“Evangelical Manifesto” calls for reform
Eighty evangelical leaders are signing an “Evangelical Manifesto” that rebukes both liberal and conservative evangelicals for diminishing the Gospel to fight the culture wars, becoming “‘useful idiots’ for one political party or another.” It encourages political engagement, but it says evangelicals have sometimes spoken “truth without love” and it calls on evangelicals to “reform our own behavior.”
The document is embargoed until Wednesday, so most of the discussion centers on who is involved in writing and signing the manifesto.
Warner Todd Huston calls the manifesto “another attempt by the political left to undermine the devotion of Christians to the political right,” and asks why the project “studiously excluded so many prominent conservative Christians.”
Warren Cole Smith says the document has both virtues and flaws, but he also questions the list of people who either haven’t signed or say they weren’t included in the process: Gary Bauer, Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, Focus on the Family’s James Dobson, Southern Baptist Convention’s Richard Land, Michael Farris, and Concerned Women for America’s Wendy Wright.
But FundamentaList’s Sarah Posner points out that it’s unlikely that some of the most dedicated culture warriors would want to sign a document clearly criticizing some of their tactics: “The list of names Smith claims were excluded represents the generals who issue the orders to the foot soldiers in the religious right’s politicized culture war.”
The list of participants isn’t easily boxed, either. Rick Warren is a Southern Baptist pastor who is hard to categorize politically. For instance, some religious right leaders criticized him for inviting Barack Obama to speak at his church’s annual AIDS conference, but Democrats criticized him for inviting four Republicans and only one Democrat to speak at the same conference.
Several others – at least the few whose names are public — aren’t primarily political figures. Os Guinness is an academic and author. So are Richard Mouw, the president of Fuller Theological Seminary, and Timothy George, founding dean of Beeson Divinity School.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top101 Comments to ““Evangelical Manifesto” calls for reform”
Sarah Posner is correct. Expecting those folks to sign would be like having Josh Ravi Zacharius and Josh McDowell sign a paper speaking out against apologetics.
Report comment to moderator
From what I see of the summary of what the item says, it sounds as if it correct (at least to some degree). We’ll have to see its contents to see whether it swerves off the path at one or more points (or tries to paint everyone as equally bad, which would be incorrect).
Report comment to moderator
I saw this story mentioned on Rense.com the other night, which is a great source for stories that don’t get much coverage elsewhere. It’s got some kooky stuff on it, too, but I do catch a lot from Rense that I would otherwise miss. I’m glad WoW is covering this important story.
Report comment to moderator
Dallas Willard, Tony Jones, Rick Warren and Brian McLaren are VERY INVOLVED, —- ALL part of the ‘Emerging Church’ –
The Emerging Church movement has been working a long time to change the entire church, so now they have an “Evangelical Manifesto” – Most strong Believers will not go along with it.
Report comment to moderator
If the recent quotes of liberal or Democratic politicians is any example, I’d say that most of the folks that are taking over Christianity are woefully ignorant and uneducated about Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
My sunday school teacher was telling us about his efforts to incorporate CS Lewis work into his English classes by using Mere Christianity as a text book, so they’d know what good writing was. He figured it would be good for freshmen because Lewis wrote this book for the uneducated worker in England.
He had to drop the book because most of his students really struggled through the book.
I was flabbergasted and dismayed at the state of our young people’s mental capacity.
Report comment to moderator
I feel I am ignorant and undereducated about the Bible, but I didn’t struggle to comprehend Lewis argument when I was a freshman in college.
Report comment to moderator
I am for local food supply, local government and local religion
Report comment to moderator
Noting that we won’t see the content for another 36 hours or so, I must say it seems premature to get all heated up about the document. We can’t very well test against scripture until we see the document, now, can we?
The danger I see with the too-tight link of the religious right, is the manner in which it undercuts the capacity to witness. If you start out demonizing 40 percent of the population, say, how then can you speak to them of the Good News and expect to be heard?
Much as I love and work in politics, I love my God even more.
Report comment to moderator
Since I am a Biblicist and my church is more of a Reformed Baptist, such documents mean little or nothing to me.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting – an “Evangelical Manifesto” sounds either Roman Catholic (in the fourth century) or Marxist or fundamentalist at the turn of the 20th century (i.e., “The Fundamentals”); I can’t quite figure out which. I’m sure it will continue to inspire strife and division within Christianity in the same manner as previous credal statements, though perhaps not as much as the “religious right” has routinely fomented in the last few decades of its gospel according to the GOP!
Good luck with all that!
Report comment to moderator
Joe B. – nice to see a fellow Reformed Baptist on here!
Report comment to moderator
Where did the “useful idiots” quote come from? If someone who claims to be a Christian calls another an idiot, I simply don’t take them seriously. But in our culture, a lot of people will, I’m sure.
Report comment to moderator
Harris. Silly, silly Harris.
We don’t need no
badgescontent! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’badgescontent!We just need to speculate and project based on the source. Get with the program {:~)
Report comment to moderator
READ BETWEEN the LINES – Carefully read the first paragraph –
Report comment to moderator
Victoria — is this the right manifesto?
