the manifesto that isn't
I have a brief essay in the Wall Street Journal this morning on the just-released Evangelical Manifesto. Though I have the greatest respect for pretty much everyone involved in making this document, I am puzzled and even frustrated by it. In the column I explain why — my primary complaint is that it is anything but a manifesto — but I want to add just a few comments here.
One way this document is going to be read is as an attempt to write the Religious Right out of the evangelical movement. No one clearly associated with that movement signed the document, while some prominent members of the Religious Left (most notably Jim Wallis) did. The document places a great deal of emphasis on the distinction — completely irrelevant and meaningless to everyone except conservative Protestants — between fundamentalism and evangelicalism, repudiating the former and uplifting the latter. This distinction is handled in a confusing way, because without any transition the Manifesto goes from criticizing fundamentalism for being politically disengaged and “world-denying” to criticizing it for being politically triumphalistic and uncivil. (This does in fact describe the historical development of fundamentalism. but the document suggests that fundamentalism somehow manifests both tendencies simultaneously. In a piece of writing that extends itself to the highly-unmanifestoish length of twenty pages this is not quite forgivable.)
In the end, the document seems to be saying something like this: “We’re tired of being lumped in with the fundamentalists, who are always angry and rattling on about America being a ‘Christian nation’ and that kind of junk. We’re tired of being treated as the lapdogs of the Republican party. We’re followed the Republicans all these years because of one issue — abortion — and while we don’t want to abandon our pro-life stance, we think that we’ve ignored a lot of other Christian values and convictions in order to get leverage on this one matter, and now we’re thinking that that wasn’t such a good idea. And by the way, some of us have been Democrats all along. But we’re not telling you how to vote, so don’t jump to any conclusions. We just want to be seen as polite and reasonable participants in the American public sphere, unlike the red-faced old dudes you always see on TV presented as ‘the evangelical voice.’ We’re sick and tired of all that.”
I share many of the feelings that prompted this document, I admit, but I think this so-called Manifesto raises more questions than it answers, and creates more confusions than it resolves. The authors call themselves “representative evangelicals,” but are they? Or do they represent a highly educated, culturally elite subset of evangelicals? If they want to claim the name “evangelical” and deny it to fundamentalists, then what happens if the people they call fundamentalists want to call themselves evangelicals? Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University (an organ of the Religious Right if there ever was one) calls itself the world’s largest evangelical university — should it stop using that adjective? (“Evangelical,” I mean, not “largest.”)
On another front: what does it mean for evangelicals to be pro-life (regarding abortion, I mean) if they’re not going to vote pro-life? I can imagine good answers to this question, but the Manifesto doesn’t provide any. And if it’s going to be a real manifesto, not just an inside-the-Beltwayish White Paper, it really should.
And the biggest question of all: For whom was this written? Who cares, or is thought to care? I can’t figure that out at all.
Man oh man, the introduction is even more busy (and Byzantine):
“As an open declaration, An Evangelical Manifesto addresses not only Evangelicals and other Christians but other American citizens and people of all other faiths in America, including those who say they have no faith.”
So… everybody, then? The intellectual pedigree of this rant-ifesto doesn’t jive with the buncha-thesis-statements-without-a-thesis results. To borrow from Judas, wouldn’t the energy and time spent on this be better off devoted to the poor?
— ptiv · May 9, 03:54 PM · #
“think this so-called Manifesto raises more questions than it answers, and creates more confusions than it resolves. The authors call themselves “representative evangelicals,” but are they? Or do they represent a highly educated, culturally elite subset of evangelicals? If they want to claim the name “evangelical” and deny it to fundamentalists, then what happens if the people they call fundamentalists want to call themselves evangelicals?”
I get really, extremely tired, when something comes out about how fed up the evangelicals are with the current state of their political alliance that pundits and commentators have to ask endlessly asinine questions until the impact of statement or demonstration is effectively neutralized. Anyone with any piece of writing can ask questions of it, the author, or the subject matter, but that doesn’t mean that if one has the ability to ask questions that the document is flawed. Secondly, just because a document addressing a large audience, doesn’t address every single, solitary, teensy weensy, counter argument, nuance, or subsection of their argument doesn’t mean that the document “raises more questions than it answers” Heck, I can say that about anything: “Eventually with Ahab’s death, Moby Dick raises more questions than it answers” or “The Constitution raises more questions than it answers” or “Dear Abby’s column raises more questions than it answers” Sometimes the problematization of a piece of writing reflects the reader, not the document, or authors.
— GodWillingthingswillworkout · May 9, 05:06 PM · #
Nothing wrong with something “raising more questions than it answers,” aside from the cliche, of course. But Dr. Jacobs’ point is that that isn’t what a manifesto is supposed to do. Does the Communist Mnifesto “raise more questions than it answers?” No; it sets out to answer all the questions at once.
