Obama's bold new faith based initiatives may make George Bush look like a son of the devil in comparison. Steven Waldman of the W&J compares the two and asks, "What will the liberals who criticized President Bush’s “theocracy” make of Sen. Barack Obama’s speech today..." Mr. Waldman then proceeds to compare the initiatives and finally places the onus on Bush for not following through with his bold faith undertaking.
Read about it here.
I keep pressing the issue of Obama's apparent evangelical magnetism. He sounds so convincing, so idealistic, so youthful but, when assessing his religion remember these salient points expressed in the Associated Press:
Comments critical of America by Obama's longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, caused a firestorm during the primaries and brought Obama's brand of faith under scrutiny because of Wright's adherence to black liberation theology. Obama also has battled false but persistent rumors that he is a Muslim; they have been kept alive on the Internet despite his repeated talk about his longtime devotion to Christianity. Conservative Christians make up about a quarter of the electorate, and they helped put Bush in office twice. Many still are likely to oppose the Democratic nominee because of his support for abortion rights, gay rights and other issues. An AP-Yahoo News poll in June found that people who attend church at least once a week support Republican McCain over Obama, 49 percent to 37 percent. Those who attend church less often tend to favor Obama. White evangelical Christians who attend church weekly favor McCain by huge margins.While Obama would expand Bush's efforts to give religious charities more equal footing when getting federal funding, he also would tweak what he would call the President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in ways that divert from Bush's approach.
He would increase spending on social services, starting with a $500 million-a-year program to keep 1 million poor children up to speed on their studies over the summers. He would increase training for charities applying for funding and make it a grass-roots effort. He would elevate the program to be "a critical part of my administration," a reference to criticism that Bush paid barely more than lip service to his effort.
It adds up to, now are you listening my friends? Come a little closer. It adds up to raising taxes. And how does
one such as Obama do that? The same way New Dealers have always done it-by promoting class envy.
John McCain has wandered in the desert like a prodigal looking for an evangelical voice, while Obama's biblical knowledge and charisma has swayed a few traditionally Republican evangelicals. McCain finally listen to reason picking the tried and true path when he visited with the Graham boys yesterday:
As Sen. John McCain continues to woo religious conservatives, the Republican presidential contender paid a visit today to Rev. Billy Graham and his son Rev. Franklin Graham at their family home in the Blue Ridge Mountains, near Montreat, N.C.Sen. McCain had requested the meeting with the elder Rev. Graham, who has been a spiritual adviser to presidents of both parties for decades but is in declining health. The meeting lasted for 45 minutes at the Grahams’ shingled, mountaintop cabin, dubbed Little Piney Cove, which, according to a McCain staffer, has a great view from the living room.
“We had an excellent conversation,” Sen. McCain told reporters after the meeting. “I appreciated the opportunity to meet with” Rev. Graham. Sen. McCain said Rev. Graham recalled visiting the senator’s parents in Hawaii and praying with them when he was a P.O.W. during the Vietnam War.
Sen. McCain said he requested the meeting because “they’ve known my family, they’ve known of me for many years, they’re great leaders in this nation and I appreciate the opportunity to visit with them and I am very grateful for the time they spent with me.”
Because of the scope of Franklin Graham's seemingly commonsensical appeal McCain made a wise choice. Graham offers the perception that not all evangelicals are wild-eyed space cadets ready to beam the faithful up. What's rather comical, however, are some of the space cadet-like comments offered in this particular W$J post. It looks as though a few of the commentators received their talking points from Nurse Ratched.
Lately a wave of prophets enthusiastically predicting the demise of evangelicalism have received ample attention from the media. Most notable of late, emerges from the pen of self acclaimed former Baptist Christine Whicker. Her new book entitled The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church
Religion reporter Wicker (formerly of the Dallas Morning News and author of Lily Dale) proffers a tendentious, confused book about the alleged demise of conservative evangelicalism.She makes a few lucid points, as when she deftly takes apart the many competing statistics about how many Americans are evangelical. But, overall the book has a shrill feel, thanks to the regular use of terms like threat and death knell.Some of the chapters, which seem like filler, are journalistic accounts of aspects of evangelical life—e.g., a portrait of a grieving widow who says she wouldn't give up Jesus to have her husband back—and are not closely related to the overarching argument.Wicker argues that some of the threats to evangelicalism come from evangelical institutions themselves.For example, she asserts that megachurches carry a lot of debt—a fascinating claim that should be bolstered by more rigorous research and source citation. However, merely establishing that megachurches are vulnerable because they cater to the tastes of boomers and depend on the personality of their leaders doesn't tell us that evangelicalism is dying; it just suggests that evangelicalism, ever protean, will once again change.