Report comment to moderator
#15 Victoria, what do you see between the lines? What in this document will prompt a “shields up” for politically conservative evangelicals?
Report comment to moderator
Ah – I see your web source has some key issues:
“Our job is research. It has brought to the surface that some “Christians” in high position condone: rock music, proven to be of satanic origin, homosexuality, abortion, divorce, communication with spirits, consulterers of spirits, necromancy, lying tongues, transexuality, thoughts and ways to oppress the poor, a heart with wicked imaginations, feet that be swift running mischief, bearing false witness, prostitution, conscious intentional falsehoods, following other gods, astrology, and not to forget, “that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God” (Luke 16:15).”
So they worry this manifesto will distract Christians from fighting “rock music”???? Interesting that “Cephasministry” puts “rock music” above “homosexuality” in the pantheon of current evils condoned by evangelicals in “high positions.” Maybe if the manifesto could somehow add a condemnation of rock music, all would be well!
Report comment to moderator
This somewhat relates to the studies I’ve been doing of America’s Founding era and biblical texts. I’ve run across the work of one John MacArthur, who is not only the antithesis of a theological liberal (he’s a hard core Calvinist), but absolutely slams the religious left (promoters of the “social gospel”) for attempting to use the Bible to promote left wing social policies.
He has a particular interpretation of Romans 13 which makes his mission absolutely immune from political prostitution. If evangelicals signed something like this, you know it wouldn’t be any kind of left-wing social gospel in sheep’s clothing.
The only problem is MacArthur’s interpretation of Romans 13 is one over which reasonable biblical literalists can disagree and is so detached from the cause of temporal injustice — and he makes a good case that so too were Jesus and his disciples — that it leads to results that go beyond the pale of political respectability. On a personal note, I find his position, though refreshingly detached from politics, a little too detached from worldly matters. Many will reject it for this reason.
Though, his view on civil government (which is almost identical to Calvin’s) has a longstanding history in orthodox hermeneutics and is entirely defensible from the plain, literal meaning of the Bible’s text.
If you want to read the original, click on my blog and scroll down, I’ll reproduce some highlights.
The problems in Jesus’ day were far more severe than ours. Today people living on relief have cars, TV’s, and modern conveniences. We have to look at the issue differently when we determine how a Christian should respond to his government. Throughout all the generations of the church, Christians have had to struggle with this issue. But we have to come to some conclusion about what we are called to do and be in this society. What is our priority? What right does the government have over us? What is our proper response to that right?
Admittedly we live in a tension. Personally, I’m not that concerned about political, economic, social, and civil issues. I do have a reasonable concern about those things, but they don’t occupy my mind. The souls of lost men and women occupy my mind. Do they occupy yours? I’m not as concerned that people be happy, wealthy, and healthy as I am that they be saved. I only have so much energy and the church only has so much power and resource. So I struggle with the millions of dollars that come out of evangelical hands for the purpose of politics. We need to be concerned about the souls of the lost.
What is our responsibility to government? How do we respond to the tension of being preoccupied with the Kingdom of God yet desiring to be a good citizen in this world? First, the answer is not found in politics. God has called us to do two things. The first is in Romans 13:1: “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers.” The second is in Romans 13:6: “For this cause pay ye tribute.” The Apostle Paul says two things are required of you as a Christian: submit to the government and pay your taxes.
[...]
In Romans 13:1 Paul established this basic principle: Whatever the form and whoever the ruler, civil government should be obeyed and submitted to by Christians. The Christian has a duty to his nation, even if the ruler is a Nero or a Hitler.
Report comment to moderator
8-
add:
local discipleship
local friendship
local charity
local acts of faith
local good works
Report comment to moderator
8/20 – Feel any guilt about writing on the “world-wide” net?
Report comment to moderator
The quote below taken from article on TOPIC THREAD above:
CNN POLITICS
AP Fri May 2, 20
‘An Evangelical Manifesto’ criticizes politics of faith
Richard Mouw was also one of the signers in the letter below
Richard Mouw, President, Fuller Theological Seminary
Brian D. McLaren, Author, Speaker, Activist – Emergent Church
Tony Jones, National Coordinator, Emergent Village- which is part of the “Emergent Church” movement
Jim Wallis, President, Sojourners
Rick Warren, Founder and Senior Pastor, Saddleback Church
Robert Schuller, Founder, Crystal Cathedral and Hour of Power
There are many other signers of the letter below, you will find them listed at the bottom of letter-
Khaleej Times Online
Christian leaders ask for Muslim forgiveness
(Wam)
26 November 2007
“ABU DHABI-Peaceful relations between Muslims and Christians stand as one of the central challenges of this century, according to leading Christian leaders.”
Part of letter below which is in the article:
Report comment to moderator
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
quick
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
2 Timothy 4
Report comment to moderator
I think that the document is probably better for lacking the signatures of Dobson, Land, Bauer, Perkins, etc. These folks have made their names by equating the person and work of Christ with the political agenda of the far right. Signing the document would be nothing less than a repudiation of the para-church evangelico-political machine that they’ve spent 20 years building.
