Street Prophets

The Problem With Manifestos

by pastordan

Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:15:36 AM PDT

You have to say who's in and who's out:

The authors affirm that they oppose abortion and same-sex marriage in order to demonstrate that they belong, to demonstrate that their voices are legitimate voices in their community, to demonstrate that they are "Evangelicals." And what is the key, the touchstone, the Shibboleth for that demonstration? Two, and only two, political opinions. To be anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality may not be sufficient to demonstrate that one is an Evangelical, but it is necessary -- far more necessary than any given theological or confessional belief.

The manifesto's splendid language about reaching out to "the poor, the sick, the hungry, the oppressed, the socially despised, and being faithful stewards of creation and our fellow-creatures" belongs to a different category. Such opinions are acceptable, perhaps even admirable, but they are not Shibboleths that demonstrate one's valid membership in the community.

Here, then, is the "Evangelical Manifesto." It is an often persuasive and eloquent argument that political and cultural definitions of "Evangelical" are illegitimate. Yet even here -- in the midst of that argument -- the authors cannot avoid bowing to the demands of exactly those political and cultural definitions.

The authors of the Manifesto are learning the same hard lesson mainline Protestants have learned the same hard way. There just is no splitting the difference with some people. Sometimes you have to be the church you are called to be and to hell with the rest of them. That's not very fun for anyone committed to unity in anything more than the most superficial way. It certainly doesn't lend itself to intellectually consistent statements of purpose or self-definition. But it may be the single most important lesson for the body of Christ to learn these days.

  • ::


Tags: Evangelical Manifesto, Theology, Public Square (all tags)

Permalink | 22 comments

  • Regretfully (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Richard Bowser, vgranucci, linkage

    those are theological, and not political, opinions within Evangelicalism. The only question is whether they require political expression in the broader community.

    My read is that the authors of the Manifesto do not think political action based on those theological opinions is necessary.

    And that is the difference. As to this

    The authors of the Manifesto are learning the same hard lesson mainline Protestants have learned the same hard way. There just is no splitting the difference with some people. Sometimes you have to be the church you are called to be and to hell with the rest of them. That's not very fun for anyone committed to unity in anything more than the most superficial way. It certainly doesn't lend itself to intellectually consistent statements of purpose or self-definition. But it may be the single most important lesson for the body of Christ to learn these days.

    Exactly

    SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

    by JCHFleetguy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:21:16 PM PDT

  • The line in there about 1 man 1 woman (page 13) (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Richard Bowser, Asbury Park, vgranucci, linkage

    stinks to high heaven (pardon the expression).

    I'm bummed to see some of the names that are on this thing, including, ahem, Mr. Wallis.

    Grace > Theology

    by PeaceNerd on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:50:11 PM PDT

  • Judge George's manifesto (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Richard Bowser, Aunt Em, vgranucci, Sadie Baker, linkage

    This from a New York Times article:

    In Thursday’s decision, the [California] Supreme Court ruled that the correct standard of review for plaintiffs claiming discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is "strict scrutiny," the standard used in race-discrimination cases. Under that standard, the government must demonstrate that it has a compelling interest for the law it is defending and that the distinctions drawn by the law are necessary to protect the interest.

    Lawyers for state identified two interests that they said justified reserving the term marriage for heterosexual unions: tradition and the will of the majority. Chief Justice George said neither was sufficient.

     

    "There ain't no sanity clause." Chico Marx http://wfmu.org/playlists/RX

    by Asbury Park on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:31:00 PM PDT

  • Gratuitous block quoting (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    JCHFleetguy, Richard Bowser, Asbury Park, Sadie Baker, Icelander

    follows...

    The other bogeyman word here seems to be "secularism." Making this a bogeyman word leads to some serious confusion in the section of the manifesto subtitled, "A civil rather than a sacred or naked public square." What they're advocating here is secularism, but they've decided they can't call it that, so instead we get a page and a half endorsing secularism and the separation of church and state while simultaneously condemning "secularism" and the "strict separation of church and state." It isn't pretty.