Since I have not read the book I cannot make an assessment of Ms. Whicker's arguments. I surmise, however, from her recent Dallas Morning News op. ed. piece that her tone renders her reason suspect. Gleefully rubbing hands together she reveals her prejudice with this sardonic epiphany:
Evangelical faith has been dropping since 1900, when 42 percent of the U.S. claimed that distinction. Every year, Religious Right evangelicals, such as those who lead the Southern Baptists, are a smaller proportion of the country. Every year, their core values are violated more flagrantly by the media, scientific discovery and mainstream behavior. Every election, politicians promise to serve them and then don't because evangelicals lack the power to make them.What all this means is that we were duped. All the hype proclaiming an evangelical resurgence was merely that – hype, a furious shout from a faith losing its grip, manipulation by a relatively small group of dedicated, focused, political power-seekers. [bold mine]
Ms. Whicker parrots an observation New York Times journalist David Kirkpatrick made last year in an article entitled The Evangelical Crackup Today William E. Simon Visiting Fellow in Religion & Public Life at the James Madison Program, Department of Politics, Princeton University, J. Daryl Charles, posted an insightful response to David Kirkpatrick. Pointing to factual errors in Kirkpatrick's assumptions Mr. Charles suggests:
Kirkpatrick’s definitive claim of a leftward drift of many evangelicals is anchored in his mistaken assumption that only very recently have they developed an interest in a wider array of social issues. In addition, Kirkpatrick points to encouraging signs that the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is rethinking its relationship to the Republican party. And, of course, Republicans’ “fury” at the war in Iraq is said to be confirmed by the alleged precipitous decline in the president’s approval rating among white evangelicals.
Charles continues by elaborating on Kirkpatrick's glee in discovering a leftward bent in mega church pastors Bill Hybels and perhaps Rick Warren. Both claim to be a-political, but Hybels courts leftist laughingstocks Clinton and Carter. Warren posts his own plan among many, for political peace appropriately called PEACE. The plan calls for addressing the issue of Giant corrupt leadership through servant leadership. One wonders if he may seek a political solution through the smokescreen of faith. Charles reveals the fatal flaw in Kirkpatrick's reasoning with this assessment and concludes with a lesson for evangelicals:
Conspicuously absent from Kirkpatrick’s reporting, a genre that rests on the perpetuation of false or exaggerated stereotypes, are several inconvenient facts. First, it ignores the remarkable—and seldom reported—diversity among evangelicals on matters social and political. Those of us who teach at the university level cannot help but be impressed by the current generation of young evangelicals, who possess a remarkably sensitized social conscience that is far more diversified and progressive than evangelicals of a previous generation. This development, it needs reiteration, has been measurable since the 1980s and is both heartening and to be encouraged. To describe this as a “recent” phenomenon or a “desertion” of traditional priorities or a major leftward political shift, as Kirkpatrick does, is pure fiction. Kirkpatrick need only consult a recent Pew study that reports “a small increase in the number of Democrats” that is coupled with an increase in the number of “independents and politically unaffiliated Americans.”Correlatively, Kirkpatrick propounds a view of evangelicals that is patently false when he writes: “The phenomenon of theologically conservative Christians plunging into political activism . . . is, historically speaking, something of an anomaly.” While Times reporters cannot be expected to be experts in American religious history, they cannot be excused for evading—or denying—the rich history of American evangelical Protestants in terms of social reform, health and medical reform, not to mention a fundamental concern for human life, dignity, and welfare. And in this regard, we evangelicals gratefully continue to learn from our Catholic brethren.
