All Comments for: Evangelicals Lament a Politicized Faith | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > May (Web-only)

Christianity Today, May (Web-only), 2008 |

Evangelicals Lament a Politicized Faith

New document calls for allegiance higher than political party, nationality, or ideology.

Adelle M. Banks, Religion News Service | posted 5/09/2008 12:04PM

...

The document, "An Evangelical Manifesto," reflects the frustration of some within a movement that claims about one in four Americans over how they are perceived by others and who can speak for them. ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

leeza24

Posted: May 18, 2008 9:42 AM

Just More Politics In Another Disguise The leaders did the same thing every election time at TCOTW, Jack Hayford's church. He was usually careful, but many of the other pastors on staff there weren't. I was there when one of them actually publicly stated from the platform during a service that he didn't see how anyone could call themself a Christian and be a Democrat! People were upset and some even got up and left the service. Wednesday Night prayer meetings were more of a political campaign than a spiritual gathering. Prayers were invoked for certain politicians in the running but not for others. I was there the night we were all told to hold hands across the aisles to pray for all those in the running, but when we did the pastor asked God to let so-in-so win. That was the night I walked out. I was disgusted at being manipulated and lied to to make me pray for a certain candidate to win! It was pretty obvious the Powers in charge were Republican and felt we all should be too.

Billy Strain

Posted: May 17, 2008 12:19 PM

This Manefesto represents what many of us in the evangelical community had been hoping for... a statement that neither calls for disengagement nor for being an appendage of any political party. There are ways that one can take the values one learns in church and apply them in the public square for the common good (and not just for our own interest). For any who would dismiss this as a partisan document, they should take note of the signatories from across the evangelical spectrum. In addition to, say, Rev. Jim Wallis, the other signatories include David Gushee, Max Lucado, Dr. Erwin Lutzer, Mark Noll, and Israel L. Gaither, among others.

Frea	Posted: May 15, 2008 3:56 PM

An agenda, not a Manifesto. Trying to pretend it is what it isn't. Typical. Reminds me of the fiasco surrounding the much-hoopla'd Spirit Filled Life Bible and the back peddling spin accompanying the embarrassing disclosure of exactly WHO had been the theolgian assigned as its Old Testament editor. Turns out Dr. Judy Brown got 30 years in prison for Attempted Murder when caught for the botched bludgoening of her lesbian lover's husband.

sarah

Posted: May 14, 2008 1:11 PM


This manifesto is long overdue.

Mike	Posted: May 13, 2008 7:09 AM


Did Jeremiah Wright sign it?

Jonathan Hunnicutt

Posted: May 12, 2008 6:18 PM

After reading comments here and in "Jeremiah Wright, Evangelical's brother in Christ," I am beginning to see a much larger pattern in evangelicalism. Most evangelicals don't want to listen to anyone with an opinion even slightly different from our own. And then we have the audacity to wonder why evangelism is so hard. How can we expect others to listen to us, if we refuse to listen to them? Comments like "I didn't read the document but..." or attacking Rich Mouw (and saying nothing about the document itself) provide excellent example of this lack of listening. I guess many evangelicals know more than the Apostle Paul who only "knew in part; but then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." (1 Cor 13:12). Similar things are happening in the Jeremiah Wright situation, as if an entire man's life can be summed up in 3 sound bites. Ironically, we treat the Bible the same way; we refuse to listen to the parts we don't like. Perhaps God still wants to deeply challenge ALL of us?

Valkyrie

Posted: May 12, 2008 1:45 PM

A more correct headline would be, "Some Liberal Evangelicals-in-Name-Only Lament a Politicized Faith". Richard Mouw has been at the cutting edge of liberalism at Fuller Theological Seminary for years now. He's the one who openly apologized to the Mormons at the Evening of Friendship in Salt Lake City in 2004 for the "wrongs" evangelicals have done to the Mormons. He further suggested that Evangelicals should celebrate the birthday of the "truth seeker", Joseph Smith. He has zero credibility. What they really mind is the CONSERVATIVE representation of those biblical evangelicals who uphold human life and the sanctity of biblical marriage as of primary importance. Yes, many of us do believe that saving babies and saving the family is MORE important than saving whales or joining the leftist green movement to "Save the Plent". And we're not going away, Mr. Mouw. Not now, not ever.

