Deflecting Criticisms Made by "An Evangelical Manifesto"

I noticed that Tony Perkins weighed in last week on "An Evangelical Manifesto":

Family Research Council president Perkins is co-author of the book Personal Faith, Public Policy. He says signers of the Manifesto may want good government and a godly environment, but they do not want to take the steps necessary to achieve those goals.

"Unfortunately, this takes on kind of a perspective of Christians who live in an ivory tower -- that they never are touched with the realities that we live in a world in which we have to come outside the walls of the church and influence society. It's kind of like [saying] 'I want to rid the world of evil; I just don't want to get involved in the issues,'" Perkins explains.

Drafters of the Manifesto, according to Perkins, made little effort to create Christian unity. "We each have our role to play in the kingdom, and I feel we should take the direction of [the Apostle] Paul," he suggests. "We shouldn't beat up on our own body and give ourselves a black eye. We ought to realize that we have different roles to play. And I encourage the theologians to continue to come up with ideas and speak to those issues, but they should be respectful to the other members of the body of Christ," Perkins contends.

Maybe Perkins needs to re-read the document.  It says, for example:

We affirm that to be Evangelical and to carry the name of Christ is to seek to be faithful to the freedom, justice, peace, and well-being that are at the heart of the kingdom of God, to bring these gifts into public life as a service to all, and to work with all who share these ideals and care for the common good.  Citizens of the City of God, we are resident aliens in the Earthly City.  Called by Jesus to be "in" the world but "not of" the world, we are fully engaged in public affairs, but never equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, class tribe, or national identity. . . .

Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality. . . . (emphasis added)

It says Christians should be engaged in public issues, but not in ways that are partisan, untruthful, arrogant, tribal, or nationalistic.   In other words, the issue isn't whether evangelicals should be involved in politics, but rather how they should be involved.  (Unfortunately, this confusion has been compounded by some in the media.  Many journalists have seemed to think that the document's criticism of a politicized faith is a call for evangelical disengagement from policy and politics.  Not so.)  It will be a shame if misinterpretations of the document allow people to skirt conversations about the errors the document describes.  Make no mistake, that is exactly the effect of these misinterpretations.

It also will be a shame if Perkins is not challenged for his suggestion that showing "respect" to other Christians apparently means not criticizing some of their actions.   Perkins cites some of the writings of Paul in an attempt to make his point.  In addition to speaking about the different parts and purposes of the Christian body, Paul said Christians should speak the truth in love.  I think these writings of Paul fit together -- we are a more faithful and authentic Christian community when, in a spirit of love, we are able to identify errors and call one another to repentance and reform according to Biblical principles.  To frown on that kind of thing or to seek to shut it down is terribly dangerous, as any believer in original sin should be quick to see.  Rather than deflect the criticisms the document makes, evangelicals ought to deal with them.

Comments

[Stephen Fox]

Melissa:
What is your response to Robert Parham and Tony Cartledge's reservations about the Manifesto, not to mention Bruce Prescott?
And don't you think, for instance signer Timothy George as part of the process ought to give an account for his charges in an SBC ERLC Abortion pamphlet of 93 that compared SBTS Proff Paul Simmons to Hitler's theologians and suggested Simmons was comparable to statists who opposed the Barmen Declaration.
Such matters should not be whitewashed by the Manifesto, even as I at same time join you to applaud a document that brings together Adrian Rogers son David, Mark Noll, and Miroslav Volf.

[Stephen Fox]

Melissa:
What is your response to Robert Parham and Tony Cartledge's reservations about the Manifesto, not to mention Bruce Prescott?
And don't you think, for instance signer Timothy George as part of the process ought to give an account for his charges in an SBC ERLC Abortion pamphlet of 93 that compared SBTS Proff Paul Simmons to Hitler's theologians and suggested Simmons was comparable to statists who opposed the Barmen Declaration.
Such matters should not be whitewashed by the Manifesto, even as I at same time join you to applaud a document that brings together Adrian Rogers son David, Mark Noll, and Miroslav Volf.

[Stephen Fox]

Pardon my double hit; feel free to erase one.
At same time you may want to check www.furman.edu as Faculty dissent at Bush Commencement speech is picking up steam with a series of Forums to concludge with Chris Hedges speaking against the Bush administration May 28

[Melissa Rogers]

Stephen, I need to get the kids in bed, so please forgive me for responding in a brief and general way.

I'm not familiar with the particular case you mention, so I don't want to comment on it specifically. But I think it would be perfectly appropriate (and perhaps necessary in some cases) to contact certain signers and seek a specific explanation or apology for personal conduct that seems to have violated (or violates) the enumerated standards. The statement certainly seems to make it easier to pursue those kinds of conversations and seek that sort of accountability. If a signer refuses to live up to the statement's standards, that would be important to know. There should be no whitewash.

Are parts of the statement flawed? Yes, in my view. But I'm grateful for many of the things it says and hope that it will be taken seriously by the evangelical community. Do I wish this kind of statement had been made years ago? I certainly do. But I'll take the partnerships when they are offered and hope that we can make progress on issues of shared concern.