But Kirkpatrick’s reporting does do us the service, however inadvertently, of exposing problems that are internal to wider evangelicalism itself and its relationship to the culture. That megachurch leaders are placed on a pedestal, whether by New York Times reporters or evangelicals themselves, is instructive. What needs emphasis is that megachurch entrepreneurs—with their large congregations, their larger constituencies, and their even larger book sales—may not be the best, or even the legitimate, measurements of Protestant evangelicalism’s health and vibrancy. In fact, both the megachurch influence and the “emergent church” phenomenon belong to a peculiarly Protestant genus that is theologically suspect (eschewing the difficult doctrines of divine wrath and repentance), infatuated with postmodern sensibilities, and therefore notoriously hard to define.
In the end, megachurches may well represent the most glaring deficiencies in evangelical thinking—for example, heavy dependence on marketing, large numbers as a measurement of “success,” congregations run as businesses, and a strongly anti-sacramental orientation to church life. Can evangelicals today confess, not merely with Dorothy Sayers but with their own forefathers, that the drama is truly in the dogma? One need only consider the accent that was placed by the magisterial Reformers on Word, sacraments, and discipline as the authenticating “marks” of the church.
And yet, had Kirkpatrick done his homework, his research would have taken him, not to Wichita, Kansas, but to his own backyard and New York City, where evangelical congregations are vibrant and socially engaged. Consider, for example, the very large and increasingly influential Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, which embodies what is salutary, healthy, and encouraging about Protestant evangelicalism. But because Redeemer, given its simultaneous commitments to theological orthodoxy and social responsibility, has been making a difference in the city for almost two decades (and doing so without a so-called leftward political shift), such evidence would undermine Kirkpatrick’s thesis. Similar examples abound in metropolitan areas nationwide.
Like their Catholic counterparts, evangelical Protestants face significant challenges in the present post-consensus cultural climate, partly stemming from their theological orthodoxy (where found) and partly due to a wider cultural backlash. Unlike Catholics, their fragmentation and lack of authoritative voice hinder their ability to marshal a concerted cultural witness.
The rub as they say, does indeed come with Kirkpatrick's historical and social anemia. Politics does not an evangelical make. Both Whicker and Kirkpatrick reveal skewed attitudes toward evangelical faith. An astute student of American Christianity realizes a gulf exists between one's politics and theology. Evangelicals hold in common a set of theological beliefs and a way of looking at life. Life's chess pieces for the evangelical get moved in all directions, contrary to secular perceptions. Bill Hybels and Rick Warren both embrace consciously or unconsciously, evangelical theology to the exclusion of political philosophies. Those who fail to comprehend the difference between temporal playing fields and eternal dispositions possess little understanding of history and the struggle of the saints. Mr. Kirkpatrick and Ms.Whicker might benefit from evangelical academies in order to discover the mystery of evangelicalism.
Evangelical spokesman and creator of Focus on the Family James Dobson clearly understands conservative values and their place in the public square. Yet, when he recently criticized Obama's interpretation of the scriptures, Dobson took liberty with Obama's words. While Obama certainly at times, displays an astute understanding of religious traditions, evangelical leaders are sure to stumble when engaging him in the arena of bible interpretation. Those spiritually sympathetic with Dobson's social views may fare better when critiquing his past affiliations and certainly his voting history. Reuters provided this summation of the recent Dobson/Obama controversy:
Speaking on his campaign plane during a tour of western states, Obama said Dobson's comments, which focused on a speech the Illinois senator gave in 2006, were a misreading of his words and amounted to "making stuff up."In the speech, Obama said religious people don't have a monopoly on morality and should couch their arguments in universal, rather than religious terms.
"That is a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution," Dobson said. "What he's trying to say here is, unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."
Obama said in the speech that certain passages of the Bible, if interpreted literally, could allow parents to stone their children and require that the Defense Department be abolished.
"He's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology," Dobson said.
After listening to Obama's speech I must say I tend to sympathize with him. Christians indeed take liberty with biblical texts, often using them as a prooftext for bolstering their political positions. Pre Civil War America provides a remarkable case in point. The South, bereft of biblical exegetes presented a compelling case condoning the institution of slavery. Their arguments appeared convincing. Obama, in the controversial speech, positions himself with those who would refute 19th century southern biblical interpretive errors as reported in the AP:
"Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?" Obama said. "Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" referring to the civil rights leader. Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application." "Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said.