Karen

Posted: May 12, 2008 1:20 PM

I think many Christians conservatives, and we can all rattle off their names, originally got involved in politics because of their concern over social issues, but I also think that they were seduced by the power involved. Ultimately, I think linking Christianity with politics has hurt the church's credibility. If Christians want to positively affect society, then preach the gospel. Spreading the gospel will ultimately affect the abortion rates and other social problems.

Janice

Posted: May 12, 2008 11:28 AM


It's about time evangelicals stopped trying to hijack the Republican party. I'm sick to death of a bunch of mullah-like religious opportunists telling me what to do and what to think, as if their brand of Christianity was normative.

Fred	Posted: May 12, 2008 9:15 AM

(continuing previous thought...) Creeds, Confessions, and rigorous theology have answered this question over the past two millennia, as the Visible Church in its various manifestations has sought to obey the frequent and clear injunctions of Scripture to manifest unity, to "speak the same words, and think the same thoughts" and to "separate from false teachers." Although Evangelicals have a high view of the Authority of Scripture, this is only the first criteria of effective unity under God's Word. Evangelicals have heretofore failed to take the next step, to define their beliefs regarding what Scripture teaches in Creedal or Confessional statements, to develop strong defensible theology, and then to diligently exercise Church discipline consistent with, and in maintenance of, what they say they believe. Instead, they unify in the public sqaure on political issues (issues of fleeting importance in the scale of time) rather than on life giving and sustaing truths of eternal consequence.

Fred	Posted: May 12, 2008 9:01 AM

The simple fact is, something must be done about the state of modern Evangelicalism -- an ill-defined movement with no real unity, despite its near indiscriminate Ecumenism. Politics has replaced theology as the movement's chief unifying element, and now that Evangelicalism has little to no respected voice in politics, it is a movement in rapid decline. Foundational to the movement's troubles, most Evangelicals insist that it is sufficient to simply say "I believe what the Bible says" and leave everyone to their own opinions regarding what it actually means. Yet, such a statement utterly fails to answer the very next question, "What do you say the Bible says?" Creeds, Confessions, and rigorous theology have answered this question over the past two millennia, as the Visible Church in its various manifestations has sought to obey the frequent and clear injunctions of Scripture to manifest unity, to "speak the same words, and think the same thoughts" and to "separate from false teachers."

Arlen Williams

Posted: May 12, 2008 5:41 AM

Looks like whining by political leftusts and "moderates" in the church. Probably, largely by people who are weak on the Right to Life and standing for Marriage vs. the abomination against God that is homosexuality. Throw in a few "social gospel" types and the mix is made. Don't be fooled. Evangelical Christians who understand that in America "We the People" are Caesar and have political responsibilities as such have *not* abandoned our priorities as witnesses and ministers and priests of the Good News.

H. D. Schmidt

Posted: May 11, 2008 3:34 PM

An absolutely right on message, most certainly long overdue! But, like the old saying goes: "Better late than never". Yes especially so as in addition, this nation under God, in reality in full violation evermore, of all the hopes and dreams, that of the Founding Fathers with a Commander and Chief presently who claims Jesus as his hero and also says that he prays daily and reads Scripture also daily, with his finger on the trigger threatening every other nation to bow low or else. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what America is all about, after reading a quote like this one:"Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican liberty". By George Washington. If someone feels that I am politicizing for making the above comments, let me hear from that individual. Defending from the pulpits, the principles upon which this nation was founded, should that not be ok?

bill	Posted: May 10, 2008 2:38 PM

Trying to wade through all the chaos, and feeling sympathy for a people/society looking for direction, I also felt some embarrassment about the self-made "leaders" of "evangelicalism." I was an "evangelical" minister for over 35 years. Obviously, I hope, Christianity was not a hobby with me. I started out to be a missionary to India. My- educated, well thought through conclusion- is that "evangelicalism" is, yes, something of a joke in our world; i.e., the real world. I read statements (in the article) like "authority of the Bible". I've lived long enough to know theology by "cliche". Just give the password at the door."Coalitions"? Then "sinful preferences". How do I know your "use" of the Bible is not a "sinful" preference? Ask the "leaders"? What leaders? Who made them leaders? Where in "my" Bible does it tell me to follow THEM? "Evangelicalism" is anarchy compounded by confusion. And the Criteria: Best performers? Biggest crowds? Most books? forestphilosopher.blogspot.com

Barry

Posted: May 10, 2008 1:15 PM

Unfortunately, the mixing of religion with politics has brought Evangelicals a ton of criticism. We have entered an era where a candidate's faith is used as a litmus test when running for office. Even worse, conservative politicians get by with little or no scrutiny of their religious ties, while progressives endure persecution of the worst kind. John McCain has avoided scrutiny of his ties to John Hagee while Barack Obama has a big bullseye on his back because Dr. Jeremiah Wright was his pastor. Furthermore, the corporate media in this country divert our attention from the crucial issues facing Americans such as the worsening economy and the war in Iraq.

