An Evangelical Manifesto

[antonyh]

Updated 5/15/2008:
Posted: http://www.hatecrimesbill.org/an-eva...manifesto.html

On May 7, 2008 a coalition of leading Evangelicals released An Evangelical Manifesto which seeks to define Evangelical engagement in the public square in direct opposition to the Christian Right that derailed the Hate Crimes Bill.

The Hate Crimes Bill was defeated by the Christian Right through the cooperative work of the Family Research Council (FRC), Republican Study Committee and the White House (See Open Letter to the Senate, The Veto Threat and Removal of Amdt. in Conference). The Family Research Council explicitly states that, "Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society." Working through the Republican Study Committee, the Family Research Council strategically thwarted what Frederick M. Lawrence called the most important piece of Federal criminal civil rights legislation in nearly forty years, and, in some ways, the most important such legislation since Reconstruction.

An Evangelical Manifesto strongly denounces the use of the Christian faith in this way. The Manifesto states in the strongest possible terms that the "politicization of faith is never a sign of strength but of weakness." When faith becomes political is looses its independence and "the church becomes 'the regime at prayer,' Christians become 'useful idiots' for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology in its purest form. Christian beliefs are used as weapons for political interests." The politicization of faith is "disastrous first and foremost for Christian reasons rather than constitutional reasons" (15).

The Manifesto then goes on to call for a Civil public square rather than a Sacred or Naked public square. The Manifesto defines each as follows:

1) Sacred Public Square: "In a society as religiously diverse as America today, no one faith should be normative for the entire society, yet there should be room for the free expression of faith in the public square...We are firmly opposed to the imposition of theocracy on our pluralistic society...We have no desire to coerce anyone or to impose on anyone beliefs and behavior that we have not persuaded them to adopt freely, and that we do not demonstrate in our own lives, above all by love" (16).

This vision is very different from the Dominionist views of organizations like the Family Research Council (an umbrella organization to Focus on the Family, Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America and the American Family Association among others) which have a stated mission to make America a Christian nation.

2) Naked Public Square: "We repudiate...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" (16-17).

One of the arguments used against the Hate Crimes Bill by the Christian Right was that the Bill would impinge on free speech. The bill was inappropriately viewed as the slippery slope to Christian silencing.

There is no doubt that people of all faiths or no faith at all should have a voice in the public square.

3) The Civil Public Square. This is "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" (17)

This kind of Evangelical engagement in the public square would be fruitful for our democracy and is very different from the coercive tactics of Dominionist organizations. The Manifesto remembers the Emperor Constantine "and the state-sponsored oppression he inaugurated, leading to the dangerous alliance between church and state." In the context of the Hate Crimes Bill, we have seen this dangerous alliance emerge between the Family Research Council and their work with the Republican Study Committee and the White House. The Manifesto continues, "We utterly deplore the dangerous alliance between church and state, and the oppression that was its dark fruit. We Evangelicals trace our heritage, not to Constantine, but to the very different stance of Jesus of Nazareth" (17).

The Hate Crimes Bill illustrates how the Christian Right has tied it's wagon to Constantine, not Jesus of Nazareth. How do people who believe that all human beings are made in the image of God oppose a bill that protects their fellow image-bearers? How do people who believe in loving your neighbor as yourself not rise to protect their neighbors? How do people who believe "You shall not kill" oppose a bill that prevents killing? By way of contrast, Agudath Israel of America, a respected Orthodox Jewish group, openly supports the Hate Crimes Bill. By politicizing the Christian faith, the Christian Right have abandoned the core of their Christian faith and turned their backs on Jesus of Nazareth. To reiterate what the Manifesto states, the politicization of faith is "disastrous first and foremost for Christian reasons rather than constitutional reasons" (15).

The Manifesto is not perfect and we bring three criticisms to the document:

The Manifesto embraces heterosexist assumptions that "marriage as instituted by God is between one man and one women" (13). This unexamined assumption bolsters the system of oppression that leads to an ever increasing number of hate crimes against LGBT people. In addition to that, it is this heterosexist assumption that blunts the ability of otherwise good Biblical scholars to faithfully interpret what the Bible actually says about homosexuality. This is a big problem in a community based on the primacy of Scripture.

The Manifesto unfairly throws the religious left in with the religious right. "It would be no improvement to respond to a weakening of the religious right with a rejuvenation of the religious left" (15). The religious left are not operating from a Dominionist worldview. For instance, the clergy that attended Human Rights Campaign's Clergy Day of Justice were not there to foist a Christian world view on Washington, but to support the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to live without fear of violence and employment discrimination. They were there for justice, compassion and equality. Evangelicals were also present.