Besides, these guys won’t change as long as they have Victoria and millions like her to accede to their claims of culture-warrior celebrity. Get out the Armani sunglasses, Jimmy, Richie, and Tony are strutting down the red carpet!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
That’s all well and good; but what does that have to do with fighting a culture war and forming an alliance with the politically conservative Republicans.
The verses that I see you citing have everything to do with converting folks to Christ (something that even the most liberal of Democrats and the ACLU have neither the power nor the desire to prevent you from doing so) and nothing to do with politics or using the civil law to enshrine your morality.
Report comment to moderator
Jon
You ‘don’t get’ it and I understand, carry on!
Report comment to moderator
And Os Guinness has never repudiated the porter purveying predilections of his predecessors. Egads! What can possibly come of his signature beyond froth and a hangover!
The genetic fallacy rings hollow as it always does, repetitive wink-wink-nudge-nudges notwithstanding.
Report comment to moderator
_______ George,
You do flatter yourself, as if you honestly know what you’re talking about.
“Hangover” ? Carry on SR –
Report comment to moderator
Oh sorry George, that should have read SG, I was thinking of an “R” but then you might not get that either.
so here’s the SG.
Report comment to moderator
Carry on? I think I will, with a nice nightcap glass of Os’s great-great-great-grandfather’s stout. And you, Victoria, please continue with the drive-by calumny shtick. It’s your best bet when substance fails. Unless, of course, you have something to address about the substance of the “Evangelical Manifesto.” But then again, We don’t need no
badgescontent, do we?Report comment to moderator
Serious George — I have to admit that I was fascinated to find out Os Guinness is one of the Guinnesses. Obviously another shady connection that has to cast doubt on everything he believes in. And since most public debate nowadays seems to center on people’s personal connections, highly relevant to the discussion at hand.
I wish I had a nice nightcap glass of Os’ ancestor’s stout.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – Have you had a chance to read Marvin Olasky’s article, “The Battle of Ideas in America” (in World), about this Evangelical Manifesto?
Olasky seems to think it is a good thing, has good points to make. From reading the excerpts he provides, I couldn’t see anything objectionable.
I know you are definitely not fond of the Emerging Church movement, but maybe it’s possible that some of the people associated with it can still be “real” Christians, & have some good things to offer, at least occasionally?
Report comment to moderator
Alisa
Alisa, ….. Os’s connection to the Guinness fortune has nothing to do with anything ’shady’- Everyone who knows him, and I have met he and his wife Jenny on at least three occasions, know about the Guinness background, think nothing of it. What does Guinness beer have to do with Os’s reputation, or connections?
I’m surprised Alisa that you would use the word ’shady’ in describing Os Guinness. It’s not a joke, nor is it fair.
Report comment to moderator
Sigh.
Victoria. It is a joke. I understand sarcasm is difficult to pull off in writing, but your ear for it is particularly tinny.
Dr. Guinness’ family business has as much to do with the relative value of the “Manifesto” as the associations and backgrounds of any number of those involved. That is to say, NONE. So quit it with the impugning by association bit.
That is all.
SG
Report comment to moderator
Yes, ‘jokes’ and ’sarcasm’ —- one can always fall back on those two EXCUSES so that almost ANYTHING can be siad.
Have a nice day
Report comment to moderator
No worry. Most folks can read.
Some day you might get it, V.
Until then,
SG.
Report comment to moderator
Sigh.
Yes. It was a joke.
Report comment to moderator
The ones who read what you wrote Alisa didn’t think so. However, its very easy to call something a joke when it doesn’t work.
Most journalists wouldn’t think of injecting a word like ’shady’ into their personal observations. Your attempt at humor fell FLAT-
Many people read this blog, but never comment, but they do share their thoughts about what is written with others. Something to think about.
Report comment to moderator
FWIW, I recognized both Wiglaf’s and Alisa’s comments as sarcasm/jokes before they came out and said so.
Report comment to moderator
Alisa,
I know you are a ‘budding’ young journalist, I hope that you continue to write stories and articles which will interest not only those of us here on the blog, but World Magazine as well.
I don’t always agree with you, as you know
but
I don’t want us to be enemies, so I extend my hand of friendship to you.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Victoria.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
JOE B . . . I am a Biblicist . . .
Isn’t that an affirmation of idolatry? The manifesto is likely to have some things to say about this, whether or not Joe’s interested.
The most acute and disruptive criticisms of religion always come from within religion. Whatever the content of this manifesto, it’s a matter of time until evangelicals themselves put their hands to the good works of the secular humanists, relativists, and civil libertarians, etc.
Report comment to moderator
Alisa – I got it, too. You were making the point that often people are judged by their associations (real or alleged). And you don’t view his family business as shady, but know that some could.
There are some who take things very literally, so one must be careful in choice of words or phrases. (And even then, one can “get in trouble”.
)
Report comment to moderator
42-9-3-0
42 million abortion deaths worldwide each year (not counting the morning-after pill), 9 for starvation, 3 for AIDS, 0 for global warming. The evangelical church continues to leave the abortion problem behind as the church becomes weaker in order to raise more money from the uncoverted.
