An Evangelical Manifesto: Commentary digest

“An Evangelical Manifesto”

Alan Jacobs: “Come On, You Call This a Manifesto?”

In 1974 a committee of evangelical Christians, headed by Billy Graham, convened an “International Congress on World Evangelization” in Lausanne, Switzerland … From this meeting emerged a document, signed by over 2,000 participants, called the Lausanne Covenant.

Much of the covenant is a restatement of basic Christianity; other parts emphasize the need for evangelization; still others offer words of repentance … As a whole, the Lausanne Covenant has done far more to define the modern evangelical movement than any other document.

On Wednesday, another group of evangelicals released “An Evangelical Manifesto: The Washington Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment.” Like the Lausanne Covenant, it restates much basic Christian doctrine, proclaims the need for evangelism and contains passages of penitence. (”We must reform our own behavior.”)

It’s worth noting that while the Lausanne Covenant was created in Switzerland, arguably a place of great memory in the Protestant Reformation, this “Evangelical Manifesto” was released in Washington, D.C.–the political center of the free world, perhaps, but not a place of great significance to Christianity.

But one thing the document is not is a manifesto. A genuine manifesto is sharp, punchy and, ideally, short … If the thing’s going to be extensive, like the Communist Manifesto, it should at least begin with a memorable statement (”A spectre is haunting Europe”) and clearly specify its agenda. The true manifesto is bold, even extreme: It leaves us in no doubt about its commitments.

The Evangelical Manifesto, by contrast, is both long and insistently moderate. After the apparently self-undercutting statement that “no one speaks for all Evangelicals, least of all those who claim to,” it launches into a lengthy catalog of theological statements that effectively duplicates Lausanne. To whom is this directed? Who wants or needs an overview of evangelical theology? The document never says.

Al Mohler: “An Evangelical Response to ‘An Evangelical Manifesto’”

Justin Taylor: Summary of “An Evangelical Manifesto”

New paper for your reading pleasure

My penultimate paper for this semester has been completed. It is a meditation on themes in Martin Heidegger’s essay “The Question Concerning Technology” and Hannah Arendt’s book The Human Condition. As it is rather long (7400 words or so), I’ve put it on a separate page. You can get to it by clicking below.

“THAT WHICH GRANTS”

The “saving power” in modern political thought:
An experiment in understanding

Liberty and the Christian: Evaluating “Christian libertarianism” in the modern context [Part I]

The following is a work in progress. This forms the first two pages of my 30-page semester project. It will be added to and expanded as time goes.

INTRODUCTION

As a political movement, libertarianism is of recent origin. It is rooted in the American alternative tradition, and its pioneers were united by their common realization that all forms of socialism as a political ideology lead to tyranny and the loss of freedom. In addition, they shared a strong belief in the preferability of free-market economic systems. Libertarianism is not a new philosophy, per se—it is more precisely a return to classical liberalism, albeit adapted to the modern age. It claims as its fathers the economist Adam Smith, as well as philosophers J.S. Mill and John Locke. In the last century, F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and their followers, known as the Austrian economic school, brought classical economics in line with postmodern philosophy. Within their understanding, individual choice, rather than societal consensus or some other factor, became the ultimate moving force in market economics. In the course of the twentieth century, Hegelian concepts of unified historical or national destiny and the immanent, emerging spirit of progress that formed the inspiration of socialist and progressive efforts were discredited as the nationalistic and idealistic systems devised to bring them into being proved to be unstable, falling apart or degenerating into totalitarian tyranny and unspeakable inhumanity.

This is not to say that belief in the immanentist impulse to progress is dead; for to the degree that progressive goals dominate the methodology and assumptions of American politics, it is very much alive and dangerous. Certainly, Austrian-influenced libertarianism may be valued as a balancing force in contemporary politics, if nothing else. However, both libertarian and progressive thought pose in their idealism a a danger to a free society. They both adhere to reductionistic views of political society, interpreting everything in light of a simple and absolute principle. The very names given to these movements indicate their respective philosophical conceits. The ruling principle for progressives is a belief in the ability of human society to improve itself—to “progress”—by means of political and social activism, whilst libertarians acknowledge as dogma the “non-aggression axiom,” a statement of absolute non-conflicting liberty, as the ultimate standard for political and social policy.

Various Christian leaders and thinkers have promoted one or the other of these philosophical movements over the years. This need not surprise those who consider how much common ground Christians share with both progressives and libertarians, at least at a certain level. The mystery of redemption central to Christianity produces a desire to see the world transformed by Christ, and chiliastic theology parallels the secular millenarian impulse of progressivism in some ways. Christians also find common ground with libertarians because they value justice. It is a Christian virtue to protect the innocent from the predations of wicked men; similarly, libertarians affirm that the purpose of law is to protect the life, property, and personal freedom of the innocent. While Christians might resist the libertarian assumption that these ends are the only legitimate purpose of government, in respect for civil justice, at least, we find common ground.

