Between Two Worlds: A Mix of Theology, Philosophy, Politics, and Culture



Thursday, July 17, 2008

Neuhaus on the Evangelical Manifesto

13 comments | Permalink
Here's the closing of Richard John Neuhaus's reflections on the document:
There are many and complex dynamics involved in the production of something like “An Evangelical Manifesto.” Its theological affirmations are largely unexceptionable. Its call for cultural engagement and the cultivation of honesty and civility in argument is admirable and is always needed in our typically raucous public life. Whatever the good intentions of many of its signers, however, the manifesto is finally an appeal for the good opinion of the cultural despisers of evangelicalism. It is an election-year invitation for evangelicals to demonstrate, by embracing what is depicted as a more comprehensive and nuanced political agenda, that they are not that kind of evangelical.

I have no doubt that some who signed the statement simply wanted to affirm the important truth that evangelical Christianity is defined by the lordship of Christ and not by political partisanship. Issuing what is inevitably perceived as a politically partisan manifesto is an ill-chosen means for achieving that purpose. Only the naive or disingenuous among the signers will express surprise that the media depicted the manifesto as an election-year effort to drive a wedge between conservatives and what is portrayed as a more authentic evangelicalism. Whatever the good intentions of some signers, the reporters got the story right.


13 Comments:

Blogger Stephen said...

Agree,
My respect for Os Guiness took a huge plummet. Who are the "useful idiots" they talk about in the document? Seems they are embarassed of us all and perhaps the Gospel also.

7/17/2008 06:48:00 PM  
Blogger Luke said...

Not quite Stephen. Perhaps others are angry with the document because it describes them so much...perhaps.

Embarrassed of the Gospel? Come on bro, extreme right-wing or left-wing political American Christianity is hardly the Gospel, and these people are who the document is geared towards. Maybe you fit one of those two categories.

7/17/2008 08:54:00 PM  
Blogger Augustinian Successor said...

Richard John Neuhaus made the biggest mistake in his life by defecting from confessional Lutheranism to Romanism. It's literally abandoning the Catholic Faith for pseudo-Catholicism. The Evangelical Lutheran Church is a Catholic Church, and so are the Reformation Churches, all in varying degrees. But the Roman Church is NOT the Catholic Church nor can it claim the name Catholic.

7/18/2008 04:43:00 AM  
Blogger D.J. Williams said...

It's sad to see how maligned the manifesto has been. As a reformed, political conservative, I had no problem signing the document and view it as a strong statement of where evangelicalism has erred in the public and political square.

And Stephen, "useful idiots" was used to describe what we become when we ally ourselves too closely to a particular political party - foolish and irrelevant but useful as political grunts. Do you honestly believe that there aren't those in the political right who have exactly that view of evangelicals?

7/18/2008 06:48:00 AM  
Blogger Stephen said...

This post has been removed by the author.

7/18/2008 08:11:00 AM  
Blogger Stephen said...

"Not quite Stephen." Not quite what? You can't say the timeing of this is coincidental? Also, someone tell me who the useful idiots are? Have you read the thing?

7/18/2008 08:14:00 AM  
Blogger Stephen said...

Suddenly, they speak for us? Perhaps spending more time teaching the doctrines of the faith may lend to a more informed evanglical.

7/18/2008 09:12:00 AM  
Blogger DanErickson said...

RJN's entire essay is certainly worth reading, because he does a masterful job of exposing the weaknesses of the "Manifesto," as well as acknowledging the good intentions of many who signed it. I think he is correct that those embracing the Manifesto are either following a political agenda of trying to pull evangelicalism to the left, or they are simply naive of the implications biblical Christianity has in the current political square. I agree that opposition to abortion, homosexual marriage, radical environmentalism and neo-Darwinism are hardly central to the gospel. I believe, however, that they are positions which anyone who submits to biblical authority must affirm. That some have fallen into the trap of political idolatry and are seeking salvation through the Republican party, doesn't negate the fact that the Lordship of Jesus Christ does extend to our current culture conflicts, and that followers of Jesus need to take a stand for what is true, right and good.

7/18/2008 09:45:00 AM  
Blogger D.J. Williams said...

danerickson said...
"I think he is correct that those embracing the Manifesto..."

I do.

"...are either following a political agenda of trying to pull evangelicalism to the left..."

I'm not. I'm actually a registered Republican.

"...or they are simply naive of the implications biblical Christianity has in the current political square."

Well, I'm pro-life, I am not in favor or gay-marriage, and I seek (easier said than done) to be biblically informed in every decision I make, political or otherwise.

I think you're painting with too broad a brush, here.

"That some have fallen into the trap of political idolatry and are seeking salvation through the Republican party, doesn't negate the fact that the Lordship of Jesus Christ does extend to our current culture conflicts, and that followers of Jesus need to take a stand for what is true, right and good."

I wasn't aware that the Manifesto claimed otherwise. Please explain.

7/18/2008 11:31:00 AM  
Blogger Luke said...

The problem is that many conservative Christians (like Stephen and Dane) actually think the Manifesto is a left-wing document aimed to make evangelicalism more left-wing and democratic.

Well, that's funny, because it most certainly is not. It is geared just as much to extreme left-wing Christians as it is to right-wing Christians. The problem is that there are far more right-wing Christians than there are left-wing, so a natural consequence is to assume that it is addressed exclusively to the right-wingers.

Just look at the signers of the document. You have very conservative people (most certainly many who vote for the Republicans) such as Mark Bailey, Darrell Bock, and Daniel Akin.

People think this document is geared towards liberalism, calling people to forget or not be as convicted about issues such as abortion and homosexuality...which it certainly is NOT.

Many place all their marbles in the Republican basket, and just vote Republican on everything and align themselves with the party on everything. We think that if we just keep voting for Republicans, then we can end all the problems. This is hardly the case. Our hope should lie in Christ, not political parties. When we become so politicized in our faith and only vote for one party down the line no matter what the issues are, then we certainly do become useful idiots.

7/18/2008 01:26:00 PM  
Blogger Stephen said...

I don't care WHO signed it. That is to say, I don't care if John MacArthur, or John Piper signed it. I read the document and I think it is haughty and condescending to most who will never read it. If your brother is ignorant..teach him. Why must you pursue a press release.

7/18/2008 07:11:00 PM  
Blogger Christian Tots said...

Remember that many of the framers and signatories were involved in the ECT nonsense too.

7/19/2008 11:59:00 AM  
Blogger Cisco said...

I keep seeing people trump-up a straw man of "Right wing Christians" who just reflexively vote GOP. Many place all their marbles in the Republican basket, and just vote Republican on everything and align themselves with the party on everything. We think that if we just keep voting for Republicans, then we can end all the problems.

I've yet to see anybody name names, or give any realistic example of these people. James Dobson? Nope.

Who ARE these extremists who so ignorantly vote and worship the GOP? Even worse, many "right wing" Christians have a very developed political philosophy and theological justification for why they support pro-life, republican candidates. Instead of engaging the real people who support the GOP, for Christian reasons, it is far far easier to make up a boogeyman who is stupid, unsophisticated and 'more politically conservative' than you feel comfortable with.

7/21/2008 11:33:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home