Many churches have more uncoverted people than converted, as churches decline in growth throughout the United States. Most mega churches are not preaching the truth and are full of professing Christians who are not saved. Many people are hungry for the truth but are discouraged because many churches are run by ‘political machines’ interested in the bottom line instead of Biblical truth.
We got into this position because men have quit preaching the truth and have relied on the social sciences instead (psychology, sociology, economics, geography, history, political science, etc). God can use social sciences but not when they take the place of the Bible. There is forgiveness only in Jesus Christ, not our humanitarian efforts.
Many humanitarian organizations have quit telling people that Jesus Christ is the only answer. Seventeen percent of the staff from one top humanitarian organization are from false religions. They give aid to people but are not telling victims the truth. By doing this, victims live on earth longer only to die without Jesus Christ. Then that person spends eternity in hell.
Evangelicals need to get back to the truth. We need to be involved in humanitarian efforts but never stop telling people the truth. If we cannot share the truth openly, we should then find another humanitarian effort where we can.
“Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6). Love and truth go hand-in-hand. Sometimes the modern church wants love but not the truth that goes with it.
Steve McConkey, http://www.4WCA.org
Report comment to moderator
Below is the link to the “Evangelical Manifesto” which was presented yesterday.
Report comment to moderator
#46 – Well that was interesting! Thanks Victoria.
Noticeable by its absence was the relationship between evangelical belief and modern science. I should have like to have heard this clarified, but I expect it would be too hard to achieve consensus.
Report comment to moderator
I find this dichotomy to be nonsensical:
Fourth, as stressed above, Evangelicalism must be defined theologically and not politically; confessionally and not culturally.
The theology of a large group will necessarily be political, and the confessions – words, deeds, songs, prayers, etc., – of evangelicals are patently cultural!
By denying this, evangelicals try to both eat and keep the cake – i.e., to pretend they are otherworldly and above it all when it comes to participation in society when, in fact, they are radically social and politically active.
Report comment to moderator
#47 – I seem to have read right over this:
In particular, some among us have betrayed the strong Christian tradition of a high view of science, epitomized in the very matrix of ideas that gave birth to modern science, and made themselves vulnerable to caricatures of the false hostility between science and faith. By doing so, we have unwittingly given comfort to the unbridled scientism and naturalism that are so rampant in our culture today.
What do y’all think that means? How would you go about “reforming” this “behaviour?”
Report comment to moderator
So now it’s out. Personally, I have no substantial reason to disagree with it, and much to commend, whether or not I fall in line with every detail of the perspective of each of its signatories. The relative diversity of those involved should be encouraging, and doesn’t warrant the superfical “consider-the-source” criticisms aimed at this statement by those who seem prone to that kind of stuff even before they know what’s contained.
Of particular note is the notion that the term “evangelical” should not be abandoned to the shallow invective of those who at root are opponents of Christ. Nor can “evangelical” be characterized by the worst behavior of those willing to carry the name.
Sign me on,
SG
Report comment to moderator
Serious George at #34: Victoria. It is a joke. I understand sarcasm is difficult to pull off in writing, but your ear for it is particularly tinny.
Victoria has proven over and over again that she is incapable of understanding anything except in literal terms. Scripture, humor, paraphrase, whatever, any non-literal meaning is completely lost on her.
What’s especially funny to me is when everyone tells her she misunderstood a joke and her reaction is to disbelieve it and accuse the others of trying to claim it was joke after the fact.
I am sure that if she’s at a party and someone begins a joke by saying “A priest, a rabbi and a duck are in a bar,” she breaks in to say “Ducks don’t go to bars!” … and then, “Oh sure, NOW you say it was a joke. I don’t think so, Mr. Man!”
Report comment to moderator
Steve G,
Do you expect us to believe that anyone who isn’t Jewish or Catholic flies south for the winter just because you say so?
I know several waterfowl personally, and had dinner with various important drakes and hens three times last month. None of them are drunks and all of them are perfectly happy living in the northeast year-round.
If you knew anything about ducks, you wouldn’t say such things {:~)
Report comment to moderator
The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc.
Some Evangelicals Say Faith Too Political
By Paul Strand
CBN News
May 7, 2008
CBNNews.com – Some evangelicals are saying they want to repair the damage done by evangelical activists who’ve made the faith too political.
At a news conference in Washington, D.C., Wednesday, they released a document they titled An Evangelical Manifesto. Some on the religious right suspect it may be an effort to push them out of the spotlight.
But those behind the manifesto, from scholar Os Guinness to Christianity Today editor David Neff, said what’s more important is recapturing the term evangelical to serve a higher calling: that of religious faith.
They want evangelicals to once again concentrate on Jesus Christ, His Word, and the good news of salvation. Fuller Theological Seminary president Richard Mouw summed it up this way: “The most important issue that any human being can encounter in the universe is the question of ‘what will you do with Jesus?’”
The group of Christian leaders worked for three years to produce the manifesto.