Keeping in mind, however, Obama's liberal social gospel associations, one must also consider Obama's remarks as in vogue multiculturalism. Whether Dobson gets it or not, and he's no dummy, other religious faiths outside Christianity believe in a divine mandate. Like it or not Christians must acquiesce to this truth and, as Obama suggested, find common ground in order to maintain a dialogue. Contemporary evangelicals seek this path when attempting to evangelize other Americans. They understand missional theology that beckons the missionaries to play the turf game with the old cliche, "When in Rome do as the Romans do."
In addition, one must hold Dobson's comment's suspect. Perhaps Dobson responded to Obama in such a manner because Obama compared Dobson to the Reverend Al Sharpton and Dobson feels his influence among evangelicals slipping. Maybe he wants Obama to debate the issues with him on Focus on the Family. Dobson needs to pick a more strategic battleground-one that addresses Obama's associates and his leftist, New Deal political pandering. Attacking Obama's Christian rhetoric in today's culture, stands to drive support away from Dobson and perhaps weaken the evangelical message.
Advisers and pundits abound who like to suggest Obama stands a real chance of gaining ground with evangelicals. Given McCain's lack of discernment in choosing evangelical leaders and Obama's orthodox sermons, minus the liberal-political speak, he might, as the saying goes, stand a rat's chance in hell. Tuesday, June 10, Obama met with religious leaders for prayer and an open discussion of the issues. Mark DeMoss, speaking on behalf of Franklin Graham perhaps the entire group, suggested via Catholic Online:
... that Graham found Obama to be “impressive” and “warm”. Further that “[Graham] feels that dialogue with someone who may be president is useful whether or not you agree with them on everything or anything”.
In the spirit of Jimmy Carter, I like Obama's religious face. I do not doubt his sincerity as a Christian. I do, however, fail to comprehend how a Christian man can reconcile trumped up populism, class warfare, racial and gender inequalities, and science fiction (global warming) with the Christian call for integrity. Sounds like Obama would rather pander to politics than the bible. On the other hand, McCain demonstrates his religious ignorance or naiveté, by picking all the wrong influencers. At least Obama knows how to get a leg up on McCain in this particular area. If McCain keeps flubbing it with religious leaders Obama may sway evangelicals based on his discernment alone.
Myths abound during election seasons. The pundits who perpetrate them wax eloquent with their supposed precise statistical analysis, and chessboard-like gamesmanship. Often the strategy balloons into a narrative so substantial that even the elect go astray. Such may be the case in the current political climate. Steven Waldman, president and editor-in-chief of Beliefnet.com, seeks to bust one such myth by disagreeing with evangelical business leader Mark DeMoss's assessment of the evangelical vote. Waldman suggests that although not as spirited as in previous elections, evangelical voters as opposed to their leadership, continue to overwhelmingly support the Republican ticket.
Why would Sen. McCain be doing so much better among evangelical voters than evangelical leaders?First, the leadership’s disgust with Sen. McCain stems from the candidate’s treatment of them. His “agents of intolerance” speech was not an attack on evangelicals, but on a few of their leaders.
Second, some of the issues over which Christian leaders have chastised Sen. McCain are inside-the-beltway concerns that don’t resonate with rank-and-file voters. For instance, Christian leaders often cite Sen. McCain’s authorship of campaign finance legislation that they believe would restrict their lobbying and advocacy abilities. Most voters care little about this issue.
Third, though he’s reluctant to talk about his personal faith, in many ways Sen. McCain is substantively in perfect alignment with today’s evangelical voters. They tend to be conservative but have veered from the religious right on a few issues, one of which is climate change – the exact issue that Sen. McCain has highlighted as his point of departure with Republican orthodoxy.
Fourth, Sen. McCain’s support of the Iraq war, his war-hero history and his emphasis on fighting terrorism appeals to those Christians who feel that fighting Islam has risen to the top of the list of important issues for Christians. For many Christians, Islamofascism is the new “gay marriage.”