Christianity has so profoundly shaped the world that it is nearly impossible to conceive of a political movement that could escape the influence of Christian thought. But this is not to say that insofar as they partake of some element of Christianity, they are to be embraced. The most dangerous lies are those that contain the most truth—or rather, those which most craftily entwine truth with error. For this reason, and because the concept of “Christian Libertarianism” is at the beginning of this century being proposed as a legitimate political philosophy just as “Christian Socialism” was a century ago, we must diligently scrutinize the implications that application of libertarian philosophy will have upon our nation and our world.

The sphere of political power is temporal

The spiritual destiny of man in the Christian sense cannot be represented on earth by the power organization of a political society; it can be represented only by the church. The sphere of power is radically de-divinized; it has become temporal. The double representation of man in society through church and empire lasted through the Middle Ages. The specifically modern problems of representation are connected with the re-divinization of society. (Eric Voegelin, The New Science of Politics, 106)

Trials show God’s love for us

Trials are designed by God for our good. They are custom-fitted for each of us, made with great care and thoughtfulness to help uncover the enemy within and purify our hearts to create a dwelling-place for the Spirit. “The Lord disciplines the one He loves.” Trials show God’s great knowledge of us–for how else could He design the trial that would benefit the most?–and most of all, His great love for us. God says, “I love you,” and this is how he shows his love for you: “I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins” [Is. 43.25]. “For my own sake.” God doesn’t love us because we are lovable. We are lovable because God loves us and for no other reason. Why should this reassure us? It is because God’s love for us is not a matter of our own character, which is changeable and imperfect, but of His eternal nature. We are called by His name, for His glory. This means that God’s love for us is linked directly to His love for Himself. Until God ceases to love Himself or desire His name to be glorified, he can never cease to love His people, because it is through us that he has chosen to display the riches and glory of His grace in Christ Jesus. Discipline is never a punishment. God never punishes us, because He already punished Jesus for all of our sins, and there are none remaining that He should punish us for. He only disciplines us for our good. He is the Father who never gets angry at us, who only desires what is best for us. So trials are never a sign of God’s wrath, but always a sign of His abiding, eternal love.

McCain and Burke’s Conservatism

The Atlantic recently ran an article comparing the political approach of future president John McCain to the conservatism of British political sage Edmund Burke.

For those who are unfamiliar with him, Edmund Burke was an Anglo-Irish member of the House of Commons, best known for his grave and impassioned criticism of the French Revolution. He was also one of the members of Parliament most sympathetic to the American plight during our own War for Continued Self-Government. (England had already undergone two of these constitution-preserving conflicts.)

Burke’s philosophy did not center around a few key issues. He sought how one ought best to act in specific situations. Where he saw a need for change, he advocated a course of what could reasonably be accomplished, rather than what ought to be done in an ideal situation. He wrote in Reflections on the Revolution in France:

“A man full of warm, speculative benevolence may wish his society otherwise constituted than he finds it, but a good patriot and a true politician always considers how he shall make the most of the existing materials of his country. A disposition to preserve and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a statesman. Everything else is vulgar in the conception, perilous in the execution.”

Regarding his political approach, Burke also said:

Circumstances…give in reality to every political principle its distinguishing colour, and discriminating effect. The circumstances are what render every civil and political scheme beneficial or noxious to mankind.

In the political realm, it is not allegiance to all elements of a certain platform that makes one a conservative. A policy position or practical action may be beneficial in one time and place, yet harmful in another. Political coalitions and their agreed-upon policy goals change, but political philosophy does not, and it is political philosophy that makes one a conservative, just as it is ideology that makes one a liberal.

Hide Away in the Love of Jesus

Come weary saints, though tired and weak
Hide away in the love of Jesus
Your strength will return by His quiet streams
Hide away in the love of Jesus

Come wand’ring souls, and find your home
Hide away in the love of Jesus
He offers the rest that you yearn to know
Hide away in the love of Jesus

Hear Him calling your name
See the depths of His love
in the wounds of His grace
Hide away

Come guilty ones, weighed down with sin
Hide away in the love of Jesus
The freedom you long for is found in Him
Hide away in the love of Jesus

Hear Him calling your name
See the depths of His love
in the wounds of His grace
Hide away

Come hopeless hearts, do not despair
Hide away in the love of Jesus
For ten thousand joys await you there
Hide away in the love of Jesus

Written By Steve and Vikki Cook

Favorite books of the semester

My favorite book I’ve read this semester has got to be Hannah Arendt’s The Human Condition.

Next up would be Friedrich V. Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty. This is research for a paper, but I’ve really enjoyed it. So far, I have eleven pages of quotes from the book. Here’s a few good ones.