In it, they worry some evangelicals so politicize their faith, they become “useful idiots” for one political party or another.
Pastor John Huffman, the chair of Christianity Today International, says the group is concerned many in the public perceive evangelicals as “a group of strident, religious political zealots determined to take over society with the institution of their religious political philosophy in a theocratic grab for power.”
Os Guinness, co-author of the manifesto, warned, “When scholars and writers can look at the evangelical political movement and describe them as ‘theocrats’ or worse as ‘fascists,’ something is badly wrong.”
Conservative critics of the manifesto say what its backers really want to do is toss the religious right overboard. And important religious right members are conspicuously absent from the list of those backing the manifesto. For instance, neither James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention or CBN founder Pat Robertson signed on to the manifesto.
Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America told CBN News the authors of the manifesto were definitely trying to distance themselves from the religious right. “Basically, they were saying ‘those of you who care about abortion, who care about homosexuality, who care about the family disintegrating don’t speak for us, because we are too intellectual, we are too sophisticated to be concerned about those kinds of things.”
Crouse warns their fear of appearing too strident may leave manifesto-backers in the mushy middle — inoffensive, but also ineffective. She complained to the manifesto-authors, “You know, you want to work with everybody, but you don’t want to work with those of us who care very deeply about some of the issues that are clearly biblical and some of the commandments that Christ clearly gives.”
Crouse critiques the manifesto in-depth on Concerned Women for America’s website.
But in the manifesto, its authors say this isn’t just about the religious right. They also want to get both sides in the culture wars to simmer down. They say they repudiate those who want “to give one religion a preferred place in public life.” But they also oppose those who want to wash all religion out of the public square, saying “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.”
NOTE: If you go to the link above there is a short 1 minute video you won’t want to miss.
Report comment to moderator
Crouse paraphrase: “You know, you want to work with everybody, but you don’t want to work with those of us who don’t want to work with anybody.”
Report comment to moderator
Spin, that’s not close to what Crouse said, your rendition wasn’t clever.
Strong Believers aren’t going to back down when it comes to abortion and homosexuality. Those who disagree have every right to stand their ground, AND, Believers are going to stand theirs as well.
The Evangelical Manifesto is nothing more than a group of people who want to DIRECT strong Believers as to how they will conduct their lives regarding politics. It is not only, presumptuous to believe themselves to ‘know best’ but it also sends a message of ‘lock step’ and that’s why many of the strong Evangelical pastor’s and leaders were not even shown a copy of the Evangelical Manifesto, because this ‘little group’ knew that they would stand upon Scripture, not the voices of a few people, most of whom signed a letter, sent to the Muslims asking for forgiveness.
You can count Mouw, President of Fuller in the group as well. He went to Salt lake and apologized to the Mormon’s, not only that he thought it a good idea for ‘Evangelicals’ to take part in Joseph Smith’s 200th Birthday celebration. This was back in November 2004.
Evangelicals taking part in any event to celebrate the Birthday of a ‘cult’ founder? That’s a STRANGE request coming from a Seminary President.
Go to link below, post #6
Report comment to moderator
“Evangelicals taking part in any event to celebrate the Birthday of a ‘cult’ founder? That’s a STRANGE request coming from a Seminary President.”
You mean like Christmas?
Report comment to moderator
p.s. Where’s my “bong?”
Report comment to moderator
Victoria’s been bogarting it ever since Lynn had to take a break.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – “Bogarting”? Where does that come from? Anything to do with Humphrey Bogart?
Report comment to moderator
Not a thing, Karen. But a lot to do with Victoria’s “bong.”
Report comment to moderator
Strong Believers aren’t going to back down when it comes to abortion and homosexuality.
I don’t expect strong believers to change their theological positions on the sinfulness of abortion and homosexuality. It’s absolutely not the case that such believers must therefore buy into the religious rights policy prescriptions; or if they don’t there is something wrong with them.
There are devout fundamentalist Christians who wisely oppose the FMA or federal solutions to abortion. (Many of them support Ron Paul).
Likewise Jesus was brought into a pagan society and government and he (and Paul) told believers to submit to such government and pay taxes to it. Jesus and his followers were far more concerned with saving souls and hardly concerned AT ALL about social issues. Therefore the religious right AND religious left abuse the Bible/Christian religion in pursuit of social/political agendas.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – Okay, so what does it mean, in regards to this infamous bong?
Report comment to moderator
I think it means on an earlier thread she was making a lot of bong (a device used to smoke marijuana) which is uncharacteristic of her uptight “Church Lady” persona. I would expect Victoria to react like Mrs. Garrett to the presence of an actual bong.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XwjSJ3__jVY
Report comment to moderator
I meant a lot of “bong jokes.”
Report comment to moderator
RE #61. Since we live in a democratic society, we are the government. So, it’s not strange or bad that Christians should want to help society live in a way that is pleasing to God. Of course we should be more concerned about people’s souls, but it doesn’t mean we can’t do the former. As for the “religious right,” isn’t much of the concept of it, and what people view it as, a media construct? When I here what seem to be extreme views or rantings coming from the Christian Right or left, I don’t like it. But there’s nothing wrong with trying to influence our culture and laws for the better; slavery was abolished in the west because of Christians. If you believe abortion is murder, then how can this be viewed as a politcal agenda? Since we live in a democracy, anyone can participate to influence society in ways that they think will improve it, Hindus, Christians, atheists . . .