    The language they are thus forced to rely on comes from the man who led them into this linguistic mess, from Richard John Neuhaus and his book The Naked Public Square. Neuhaus' big idea there was that secularism is, itself, a kind of religion. Thus, for Neuhaus, a non-sectarian government is really sectarian -- it sides with and privileges non-sectarianism as a kind of state religion. The refusal to impose state-sanctioned sectarian prayer on public school students is thus, in this view, an establishment of the "religion" of secularism. And the refusal to accede to a sectarian argument based primarily on the particular tenets of a sect is thus mere bigotry.

    That's just a slightly more sophisticated version of the whole "your 'tolerance' is really just intolerance of my intolerance" shtick, the boilerplate nonsense of bigots attempting to pose as victims. Since the writers of the "Evangelical Manifesto" explicitly condemn "posing as victims" for political gain, they might want to rethink relying on Neuhaus here for the framing of this question.

    Yikes.

    Level 6 atheist, Heretic in good company.

    by Recall on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:11:40 PM PDT

    • And that's written by someone (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Richard Bowser, Asbury Park

      who'd count himself as a member of the community he's criticizing.

      by pastordan on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:40:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • Actually the writer (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Asbury Park

      of the blockquote really missed the point. The definitions are really quite clear - and apply to real  groups with real opinions. I have had this very argument here at SP on numerous occasions:

      Second, we Evangelicals repudiate the two extremes that define the present culture wars in the United States. There are deep and important issues at stake in the culture wars, issues on which the future of the United States and Western civilization will turn. But the trouble comes from the manner in which the issues are being fought.

      In particular, what we as Evangelicals lament in the culture warring is not just the general collapse of the common vision of the common good, but the endless conflict over the proper place of faiths in public life, and therefore of the freedom to enter and engage public life from the perspective of faith . . .

      We repudiate on one side the partisans of a sacred public square, those who for religious, historical, or cultural reasons would continue to give a preferred place in public life to one religion which in almost all most current cases would be the Christian faith, but could equally be another faith. 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 repudiate on the other side the partisans of a naked public square, 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

      In contrast to these extremes, our commitment is to a civil public square — 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.

      There is nuance in those last two - but it is a real difference and not just "secularism" by a different word. I have had too many arguments on this topic to think otherwise.  

      SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

      by JCHFleetguy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:12:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • Um, JCH? (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        JCHFleetguy, Asbury Park, Sadie Baker

        We repudiate on the other side the partisans of a naked public square, 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

        What Fred (not Clarkson) is saying is that the authors are arguing for separation of church and state and robust religious diversity on the one hand, and on the other against those bad bad secularists. Well, guess what? The bad, bad secularists are simply the people who want to uphold separation and religious diversity, sorta by definition. So the Manifesto winds up arguing against itself. That's the point.

        by pastordan on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:27:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • I have had the arguments boss (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          StarWoman

          and I know there are some bad, bad secularists who argue for freedom from any religious argument in the public square. Those same folks argue that to participate in that square I must couch my arguments in terms acceptable to non-religious folk - I must speak secularese.

          SP is a civil public square - and the great Orange Satan has largely created a naked one. Here folks can civilly be who they are vis a vis religion while they engage in discussions of public policy - without being told to keep their religious opinions in church.

          The secularists the Manifesto is discussing are those of the Dawkins variety - those who are not at all interested in religious diversity; but the death of religion and its complete removal from their hearing.

          You have seen that herd of ilk haven't you?

          SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

          by JCHFleetguy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:15:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • The religious right (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            JCHFleetguy, Sadie Baker, StarWoman

            wildly overestimates the numbers & political power of "pure"  secularists - that is,  anti-religion atheists. Discussions of certain issues must make sense when presented apart from a religious context. If we are   speaking of making or defending law, yes, one must convince others that the law is necessary without recourse to a scriptural basis, because we all share the constitution, not the Bible.   One  can be moved to a position because of scripture, but that position must remain ethically  rational  apart from scripture.

            "There ain't no sanity clause." Chico Marx http://wfmu.org/playlists/RX

            by Asbury Park on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:59:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • It is not just the religious right (0 / 0)

              there are plenty of folks here who would be some sort of "religious" left who have been driven from Daily Kos because of the animosity to any faith content to a view.