“While the rationalist tradition assumes that man was originally endowed with both the intellectual and the moral attributes that enabled him to fashion civilization deliberately, the evolutionists made it clear that civilization was the accumulated hard-earned result of trial and error; that it was the sum of experience…”

“They [the British theorists] were very far from holding such naïve views, later unjustly laid at the door of their liberalism, as the ‘natural goodness of man,’ the existence of a ‘natural harmony of interests,’ or the beneficient effects of ‘natural liberty’ (even though they did sometimes use the last phrase). They knew that it required the artifices of institutions and traditions to reconcile the conflicts of interest. The problem was how ‘that universal mover in human nature, self love, may receive such direction in this case (as in all others) as to promote the public interest by those efforts it shall make toward pursuing its own.’ [Josiah Tucker] It was not ‘natural liberty’ in any literal sense, but the institutions evolved to secure ‘life, liberty, and property,’ which made those individual efforts beneficial. Not Locke, nor Hume, nor Smith, nor Burke, could ever have argued, as Bentham did, that ‘every law is an evil for every law is an infraction of liberty.’ Their argument was never a complete laissez faire argument, which, as the very words show, is also part of the French rationalist tradition and in its literal sense was never defended by any of the English classical economists.”

“The rationalistic design theories were necessarily based on the assumption of the individual man’s propensity for rational action and his natural intelligence and goodness. The evolutionary theory, on the contrary, showed how certain institutional arrangements would induce man to use his intelligence to the best effect and how institutions could be framed so that bad people could do least harm. The antirationalist tradition is here closer to the Christian tradition of the fallibility and sinfulness of man, while the perfectionism of the rationalist is in irreconcilable conflict with it.”

“Far from assuming that those who created the institutions were wiser than we are, the evolutionary view is based on the insight that the result of the experimentation of many generations may embody more experience than any one man possesses.”

On the California homeschooling case

All hype aside, it appears that the court is stating blankly that according to California law, minor children must be enrolled in school, and homeschooling is not an option. To quote the opinion:

It is clear to us that enrollment and attendance in a public full-time day school is required by California law for minor children unless (1) the child is enrolled in a private full-time day school and actually attends that private school, (2) the child is tutored by a person holding a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught, or (3) one of the other few statutory exemptions to compulsory public school attendance (Ed. Code, § 48220 et seq.) applies to the child. Because the parents in this case have not demonstrated that any of these exemptions apply to their children…”

First of all, it appears that the parents in the case in question were not fulfilling their responsibilities in good faith, or at least this was alleged by the state.

They quote the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 [45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070, 39 A.L.R. 468], held that: ‘No question is raised concerning the power of the state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare.’ [¶]

The California court then concludes:

Included in the laws governing the educational program were those regulating the attendance of children at school and the power of the state to enforce compulsory education of children within the state at some school is beyond question.

The court’s decision rests primarily on another California appeal court case, People v. Turner. This case, which was dismissed on appeal to the US Supreme Court for “want of a substantial federal question” according to the L case judges. The Turner case enforced California code which allows for homeschooling only within the loopholes provided in California legal code. According to the L judges:

The court stated California’s legislative scheme makes no such exemption to attendance in a public school. (Turner, supra, 121 Cal.App.2d Supp. at p. 868-869; accord Shinn, supra, 195 Cal.App.2d, at p. 694, where the court stated that “[h]ome education, regardless of its worth, is not the legal equivalent of attendance in school in the absence of instruction by qualified private tutors.”)

This statement shows that for the State of California, the quality of the education provided by homeschooling vs. other options is not even the issue; the state simply has final say in the education question and can do what it pleases.

Do progressives care more about women, or people who think they’re women?

Thanks to County Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg and the unanimous vote of our County Council, my county now has a law that will go into effect soon, allowing transgendered males to use any women’s restroom facilities that are open to the public. So a man with alternate “gender identity” can use the women’s locker room at the local community pool where my mother and sisters swim.

Here’s how the law defines “gender identity.”

“Gender identity means an individual’s actual or perceived gender, including a person’s gender-related appearance, expression, image, identity, or behavior, whether or not those gender-related characteristics differ from the characteristics customarily associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.”

So if a person considers himself transgendered–whether or not that is clear to others–he suddenly has carte blanche to invade the privacy of women, even if his self-perceived identity is not apparent to others. His word is the first and final authority on whether he feels he should be allowed to use the women’s facilities. It is impossible for the law to determine whether he indeed considers himself a woman, or whether he might have other motives.

Furthermore, this bill extends not only to county or other public property, but to any facility that is open to the public.

No exemption for religious organizations.
No exemption for religious educational institutions.
No exemption for places of shared nudity.
No exemption for small businesses (less than 15 employees).
No exemption for renters looking for roommates.

So yesterday, my mother, who is 50 and a woman of limited energy, stood outside the polls for four hours in freezing rain to gather signatures for a referendum on this disgusting law. Since 25,000 signatures are needed for a Montgomery County referendum, it’s likely that this petition will be unsuccessful.

Perhaps civil disobedience will be necessary to break this ridiculous tyranny.

Go to www.notmyshower.net for more information.