Finally, the Manifesto unfairly scapegoats Atheists who have indeed railed against the very fundamentalism that this Manifest seeks to address. Atheists like Sam Harris genuinely feel that fundamentalist expressions of religion endanger the world because, unlike in the fourteenth century, fundamentalists have access to nuclear weapons. In addition to this, Atheists reject the notion of God and should have equal access to the public square along with other religious and philosophical voices.

We wonder if this Manifesto would even exist had not Atheists addressed the threat present in fundamentalism.

With these criticisms, the Manifesto is an outstanding development among Evangelical Christians and we hope it is widely adopted.

[Steven E. Webster]

Antony,

This is a good draft.

It's kind of embarassing that these are supposedly "intellectuals" and yet they claim that the Bible establishes marriage as "one man and one woman." They totally ignore the fact that marriage is an ever-changing social institution, even as human society is ever-changing. They conveniently forget that patriarchy was the norm assumed throughout most of the Bible.

Seems they also fall into a fallacy of framing themselves as "in the middle" with a "right" and "left" that are both to be rejected as equally "extreme." Would they have rejected John Wesley's abolitionism as "extreme"?--my guess is probably yes.

What they say about not having faith become exclusively linked to any particular political party or personage makes good sense to me. It seems to me that the prophetic role of religion is always to be critical of whoever is in power and to question every status quo.

"New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth, they must ever up and onward, who would keep abreast of Truth," are favorite lines from a hymn by an abolitionist.

Surely there are some intellectual evangelical voices out there who would challenge any of their colleagues who seek to defend anything but full equality for LGBT persons.

Steven Webster

[antonyh]

Thanks for the feedback Steven. I wanted to share one more section of the Manifesto: "Evangelicals have made a shining contribution to politics in general, to many of the greatest moral and social reforms in history, such as the abolition of slavery and woman's suffrage, and even to notions crucial in political discussion today, for example, the vital but little known Evangelical contribution to the rise of the voluntary association and, through that, to the understanding of such key notions as civil society and social capital" (14-15).

For some reason, heterosexism blinds them to viewing us as a social movement to help.

There is a real tone of repentance in this document for what has been done including in the area of Intelligent Design.

It is not all good, but if it can turn the ship away from Dominionism, it will be a great achievement.

Here is some press:
US News & World Report
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...-it-means.html

[Donny]

The religious left, is just as involved in politics pushing their agenda as are the atheists and religious right. What we need are clear and unassailable laws to allow differing positions to not be challenged and silenced by law. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is thought of by the religious right for what it is, that being the religious left asserting power over all Churches and religions nationwide. This "manifesto" shouldn't have ever been written in the first place. The Bible for example is immutably man-woman marriage from cover to cover. To demand otherwise is to inflict a non-Biblical worldview onto those that have, since its binding, seen the Bible consistently. It is neither tolerant or allowing for diversity to demand all Christians and Jews see the Bible as alterable and redefinable the way religious left demands through secular legislation. If "liberals" want to be free to change the Bible, then conservatives should be allowed to keep it original.

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by Donny

The religious left, is just as involved in politics pushing their agenda as are the atheists and religious right. What we need are clear and unassailable laws to allow differing positions to not be challenged and silenced by law. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is thought of by the religious right for what it is, that being the religious left asserting power over all Churches and religions nationwide. This "manifesto" shouldn't have ever been written in the first place. The Bible for example is immutably man-woman marriage from cover to cover. To demand otherwise is to inflict a non-Biblical worldview onto those that have, since its binding, seen the Bible consistently. It is neither tolerant or allowing for diversity to demand all Christians and Jews see the Bible as alterable and redefinable the way religious left demands through secular legislation. If "liberals" want to be free to change the Bible, then conservatives should be allowed to keep it original.

Dear Donny: You appear to me to be here simply to argue your points of view. The bible is extremely inconsistent and to suggest that there is a consistency, save God's love for His/Her people is rediculous. Just a few examples - there are two creation stories - so which one is true. There are all sorts of versions of the sermon on the mount, did Jesus feed 5,000 or was it more or less. If you actually personally follow all of the Leviticus laws, then you have room (perhaps) to speak. If you don't - that is if you eat fish, wear polyester, cut your hair, or have sex with your wife during her period, then I suggest you reexamine your beliefs.

I've been out for almost 40 years, do you really think you have anything new to say to me that I haven't already heard?

kara