Lately, a few pundits and so called former evangelicals enjoy painting a bleak picture of the movement and in particular as it relates to John McCain. They lift up the declining numbers in the Southern Baptist Convention, evangelicalism's Kingdom so to speak, as evidence. What they fail to consider, however, is the character, not the institution. The prognosis for institutionalized evangelicalism looks grave indeed. Yet, evangelicals naturally display a certain character often shunning perceived pejoratives. Any professing Christian who embraces traditional, orthodox, and historical Christian beliefs, such as sin, confession, repentance, faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice, and a high view of Scripture, gets labeled an evangelical whether they own the title or not. Those who hold these characteristics dear to their heart often get tossed into the generic pool that includes religious political influencers. Many of the institutional losses now come at the hands of independent movements and the Emerging Church. Independents may not label themselves evangelical, nevertheless they vote, and their values often reflect those of the older, dying evangelical institutions. In other words, the vehicle for propagating the Gospel may change, but the beliefs have not. So, when commentators such as Steve Waldman make a case for the evangelical Republican vote, they see beyond the walls of the institution.
Christian pollster George Barna further elaborates on the nature of an evangelical stating:
"Evangelicals" meet the born again criteria (described above) plus seven other conditions. Those include describing their faith as very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not dependent upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church attended. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as "evangelical." [emphasis mine]
According to Barna six factors favor Obama, independent of evangelicals as defined above. Those six factors often make up the winning ingredients regardless of candidate. Since, according to Barna, evangelicals comprise 9% of the voting block, their presence may not become a deciding factor in this election. Those who wish to prophesy the demise of evangelicals fail to grasp the scope and nature of evangelicalism. Moreover, they add very little to the mix of politics except to make interesting, profitable reading, and amplify the hostile anti-evangelical atmosphere that seems to be in vogue today. So what if 40% of the 9% follow Obama? Until conservatives address Barna's 6 factors the evangelical influence appears nil.
In addition, Republican strategist Ralph Read sheds some light on the evangelical voting matter. Watch as Reed explains the issue along with other interesting related subjects including his new novel Dark Horse
The Southern Baptist Convention represents the largest evangelical voting block in America. According to most sources SBs are reluctantly turning to John McCain.
Some Southern Baptists feel they have no choice but to vote for a "liberal" in the November U.S. presidential election: presumptive Republican nominee John McCain."It's basically a choice between a liberal and an ultra-liberal," Jodie Sanders, a Southern Baptist church-goer from Fairfield, Texas, said about the choice between McCain and his Democratic rival Barack Obama.
John McCain looks like a man sailing off course when reaching out for the evangelical vote. Eight years ago he dissed evangelicals leaders. Recently, however, McCain tried to make amends by reaching out to evangelicals via John Hagee and Rod Parsley. In doing so he eventually realized he made a strategic mistake. Those two hold radical views and fail to represent mainline evangelicals. But, McCain inevitably placed himself in a no win situation. Hagee and Parsley, while appealing to the fringes, hold in common with all evangelicals, basic core values such as family, economy, ethics, and biblical authority. Therefore, McCain's unwise choices may have driven the wedge a bit further between he and evangelicals.
Distinguished evangelical CEO Mark DeMoss recently spoke with Beliefnet about McCain's on going struggle to find an evangelical home. When asked what other evangelical leaders thought about McCain Mr. DeMoss replied:
This is one guy’s perspective, but I am surprised by how little I’ve seen or read in conservative circles about McCain since February. I don’t think I’ve gotten one email or letter or phone call from anybody in America in the last four months saying anything about this election or urging that we unite behind John McCain and put aside whatever differences we have. Back in the fall and winter, you’d get several things a day from conservatives saying, “The future of the Supreme Court is at stake. We have to stop Hillary Clinton. Get behind so and so—or don’t’ go with this guy.” It’s just very quiet. It could mean there’s a real sense of apathy or it could mean they’re’ waiting for the general election to begin. But it’s a surprise, given the way email networks work now.
Apparently, evangelicals feel as uncomfortable with McCain as he does with evangelicals. Yet, evangelicals coming off of a long run of it with Reagan and the current President, now find themselves in a quandary. McCain's shallow evangelicalism presents a stumbling block. People of faith, however, need not let this drive them away from McCain's semi-conservatism. They must get comfortable with the fact that we are not choosing a Sunday School superintendent. Evangelicals of all people should remember Jesus' dichotomous exhortation to render unto Caesar. John McCain and Barack Obama represent the Caesar end of the deal.
