| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
-- GideonHart - 2 Apr 2008 | | | On May 7th a group of evangelical Christian leaders released a document entitled “An Evangelical Manifesto," described by its writers as “an open declaration of who Evangelicals are and what they stand for.” The LA Times described the Manifesto as “urging separation of religious beliefs and politics” and stated that it told evangelicals that they “err when they use their religious beliefs for political purposes.” A Reuters article characterized the Manifesto as a call to evangelicals to “step back from politics,” and an article on UPI stated the Manifesto was an attempt to “remove the term ‘evangelical’ from the realm of politics.” Although the document is at times vague and unclear, in my opinion these articles, and others like them, have not understood the Manifesto’s position on the proper relationship between politics and faith for evangelicals. | |
<
< | I think much of the confusion stems from the third section of the Manifesto, where it reads, “The other error, made both by the religious left and the religious right in recent decades, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth,” and later, where it reads, “Christians on both sides of the political spectrum…have made the mistake of politicizing the faith…a politicized faith is faithless, foolish, and disastrous for the church” (15). When read alone, these lines do seem to suggest that the authors of the Manifesto are encouraging evangelicals to retreat from politics. However, that interpretation is difficult to sustain when those sections are placed in context. Rather than being a plea for evangelicals to retreat from politics or to insulate politics from religion, the Manifesto actually seems to encourage evangelicals to remain involved in politics, and to make their religious convictions part of their political identity. The document is cautioning against not involvement in politics, but against involvement in partisan politics. Additionally, the Manifesto calls for the creation of a “civil public forum,” because, I believe, the Manifesto’s authors worry that the growing hostility towards religion’s role in politics will sever religion and politics in America. The document is not an attempt to separate religion and politics, but rather, is encouraging behavior among evangelicals that will allow them to continue making religion part of their political identity in the future. | >
> | I think much of the confusion stems from the third section of the Manifesto, where it reads, “The other error, made both by the religious left and the religious right in recent decades, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth,” and later, where it reads, “Christians on both sides of the political spectrum…have made the mistake of politicizing the faith…a politicized faith is faithless, foolish, and disastrous for the church” (15). When read alone, these lines do seem to suggest that the authors of the Manifesto are encouraging evangelicals to retreat from politics. However, that interpretation is difficult to sustain when those sections are placed in context. Rather than being a plea for evangelicals to retreat from politics or to insulate politics from religion, the Manifesto actually seems to encourage evangelicals to remain involved in politics, and to make their religious convictions part of their political identity. The document is cautioning against not involvement in politics, but against involvement in partisan politics. Additionally, the Manifesto calls for the creation of a “civil public forum,” because, I believe, the Manifesto’s authors worry that the growing hostility towards religion’s role in politics will sever religion and politics in America. The document is not an attempt to separate religion and politics, but rather, is encouraging behavior among evangelicals that will allow them to continue making religion part of their political identities in the future. | | | A Retreat from Partisan Politics | | | Creation of a "Civil Public Square" | |
<
< | As a second piece of the Manifesto’s call to redefine the role of evangelicals in public life is a proposal for the creation of a “civil public square.” The authors envision a public square that neither favors religion nor secularism (16). The Manifesto describes a public discourse in which “citizens of all faiths [this invitation is also extended to non-religious individuals later] 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” (16). The authors want to create a public discourse that allows individuals to interact in “public square” with a religious perspective, and not to have to choose between stripping themselves of that identity or conflicting with individuals who are not religious. The Manifesto’s vision of a healthy public dialogue seems to stem from a fear that the current public backlash against the role of religion in politics will create “an American equivalent of the long-held European animosity toward religion in the public life” (17). Later, the authors condemn a “two-tiered public square” in which “the top tier is for cosmopolitan secular liberals and the second tier is for local religious believers,” (18) which, I believe, the authors worry is being created in America. The authors seem concerned that the growing hostility towards evangelicals' involvement in politics will make using religion in the “public square” unacceptable in the future. Rather than encouraging evangelicals to separate their faith and politics as the media claims, the Manifesto is actually attempting to build, by encouraging civility in the public dialogue, a “civil public square” in which it will remain acceptable to create political identities shaped by religion. | >
> | As a second piece of the Manifesto’s call to redefine the role of evangelicals in public life is a proposal for the creation of a “civil public square.” The authors envision a public square that neither favors religion nor secularism (16). The Manifesto describes a public discourse in which “citizens of all faiths [this invitation is also extended to individuals who are not religious later] 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” (16). The authors want to create a public discourse that allows individuals to interact in “public square” with a religious perspective, and not to have to choose between stripping themselves of that identity or conflicting with individuals who are not religious. The Manifesto’s vision of a healthy public dialogue seems to stem from a fear that the current public backlash against the role of religion in politics will create “an American equivalent of the long-held European animosity toward religion in the public life” (17). Later, the authors condemn a “two-tiered public square” in which “the top tier is for cosmopolitan secular liberals and the second tier is for local religious believers,” (18) which, I believe, the authors worry is being created in America. The authors seem concerned that the growing hostility towards evangelicals' involvement in politics will make using religion in the “public square” unacceptable in the future. Rather than encouraging evangelicals to separate their faith and politics as the media claims, the Manifesto is actually attempting to build, by encouraging civility in the public dialogue, a “civil public square” in which it will remain acceptable to create political identities shaped by religion. | | | Conclusion |
|