              Vocal, obnoxious minorities always have more perceived power than actual numbers because the great 60ish% in the middle of the extremes will just bow quietly and leave rather than endure abuse, ridicule, and scorn.

              That goes for the "religious right" as well - far more noise and affect than numbers.

              SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

              by JCHFleetguy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:26:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          • Uh yeah, I've seen them, (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            JCHFleetguy, Asbury Park, Sadie Baker

            but the point is that the Dawkins variety of atheists do not define secularism. It's a conflation of the categories. Another way of putting it is that in trying to reject the Dawkins crowd, these Evangelicals have to mumble past the legitimate complaint of people like Dawkins, which is that religion and politics are too often too close to one another.

            How do we know it's a legitimate complaint? Because the authors themselves say so. To put in still another way, how can secularism be okay if the people who want it are bad? You can make the case easily enough, but the authors of the Manifesto haven't done it, leaving everything in a muddle.

            by pastordan on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:19:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • They did say "some" (0 / 0)

              so I didn't read that as an argument against secularism per se; but an argument against those secularists who want a naked public square.

              While I accept that it may be best for me to couch my faith-based positions in secular language - I do not recognize it as necessary. Frankly, I think folks who do not share my faith have just as much responsibility to learn my language, interact, ask questions, and engage my faith-based positions as I have to understand their non-faith based positions.

              As a salesman by trade - I do know that it is my responsibility to make myself understand and not the hearers responsibility to understand me. Most non-salesman, however, desire to be appreciated and valued for who they are - which requires folks in civil company not rejecting the faith-based aspects of the public positions.

              SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

              by JCHFleetguy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:32:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • Frameworks and positions (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                JCHFleetguy

                Frankly, I think folks who do not share my faith have just as much responsibility to learn my language, interact, ask questions, and engage my faith-based positions as I have to understand their non-faith based positions.

                So you're speaking from a model in which there are N individual frameworks, none of which is privileged with respect to the others; and all participants in public discourse have equal rights to speak from their own framework, and equal responsibility to learn about the other frameworks.

                Asbury Park's comment

                If we are   speaking of making or defending law, yes, one must convince others that the law is necessary without recourse to a scriptural basis, because we all share the constitution, not the Bible.

                makes the case that there are N+1 frameworks. The extra one is the Constitution, and it is privileged compared to all others, not only because it is the one that we all share, but because it is explicitly the foundation of our legal system.

                Since there is a privileged framework, the responsibility for all participants to articulate their positions from within the language of that privileged framework is greater, IMHO, than the responsibility which you identify, to learn to hear the voices of other speakers in their own terms.

                Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.

                by StarWoman on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:44:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                • The definition of that constitutional framework (0 / 0)

                  has been in debate for about 200 years. If you read Jefferson's argument - he agrees with me I believe: all views whether religious (from whatever religion) or not have the right to contend in the public square; and that truth is only harmed when that free debate is stifled by restricting the debate, and the rights of folks to freely express those views.

                  That incidentally is the current state of constitutional law IMO: all religions have equal access to the public square (and equal right to profession); and only if government favors one religion - or religion over non-religion (or vice versa) - has the separation doctrine been broached.

                  Because the balance comes from the free expression clause - which in my opinion is what the "naked public square" folks violate: my right to the free expression of my religion, or lack thereof, anywhere I please. My first amendment rights do not cease at the door of my church.

                  So, the "sacred public square" folks violate the separation clause, and the "naked public square" folks violate the free expression clause. It is only in that "narrow road" between those two ditches that the "civil public square" exists.

                  As always, it is easier to pick one of those members of the "pair of errors" than it is to stay on the middle and confusing ground between them.

                  SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

                  by JCHFleetguy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:05:00 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          • You know (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Asbury Park, Icelander

            I'm going to have to buy Dawkins' book sometime. Just to find out what the fuss is about.

            Level 6 atheist, Heretic in good company.

            by Recall on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:31:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          • Bad, Bad Secularists (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            JCHFleetguy

            As one of those, I'd like to say that my problem isn't with religious arguments that use religion as allegorical of a deeper truth, but with religious arguments based solely their authority as the WORD OF GOD™.

            There is no god. Let's save the world anyway.

            by Icelander on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:31:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Permalink | 22 comments