Report comment to moderator
Karen: A bong, as Jon Rowe says, is a marijuana water pipe, often homemade but not always … I do not think Victoria ever realized this double-meaning when she was making all her comments about wielding her “bong,” (though maybe she did) but I was chuckling.
To “bogart” is to refuse to share, usually meaning marijuana but more generally, anything that people might want to share with you.
And in fact it may actually refer to Humphrey Bogrart … I seem to recall hearing it came from the cigarette that was always in his mouth, even when not lit.
Report comment to moderator
I think you have a good point. It’s about priorities. A minister only a finite number $$s. What to do with them. Use them to evangelize, not for politics.
I think the message of the Bible would be that Christians can participate in politics and have a concern with who gets elected, what the laws are. But keep in mind these are TEMPORAL issues, and the SPIRITUAL always comes first.
I’ve heard some Christians argue that as Christians they can’t distinguish between the two, which totally goes against Jesus’ message of Render Unto Ceaser (a pagan government) and Paul’s in Romans 13 (again instructing believers to submit to a pagan government). Or even worse, Paul’s message for slaves to submit to and obey their earthly masters.
This evidences utter unconcern with temporal, worldly issues. As long as a slave was “free in Christ,” that’s all that mattered, not that he be free in a political or civil sense. The Bible’s message, taken literally, is a radically non-political.
Report comment to moderator
I really have no problem with Christians having a voice in the political discourse. They’re Americans and have every right to be heard.
But it’s frustrating when the New Testament spends so much time talking about the poor, the sick and the oppressed, and the Christians have in recent history been obsessed instead with homosexuality and abortion … which are legitimate issues but hardly the most pressing ones raised in the gospels.
If the evangelicals plan to address a broader range of issues from their biblical perspective now, that would be welcome and refreshing.
Report comment to moderator
I really don’t know, but could it be that Christians don’t seem as concerned with the poor because there’re so many governmental programs that help them? One thing, too, is that a lot of little ministries exist that do help the poor, but they aren’t in the papers. I find it very frustrating that there are the “working poor” that don’t get help that they need because they’re working. I was talking with a waitress a while back. She worked at a Denny’s and she said that she worked less than full-time because the owner didn’t want to pay benefits. But she couldn’t afford health insurance and things like that. This kind-of thing has got to be incredibly typical. Here in California, there is a state-run health insurance program of sorts, and it seems like she would’ve been eligible – not sure. Anyway, she also complained that she lived near someone who was cheating the system and got welfare and didn’t have to work. I don’t know what to do about all this, or about the homeless man who I saw last week having an imaginary fight with someone on the sidewalk. There are so many problems, here and in the world, that we know about in our media rich world.
Report comment to moderator
RE #67. I think I know what you mean in your 3rd paragraph, like people seem to think we live in a theocracy (or they want to make one)? Yeah, we don’t live in a theocracy.
And I know I kind-of rambled at the end of #69. Anyway, SteveG, I should’ve mentioned, too, that many Christians help the poor in other countries. There’s International Christian Concern, Voice of the Martyrs, Samaritan’s Purse, World Vision, International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem, and more, or course. These are pretty big ones. The point is, there’re a lot of American Christians who help poorer people in the world through these ministries. That shows something, right?
Report comment to moderator
CSLewisLover: I know there are a lot of Christian aid groups and efforts and a lot of Christians who give and support, and that’s wonderful.
But here I’m talking about the political issues that seem to get most of the attention. When the evangelical left has spoken up in the past about issues of social justice or civil rights, the evangelical right is usually right there to hit them with a “bong” and denounce them as just another “liberal” group … even though Jesus had a lot to say about those issues too.
Report comment to moderator
To me it seems that in so many ways people have become dichotomized, over-heated, and have really jerky knees. Is that partly what you mean? As for which issues get their attention, I think they’re mostly reacting to what’s going on around them and in what they read in the media. Also, yeah, there’s a difference in philosophy as to whether an issue should be dealt with by the government or left private. Other than those considerations, individuals of the evangelical right would do well to be proactive in living a Christ-like life, right, showing concern for all? In other words, they should “do” more instead of telling others to “do not”? Is that where you’re coming from?
Report comment to moderator
I’m just saying abortion and homosexuality are hardly the only issues that Jesus was concerned with … in fact, Jesus hardly seemed concerned with them at all … and a really comprehensive religious political agenda should include (I think) a lot more than those two things.
We can debate what the government should or should not be involved in, or what the right positions are, but from the ’80s through now it’s seemed the evangelical right has cared about little more than fighting against equal rights for homosexuals and abortion rights. (On a national political level I mean, not necessarily in personal action.)
