop pretending that free-market capitalism and Jeffersonian small-government ideas are biblical. They're not, any more than Marxism is.

But if you really believe the Bible, you'll have to admit that the early church was much more likely to be mistaken for Marxists than for Reaganites.

Travis,

I hope you will read this as old as this thread is. There was nothing remotely Marxist about the early Christian Church. Marxists don't ask for your money. They take it. They claim it is for your own good but they don't ask you if you agree. (Who does that sound like? Oh yeah, modern day Liberals.) The early Christians are said to have been "together and had all things in common;

"45and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need."

Acts 2 NASB

There is no similarity between the early Christians sharing with each other voluntarily out of love and the forcible confiscation and redistribution of wealth by the state. That is actually what the tax collectors did in those days and our modern day tax collectors (The U.S. Congress) are about as corrupt as the tax collctors back then.

Do you have any idea how small a percentage of our tax dollars actually come back to our communities for social welfare? It is so small that sending our money to Washington must surely be a violation of God's command for us to be good stewards of the resources He has given us.