DeMoss continues in the interview by offering this compelling explanation of Obama's appeal to perhaps, in his opinion, 40% of the evangelical crowd:
I’m not saying he [McCain] has to be a born again or he shouldn’t be president. But he’s going to appeal to a lot of [evangelicals] and raise questions in others. I learned recently of a young woman form a prominent evangelical family who’d been supporting a Republican candidate in the primaries and she stood for four hours in a stadium in a downpour waiting for Obama to speak and signed up to work for him afterward. That’s all it took. It speaks to what we’re hearing about him being a mesmerizing communicator. There will be others who ask tough questions [about Obama] and say “I’m not so sure.” But one of the things that the media had gotten really wrong in recent years that evangelicals are absolutely Republican. Polls don’t show that to be true.
Continue reading DeMoss here.
The Evangelical Manifesto certainly spurred a legion of pundits to wax eloquent with their critiques of the document. I personally find no fault in the manifesto. Evangelical pundit and pastor Paul Edwards suggests two salient reasons why some evangelicals view the document with a skeptical eye:
For one, it calls into question our own allegiance to an entrenched political philosophy that has been extremely effective at electing conservatives yet equally ineffective at implementing substantive cultural change. As a case in point, Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land in spite of 35 years of conservative evangelical political engagement. During this same time one state has legalized same-sex marriage while nine others provide the legal rights afforded married couples to same-sex unions, stopping short of calling it marriage. America has seen no substantial change in rates of divorce or the abortion rate. Sexual promiscuity is still encouraged in our public schools through “health clinics” and condom distribution. Our children still have unfettered access to the most virulent forms of pornography in the name of “freedom of expression.”What have conservative evangelicals to show for our political efforts in terms of real change? The “Manifesto” forces us to face up to some very inconvenient truths and we naturally recoil.
Secondly, many conservatives panning the “Manifesto” may be doing so because they weren’t included in the three-year process of drafting the document. Given the documents’ call for a move away from left vs. right distinctions, it is somewhat unthinkable that Dr. Guinness and his nine person steering committee could not acquire representative voices from among prominent politically engaged evangelical conservatives. However, in a recent interview with Albert Mohler, Os Guinness readily admitted that he should have sought his input by sending him a copy of the “Manifesto.” The fact that Dr. Mohler’s insight was not sought, along with others who share Dr. Mohler’s worldview, is disappointing, but shouldn’t be the document’s death-knell. (The fact that the steering committee included no African-Americans and no women should assuage the fears of many conservatives that the Manifesto is committed only to being politically correct.)
Ministers too possess selfish ambitions and jealousies. I've discovered they often get their feelings hurt and refuse to cooperate. The very nature of the ministry itself attracts sensitive, wear your feelings on your sleeves type of individuals. Thus, Edward's second point has some credence. In addition I like the rebuttal Edwards articulates concerning his first point:
Contrary to the assessment of some conservative commentators, nowhere does the “Manifesto” condemn evangelical political engagement. Rather, it rightly points out that political engagement, while certainly the duty of every Christian citizen, is not the priority of the Church. In calling for the Church to rise above the din and the noise of politics, some have characterized the “Manifesto” as a demand for Christian withdrawal from the political process. Some read Guinness’ call for “civility” as a call for compromise on the issues important to conservatives, a ruse to get us to drop our guard on abortion and same-sex marriage while the liberals change the priorities to global warming and AIDS/HIV. This erroneous conclusion misses the point of what civility means in the marketplace of ideas.In reality the “Manifesto” pricks our consciences by pointing out that the place of the Bible in the pulpit as the authoritative word for moral and spiritual change in the culture has been drowned by pro-family political action committees to which the Church has abdicated its prophetic office. We declare in our creed that we have no king but Jesus, yet betray by our actions that our hope is firmly rooted in the outcome of the next presidential election. We have taught our people how to vote (and for whom to vote) all the while leaving them clueless as to how to pray (and for whom to pray). While we frantically sort through labels to determine whether we are on the right, left or middle we are deaf to the Word which calls us heavenward (cf. James 3:13-18).
Edward's analysis is prophetic. His words prick our consciences and sharply remind us of our first priority as evangelicals-to proclaim the gospel. Sadly, a term which carried heavenly implications may now find itself tainted by overzealous politicos seeking to place ballots above bible.
Continue reading Edwards here.
Change is good