Report comment to moderator
Well, aren’t these issues, abortion and homosexual rights, “newer” issues? I think a lot of people are reacting to them, fighting them, partly because they’re indicative of a shift away from biblical morality in the US. I mean, the law in the US was always based on Judeo-Christian principles and laws, but that has been shifting. So, while I can’t speak for all these people, I think I can make an observation that they’re fighting because of the cultural and moral shift that has taken place. I have spoken to some Christians, now that I think of it, that truly believe that God blesses a nation that follows his ways, and that our nation is drifting away from his ways.
Report comment to moderator
Of course Jesus was concerned with sin, HE spent lots of time telling people to repent.
Since when is killing a child in the womb not a sin?
Since when is it OK for two men or two women to marry? There is no such thing in the Word of God. Instead the Bible says that:
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Matthew 19
No male/male or female/female mentioned in the Word of GOD –
Report comment to moderator
Who's going to step up to the plate, who's going to continue to help the unborn, to at last be born alive, and not be thrown away?Who is going to continue to become involved in politics which would NOT allow same-sex marriage? Teaching our children to understand and accept two mommies, or two daddies, such nonsense.
I would never sign the ‘Evangelical Manifesto’ —
Who do these pseudo-intellectuals think they are? As they say we are“useful idiots” ? –WHO ARE THEY, the brains of the United States, or the true Born Again Believers, do they believe they have become our spokespersons, those who speak for us, who write these manifestos and then ask the rest of us to sign them?Think about it, this manifesto was in the works for 3 plus years, yet most if not ALL of the strong Evangelicals were not included, and NO BLACK EVANGELICAL LEADERS were involved either. Give that some serious consideration.If we go along with the “Evangelical Manifesto”
we will will most certainly have earned the title of“useful idiots”as we will have subscribed to their beliefs.Strange how the apology to Muslims was signed by many who are involved with the "Evangelical Manifesto" - more to think about -Report comment to moderator
SteveG – Thanks. I already knew what a bong is, but wasn’t familiar with bogarting. Now that you’ve told me, I feel so savvy & hip.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Your use of “useful idiots” is so ironic. By partnering with a GOP/religious right you practically guarantee yourself being used as a useful idiot.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
I am partnered with the LORD Jesus Christ. Because I believe in Him as my Savior and LORD, I stand against abortion, same sex marriages, children being taught in school about transgender choices, given training as choosing your sexual preference, and bathroom facilities being used by both sex’s in schools, K-12 grade. That’s just for starters.
A “useful idiots” is one who would fall prey to the “Evangelical Manifesto” believing they had all the answers, since they don’t want individual causes being distinguished by the conservative’s. “Ironic” has nothing to do with it, although I understand your love and a few others for using that particular word, if you believe there’s a chance it fits.
This little band of hopefuls, thought it quite smart to use the comment “useful idiots” concerning those of us who speak out against individual causes, when in fact it is this very group, and their ilk, trying to persuade the conservatives that we should agree with them to avoid being the “useful idiots” of the ‘right’ who underestimate us — throwing around such a phrase as to insult anyone who doesn’t/won’t believe what they present? I have met some of these men, believe me they are living up to their self important images.
People like Huffman and Guinness, know very well that the issues at hand, including the ones I mentioned in my first paragraph are taken very SERIOUSLY by Evangelical Christians. There is strength in numbers, and WE are not a small group, that is/was the reason for the “Evangelical Manifesto” to be written in the first place, to persuade us to limit our time and effort against abortion and ’same sex marriage’ — those who put the “Evangelical Manifesto” together want to slow the whole thing down, but it WON’T WORK. Many churches now accept homosexuality, giving homosexuals a place as pastor in their pulpits. Having said this, its easy to determine the reason for the manifesto, it’s a wishy-washy, but strident attempt to recruit those of us who are conservatives to march to their drums, and become THEIR “USEFUL IDIOTS” — now if you want to throw in one of your favorite words “ironic” go right ahead, how could you miss this chance?
Report comment to moderator
I am partnered with the LORD Jesus Christ. Because I believe in Him as my Savior and LORD, I stand against abortion, same sex marriages, children being taught in school about transgender choices, given training as choosing your sexual preference, and bathroom facilities being used by both sex’s in schools, K-12 grade. That’s just for starters.
And I’ll give you a million dollars if you can show me where Jesus spoke of ANY of these issues. I’ve got news for you Victoria — if you actually knew the historical context of the Bible — you’d understand that the pagan government to which Jesus was born was WORSE than the conditions you describe and Jesus and his disciples told folks to pay taxes to it and SUBMIT to it.
Jesus’ message of government is actually quite simple to understand from the plain literal meaning of His and His followers words: 1) Pay your taxes; 2) Submit to Government, and most importantly; 3) Preach the Gospel with #3 trumping #2 in the event of a conflict.
To say that because you believe in Him you must therefore stand against Unisex bathrooms reads things into the Bible that aren’t there and because we are throwing this word around is quite frankly…idiotic. I’m sure the religious right and Republican party will have no problem effectively using you.
Report comment to moderator
Oh I see Jon, ….. Believers are to stand back, silence themselves and say nothing about killing the unborn or protecting our children, we as Believers should stay away from the polling area’s, never making our voices known.