Marilyn

Posted: May 10, 2008 1:12 PM

I confess to not reading the entire document---the parts that didn't make me mad were beyond boring. This is a rather pathetic attempt on the part of 'evangelical academia' to silence the voices of those they find embarrassing, and to make themselves more attractive to their left-wing cronies. What's really embarrassing is how badly they underestimated the intelligence of mainstream conservatives. Did they really think we'd fall for it? Amazing. When I began to realize the motivation behind this manifesto, Romans 1:21 popped into my head; "when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, but became vain in their reasoning, and their foolish heart was darkened." When will we stop paying heed to those that have the loudest voices and start listening to the still small one?

tmn!!!

Posted: May 10, 2008 9:11 AM

I've just finished reading the manifesto (20 pp. if you include the title page) and would advise other to do so...you'll discover as I did that almost all the talk about "politicizing" or "depoliticizing" of Evangelicalism happens on p. 15. What gives? This report and the links attached read as if this were the whole ball of wax. And even though it is clear on certain points (denouncing prosperity gospels, defending the unborn, etc) on the political issue the manifesto denounces "politicizing" (and they never define what they mean by that!) on BOTH the right and left. How kind...but we all know what they're talking about. This Christianity Today article latches onto the issue of "values voters" (God Bless em!), a term not even mentioned in manifesto, and bemoans the fact that evangelicals are equated with this idea in the media. How are Christian Democrats going to help their party regain its moral compass when leaders are insist on giving them a "whimper past the issues" card.

tmn!!!

Posted: May 09, 2008 9:53 PM

I do not like 'statements' like this, no not one bit!!! Let's face it...the democratic party (and, oh my!, news flash!, isn't that what this is all about????) once held the hearts of Christians nationwide. Something went VERY wrong. We ought to be VERY angry. The report on this 'statement' seems nothing more than a plea for Christians to be "politically active" only on issues to which their opponents give consent (lest we should offend and besmirch ourselves *sniffle*) and to be militantly faith neutral on anything else. Disgusting! And the fact that those who signed this statement characterized their fellow-Christians who feel differently as "puppets?" Shamelessly self-righteous! Your opponents ought to write a statement called "Against Self-Righteous Over-Sentimental Bigots Masquerading as Defenders of The Soft Sweet Christ." There's a real issue facing historically Democratic Christians...face it honestly!

angie

Posted: May 09, 2008 9:09 PM


Everybody's got an opinion. I can be a conservative, a christian, a republican and pro choice but I am no puppet. I can think for myself. If it has Wallis name attached, it is bad news.

Scott

Posted: May 09, 2008 6:47 PM


Timely, relevant and necessary.

TJ	Posted: May 09, 2008 6:35 PM

David, I think the concern is about what exactly about our image is "unpalatable" to outsiders. Is it the cross, about which nothing can or should be done, or is it that we are perceived as grasping for power and influence, and using faith to cloak our desire to be in control. If it is the second one, then I think we have a legitimate image problem. That is a distinction that is well worth making.

Anonymous

Posted: May 09, 2008 5:28 PM

After tiring of the cultural warring myself, and seeing the negative effects of the combative evangelical voice on my young adult children who were exposed to it through their formative years and now reject the "evangelical" label handily, I think this document is a timely step in the right direction. The public voice of some Christians in this country has become unbalanced and judgmental. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is bringing a corrective movement now. I am not surprised that Dobson did not sign this document, though.

David

Posted: May 09, 2008 4:34 PM

I strongly agree that we can be active in the political marketplace without politicizing our faith or message! But what's with this over-concern about image? Christ didn't seem to care about his image and neither should it become a stumbling block to us. Some have already sanitized/sterilized the Gospel to make it more "palatable" to the unchurched. The Gospel is still an offense and we are its messengers...

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment