|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Evangelical Manifesto - 5/8/2008 4:06:40 PM
|
|
|
saraha98
Posts: 67
Joined: 10/17/2006
Status: offline
|
IM OPPOSED
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evangelical Manifesto - 5/8/2008 6:04:58 PM
|
|
|
CatholicCritter
Posts: 155
Joined: 6/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: saraha98
IM OPPOSED
what's your biggest objection to this?
_____________________________
http://saintunderconstruction.blogspot.com/
"There are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church, yet there are millions who hate what they believe the Catholic Church to be." --Archbishop Fulton Sheen
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evangelical Manifesto - 5/8/2008 6:09:42 PM
|
|
|
Evangel70
Posts: 264
Joined: 10/28/2006
Status: offline
|
I've only read the summary so I'll get back to you on my opinion when I've read the entire manifesto, but I did particularly like this part....
The other error, made by both the religious left and the religious right, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth. That way faith loses its independence, Christians become the “useful idiots” for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology. Christian beliefs become the weapons of political factions.
Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, economic system, 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, or nationality. The politicization of faith is never a sign of strength but of weakness. (Emphasis mine)
Do you know who wrote/sponsored this manifesto? On the surface I don't see anything I wouldn't agree with.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evangelical Manifesto - 5/8/2008 6:26:57 PM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 1282
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
I read about this a few days ago and was thinking about posting it myself. I do think the politicization of faith is damaging to the basic goals of Christianity. Political battles are so inherently divisive that I think many Christian political organizations end up shooting themselves in the feet when it comes to trying to win the greater "spiritual battle." I've been saying that for ages, but it seems like the more "centrist" evangelicals are starting to realize this.
Here's the news article I saw on it:
quote:
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.
The statement, called "An Evangelical Manifesto," condemns Christians on the right and left for using faith to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible, according to a draft of the document obtained Friday by The Associated Press.
"That way faith loses its independence, Christians become 'useful idiots' for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology," according to the draft.
The declaration, scheduled to be released Wednesday in Washington, encourages Christians to be politically engaged and uphold teachings such as traditional marriage. But the drafters say evangelicals have often expressed "truth without love," helping create a backlash against religion during a "generation of culture warring."
"All too often we have attacked the evils and injustices of others," the statement says, "while we have condoned our own sins." It argues, "we must reform our own behavior."
The document is the latest chapter in the debate among conservative Christians about their role in public life. Most veteran leaders believe the focus should remain on abortion and marriage, while other evangelicals -- especially in the younger generation -- are pushing for a broader agenda. The manifesto sides with those seeking a wide-range of concerns beyond "single-issue politics."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/02/evangelicals.ap/
From what I've read, the far right political Christian groups like "Concerned Women for America" and the "AFA" have come out against it (which would make sense, obviously, since it's really aimed at them). Dobson also refused to sign it, but he didn't offer a very straight answer as to whether or not he agrees or disagrees with the content of it, but rather claimed he wouldn't sign it because it didn't include enough African American signatures (I think signing it would be difficult for Dobson as he seems to want to straddle the line between more mainstream forms of Christianity and the harder right political action groups and organizations. I don't think he would like the prospect of having to take a side in a clear way).
Here's another story on some of the people who did and didn't sign it:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gIMD30g1mDuBXJyCdwZrew3j5RtQD90H2HCO2
< Message edited by henny -- 5/8/2008 6:39:05 PM >
_____________________________
Many Bothans died to bring you this information.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evangelical Manifesto - 5/8/2008 11:21:50 PM
|
|
|
saraha98
Posts: 67
Joined: 10/17/2006
Status: offline
|
Theologians and religious leaders who drafted the manifesto want to clarify the definition of the term "evangelical" and dispel the notion that evangelicalism is a political ideology. They argue that evangelicals need to reposition themselves in public life because the so-called "religious right" and "religious left" are "using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth."
Family Research Council president Perkins is co-author of the book Personal Faith, Public Policy. He says signers of the Manifesto may want good government and a godly environment, but they do not want to take the steps necessary to achieve those goals.
"Unfortunately, this takes on kind of a perspective of Christians who live in an ivory tower -- that they never are touched with the realities that we live in a world in which we have to come outside the walls of the church and influence society. It's kind of like [saying] 'I want to rid the world of evil; I just don't want to get involved in the issues,'" Perkins explains.
Drafters of the Manifesto, according to Perkins, made little effort to create Christian unity. "We each have our role to play in the kingdom, and I feel we should take the direction of [the Apostle] Paul," he suggests. "We shouldn't beat up on our own body and give ourselves a black eye. We ought to realize that we have different roles to play. And I encourage the theologians to continue to come up with ideas and speak to those issues, but they should be respectful to the other members of the body of Christ," Perkins contends.
The document calls on evangelicals to expand their concern "beyond single-issue politics, such as abortion and marriage" and denounces those who have "politicized faith" and, in effect, become "useful idiots" for one political party or another. It has been endorsed by a broad array of liberal and conservative religious leaders, but remains unsigned by many prominent evangelicals, Perkins among them This is from Tony Perkins, and was sighted on One News Now.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evangelical Manifesto - 5/9/2008 12:28:49 AM
|
|
|
tracydolls
Posts: 1164
Joined: 3/30/2008
From: Mpls, MN
Status: offline
|
I am not surprised that the harder right did'nt sign it. I certainly do not believe that it was because AA pastors that they did'nt sign it. They ain't never reached out before that I can tell. They should'nt sign, not after they helped to fleece the flock. They joined in in 2004. Still abortion and now gay marriage, all the mess we were promised. I seen a interview with a guy that worked in the White House, Faith Based Iniatives He wrote a book on how Rove and Co. did him. It was'nt good.
this Church has to "fall away". it looks like to me, we HAVE!
I hope it goes on with out them Perkins, Dobson and they should reach out to AA's, we all need help in this season.
_____________________________
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evangelical Manifesto - 5/9/2008 6:22:45 AM
|
|
|
saved9201
Posts: 438
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
Skimming through this document, I can’t help but be reminded of God’s “counseling” of the Church at Ephesus in Revelation 2:
[2] I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
[3] And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.
[4] Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
The “first love” of course is the love of Jesus and the love of each other, which go hand in hand. According to Spurgeon, “Adhesion to the truth sours into bigotry when the sweetness and light of love to Jesus depart.”
Politics has made a lot of Christians cold, suspicious, intolerant, and some downright nasty with those who don’t share their views. They don’t care how many enemies they create along the way, “they canst bear them which are evil” and trying to win those who oppose Christian values doesn’t seem to be on the list of priorities anymore. Former Education Secretary Dr. William J. Bennett wrote in his book, "The De-Valuing of America", :
"There is much validity to the concerns of many on the "religious right."............Sadly, on some occasions, some of their spokesmen present their views that are unnecessarily narrow and seemingly hostile to those outside the group. I emphasize the word "unnecessarily." Just as we speak differently to our families and to the public, conservative Christians need to appeal to the general moral conscience of most Americans. This does not mean compromising their principles, which the majority of Americans doubtless share. It means only to recognize that in public discourse one of the priorities is to persuade those who don't share your views, and not simply to speak to those with whom you have an affinity."
In other words, sometimes some of us get so narrow minded, we fail to understand that people who don’t share our views have the potential to change if we approach them in love. And if we've indeed lost our "first love" we need to get it back (see instructions on how to do this in Rev. 2) before we end up doing more damage than good, forever alienating those we should be trying to win.
On a side note, I applaud Dobson in his desire to have more people of color to sign the document. One of the problems of the religious right, is that they are widely considered, the “white” religious right. This is in spite of the fact that many predominantly black churches share the same views and have the same goals of the white churches. That’s another subject, though.
- Julius
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evangelical Manifesto - 5/9/2008 11:34:02 AM
|
|
|
CatholicCritter
Posts: 155
Joined: 6/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Evangel70
I've only read the summary so I'll get back to you on my opinion when I've read the entire manifesto, but I did particularly like this part....
The other error, made by both the religious left and the religious right, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth. That way faith loses its independence, Christians become the “useful idiots” for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology. Christian beliefs become the weapons of political factions.
Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, economic system, 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, or nationality. The politicization of faith is never a sign of strength but of weakness. (Emphasis mine)
Do you know who wrote/sponsored this manifesto? On the surface I don't see anything I wouldn't agree with.
it was spearheaded by a group of evangelicals from various backgrounds, though nearly all are liberal in nature politically and theologically. the thing that struck me was the names that were missing from it--gents like bauer, dobson, and nary a southern baptist to be found.
it seems kinda like a contradictory statement: we are making a political statement about faith, about not politicizing our faith. But I do see the point that evangelicals have made their political affiliation a component of their evangelical identities, which is taking the hierarchy of moral and ethical issues one step too far.
_____________________________
http://saintunderconstruction.blogspot.com/
"There are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church, yet there are millions who hate what they believe the Catholic Church to be." --Archbishop Fulton Sheen
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evangelical Manifesto - 5/9/2008 11:40:26 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6717
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
This latest Manifesto (as there have been many others) seems a bit like a mixed bag. Many press reports emphsize the call to be less political, but seem to ignore parts like this:
We repudiate on the other side the partisans of a naked public square, those who would make all religious expression inviolably private and keep the public square inviolably secular. Often advocated by a loose coalition of secularists, liberals, and supporters of the strict separation of church and state, this position is even less just and workable because it excludes the overwhelming majority of citizens who are still profoundly religious. Nothing is more illiberal than to invite people into the public square but insist that they be stripped of the faith that makes them who they are and shapes the way they see the world.
In contrast to these extremes, our commitment is to a civil public square — a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths too. Thus every right we assert for ourselves is at once a right we defend for others. A right for a Christian is a right for a Jew, and a right for a secularist, and a right for a Mormon, and right for a Muslim, and a right for a Scientologist, and right for all the believers in all the faiths across this wide land.
There is much to like in this statement, which would no doubt be rejected by many, including more liberal Christians.
What is interesting about the document is that, unlike many similar manifesto's, it spends almost no time talking about the core beliefs and goals we should share in common, and much time talking about how we should go about our business, whatever that business might be. I am not sure how I feel about that yet. It may be that in many words, it really says very little.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evangelical Manifesto - 5/9/2008 12:46:50 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1294
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
What is interesting about the document is that, unlike many similar manifesto's, it spends almost no time talking about the core beliefs and goals we should share in common, and much time talking about how we should go about our business, whatever that business might be. I am not sure how I feel about that yet. It may be that in many words, it really says very little.
It reminds me of the GNU-GPL. You have rights to change, use, and distribute this program all you want, but you can't deny anyone else those rights (you don't have the right to deny others those same rights). It seems like it's necessary to deny certain rights to ensure certain rights, one must deny others the right to take away your rights in order to ensure your rights but at the same time they must deny you the right to take away those rights from others. It's like a trade-off, you deny people rights that they shouldn't have (the right to arbitrarily take away rights from others) to ensure that everyone has rights that they should have.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 5/9/2008 12:55:33 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evangelical Manifesto - 5/9/2008 8:33:17 PM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 1282
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
Jhud
We repudiate on the other side the partisans of a naked public square, those who would make all religious expression inviolably private and keep the public square inviolably secular. Often advocated by a loose coalition of secularists, liberals, and supporters of the strict separation of church and state, this position is even less just and workable because it excludes the overwhelming majority of citizens who are still profoundly religious. Nothing is more illiberal than to invite people into the public square but insist that they be stripped of the faith that makes them who they are and shapes the way they see the world.
In contrast to these extremes, our commitment is to a civil public square — a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths too. Thus every right we assert for ourselves is at once a right we defend for others. A right for a Christian is a right for a Jew, and a right for a secularist, and a right for a Mormon, and right for a Muslim, and a right for a Scientologist, and right for all the believers in all the faiths across this wide land.
I'm pretty liberal, yet I really don't see anything I would disagree with here.
Although, at the same time, perhaps that's what they intended. I think their use of the term "public square" is vague enough that a liberal and a conservative could both look at it and basically agree with it "in general," given that no real specifics are given (which maybe gets to your point about it "saying very little").
In that sense, I think you are right that it's not much of a "manifesto." Politically speaking it really seems to be more of an "anti-manifesto." Although, I still think this is what the evangelical movement needs at this point (if it can be said that there even is a unified "evangelical movement" -which is debatable). Whether the association is accurate or not, when most people hear the word "evangelical" they automatically think of the Falwells and the AFA's of the world as well as a specific political agenda/wing of the country, an association I am willing to bet most evangelicals on this site don't like much. So even if it seems a bit apolitical on the surface, I actually think it's a calculated move to take back the name "evangelical" from these sorts by pushing them to the extreme fringes (and when the AFA denounces this, they are really just pounding the nails in their coffin by willingly placing themselves on the "fringe").
quote:
On a side note, I applaud Dobson in his desire to have more people of color to sign the document. One of the problems of the religious right, is that they are widely considered, the “white” religious right. This is in spite of the fact that many predominantly black churches share the same views and have the same goals of the white churches. That’s another subject, though.
I applaud his desire to be more inclusive of other races myself, but giving this as the sole reason for not signing seems like a cop out to me. I haven't seen him comment on the actual content of the manifesto yet, which leads me to believe his real reason for not signing is that he doesn't want to be forced to take sides. I think he recognizes that signing it in his case (i.e. as someone who has flirted with the more overtly political side of the evangelical "movement," yet also has attempted to maintain a more "mainstream" presence) would be a lose/lose situation. If he doesn't sign it he'll look like an extreme political right winger as oppossed to a Christian therapist, leader, minister (or whatever he calls himself), yet if he does sign it he'll alienate a lot of the more politically oriented evangelical organizations that have supported him in the past.
< Message edited by henny -- 5/9/2008 9:13:33 PM >
_____________________________
Many Bothans died to bring you this information.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evangelical Manifesto - 5/9/2008 9:53:56 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1294
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
I am not sure how I feel about that yet. It may be that in many words, it really says very little.
Like I implied, it sounds like a contract or a license. When it comes to contracts or licenses (and sometimes on these message boards) lawyers (and others) try to twist what is said (ie: the context) such that simple concepts that should only take a sentence to express end up taking a long paragraph. I often express concepts in way too many words than should be needed on these message boards to prevent my words from being misinterpreted (this is especially true in the S&O forums, where we had to invent our own acronym system in order to help resolve this problem and prevent misinterpretation). It seems like everything one says is turning into a long contract just to avoid misinterpretation.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 5/9/2008 10:03:34 PM >
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