Believers shouldn’t take up causes to stop ’same sex marriage’ ?
Where does it say in the Word of GOD that we as Believers should stay silent and NOT REBUKE SIN? Give me the Scripture!
Report comment to moderator
That’s not what I said. It’s about prioritizing.
And I understand you zealously trying to keep SSM out of your church; but the Bible tells you not to be of the world. What’s it to you if Bob and Bill’s marriage is recognized by the state as long as your church can be free from it? It’s more important that you evangelize than it is to stop government recognized SSM. Or am I wrong?
Report comment to moderator
Jon
YOU WRITE:….
“It’s more important that you evangelize than it is to stop government recognized SSM. Or am I wrong?”
Jon do you BELIEVE the Word of GOD? Is GOD’S Word truth, inerrant and inspired in your mind?
Report comment to moderator
#81 – Victoria, I think you have this backwards. Where are the scriptures that say you are supposed to (in the positive sense) “REBUKE SIN” for the state, i.e., outside the church?
My childhood church has a saying: “Where the scriptures speak we speak. Where they are silent, we are silent.”
You seem to be speaking when the scriptures are silent. But maybe you have some verses in mind that I’m not thinking of right now. What are they? (just curious)
Report comment to moderator
Spin
YOU WRITE:….
“My childhood church has a saying: “Where the scriptures speak we speak. Where they are silent, we are silent.”
I don’t agree with your church, and since you have said you aren’t a Believer any longer, what difference does it make?
I don’t have anything backwards.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t either – but I am interested in nature of your argument.
I take it from your response that you don’t know any scriptures that actually tell you to rebuke sin in us heathen, but you take scripture’s absence on this point to give you license to. Correct?
Report comment to moderator
Spin
YOU WRITE: ….
“I take it from your response that you don’t know any scriptures that actually tell you to rebuke sin in us heathen, but you take scripture’s absence on this point to give you license to. Correct?
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. Mark 1:15
Jesus and His disciples told everyone to repent, if there was no sin in anyone, there would be no reason to repent.
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. 2 Timothy 4
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
You’ve said it very well. The EM is a much-needed call to reshift Christian focus to things that matter more than what the priorities have long been. The church claims to be the salt and the light of the world, not the wormwood of the world, and this is a completely fair, even-handed, and balanced attempt to make things better for everyone concerned. And that, after all, is the nature of the gospel.
Report comment to moderator
#87 ok – but aren’t those verses meant to evangelize, rather than to change behavior of unbelievers??? I suppose this can be considered to be a fine line – but do you really think that government prohibition of same-sex marriage will lead to religious conversions? Really?
Report comment to moderator
Spin
YOU WRITE:…
“but aren’t those verses meant to evangelize, rather than to change behavior of unbelievers??? I suppose this can be considered to be a fine line – but do you really think that government prohibition of same-sex marriage will lead to religious conversions? Really?”
When people repent, and turn from sin, THEY DO CHANGE BEHAVIOR, they have a NEW NATURE.
Laws forbidding ’same-marriage’ give young children and other PAUSE to think seriously.
Report comment to moderator
When people repent, and turn from sin, THEY DO CHANGE BEHAVIOR, they have a NEW NATURE.
So the Weight Watcher’s person who gives up gluttony also experiences metanoia?
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza’s right. The behavior of unbelievers will always be approximately the same, regardless of any nostalgic reminiscing. The Bible is directed for the edification of those who already acknowledge the authority of the Person it represents.
Report comment to moderator
Young people who are in need of the physician that is Christ will not care what the law says.
Report comment to moderator
Where does the Word of God say ……
“The Bible is directed for the edification of those who already acknowledge the authority of the Person it represents.”
Does everyone who picks up the Bible to read “already acknowledge the authority of the Person it represents”…..?
Report comment to moderator
I thought you weren’t speaking to me.
Report comment to moderator
But Victoria – don’t you think that by getting heathens to subscribe to some form of religious law, you run the risk of having them think they need Christian salvation even less, since you are trying to make them “good” not “saved?”
Report comment to moderator
Spin – 96
YOU WRITE:…..
“But Victoria – don’t you think that by getting heathens to subscribe to some form of religious law, you run the risk of having them think they need Christian salvation even less, since you are trying to make them “good” not “saved?”
No I don’t think that at all. Having a law against abortion would be to save the lives of the unborn. If the mothers of these children want to follow Christ they can, that is a choice, …… repent, turn from sin and believe on Christ for their Salvation ….. what I want is that they DON’T have a CHOICE to kill their child, that would be a law I would hope the US would put on the books.
Report comment to moderator
#97 Ah I see then – fetuses must live, but the mothers can go to hell…
Report comment to moderator
p.e. Don’t reply just bong me already …
Report comment to moderator
Spin YOU WRITE: …..
“#97 Ah I see then – fetuses must live, but the mothers can go to hell…”
Spin the mothers can choose to follow Christ and avoid hell, its a choice.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza, in all fairness, that’s a gross mischaracterization of the pro-life position.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!