We’ve had plenty of moderate, nuanced, careful, lengthy statements about the proper relationship of Evangelical Christianity to politics, about the distinction between Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism, and about the essential of Evangelical theology. This is just another one of those, with a few more names than usual written on the bottom.
— Ethan C. · May 9, 09:08 PM · #
“Does the Communist Manifesto “raise more questions than it answers?” No; it sets out to answer all the questions at once.”
Well no, it seems to have raised more questions that it answered, you know from a 20/20 hindsight view of things. Plus, if you’ve read the Communist Manifesto its not exactly a air tight case, and it doesn’t answer all the questions at once. But answering every question is not the point of a Manifesto, it supposed to be a rather blunt instrument, nuance comes later. My point is, you can problematize anything, and that maybe instead of always projecting that onto the authors, or supporters, or the text itself one looks at themselves first. This manifesto is attempting to create a distinction, and perhaps Dr. Jacobs is resistant to this purposed realignment for political or personal reasons. But this “Well I agree with the basic premise (if fact I agree with most everthing, but I am going to render that agreement pointless by asking endless questions” gets a little tired in the political blog world, and it seems to get us further away from the main issue at hand by constantly fussing over tangential questions. At some point its not all academic (if that makes sense, but after reading it, no it doesn’t)
— GodWillingthingswillworkout · May 10, 01:47 AM · #
“Anyone with any piece of writing can ask questions of it, the author, or the subject matter, but that doesn’t mean that if one has the ability to ask questions that the document is flawed.”
I suppose but what you’ve said doesn’t make it not flawed either.
In fact I found the document to be quite badly written. It sounded like something written by a group of smart high schoolers who can imitate the tone and feel of a substantive argument but who nevertheless fail to actually make one. The whole thing made me feel uncomfortable and embarrassed as I read it.
I also get tired of this idea that conservative Evangelicals are Republicans only b/c of the abortion issue. This is simply not the case for most conservative evangelicals I’ve known who generally embrace a whole lot of other typically Republican principles like limited government, lower taxes, and a big military.
And as for this line I keep hearing, “The GOP takes us for granted.”: Welcome to politics. Both parties consist of coalitions of groups whose interests overlap in some ways and not in others. Every group thinks they’re neglected. Grow up already.
— Mark Adams · May 10, 03:53 AM · #
As someone who can’t keep Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism straight, let me just say, I feel really bad about it.
— Justin · May 10, 06:08 AM · #
I haven’ pursued due scholarly diligence and read the thing before commenting, but the post suggests the aptness of the adjective Laodicean.
For those not up on the Book of Revelation, it’s “because you are neither cold nor hot, I will spit you out of my mouth.”
— felix culpa · May 10, 08:29 AM · #
Half blind, I am; acknowledging the second word should be ‘haven’t’.
— felix culpa · May 10, 08:34 AM · #
Out of curiosity, what do you, “God… (above)”, find commendable about the Manifesto? I find it all slippery nuance and not blunt at all. A blunter statement would be something like Dr. Jacobs has suggested – “Hey, we evangelicals aren’t actually affiliated with neocons or Republicans. We’re not allergic to science and we’re not anti-intellectual and cornball, either. We actually even read books that aren’t by Christians sometimes.”
I do agree with your generality – that blogging often hides its navel-gazing by pretending to ask a litany of “hard questions” about others’ navels.
But – by gosh – this Manifesto is wide open for interpretation. So those of us who might have wanted a more concise series of Luther-ish Theses are left kind of bored and disappointed.
— ptiv · May 10, 11:20 AM · #
I agree with the plain-spoken analysis by Dr. Jacobs in both his WSJ article and his addendum comments. While Os Guiness and many, if not all of the drafters are staunchly pro-life, this manifesto seemingly signals to the nominal evangelical or to the nominal Christian that it’s quite okay and quite alright to succumb to the pressure of elitist secular liberals who state that Evangelicals should transcend the single-issue political identity of the dreaded Fundamentalists for a more comprehensive, thoughtful, transcendent worldview of cultural transformation embraced by atheistic secular liberal Democrats. The analysis by Janice Crouse on this manifesto speaking about the delineation between “personal sin” and “structural sin” is also good. <a href=“http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JaniceShawCrouse/2008/05/06/muddying_the_evangelical_waters”> Muddying the Evangelical Waters </a>
— Truth Unites... and Divides · May 10, 01:51 PM · #
I appreciate your response, though I haven’t read the Manifesto.
Jim Wallis was here a few weeks ago, joining the large Vineyard Columbus and a few local churches in a three-day crusade to End Poverty. (!)
— Julana · May 10, 11:35 PM · #
I am the only one who thinks this Manifesto is an obnoxiously self-absorbed piece of writing? An endless attempt to “define oneself”, while at the same time denying this purpose. It seems like a fruitless attempt to create a more satisfying self-image, rather than an actual attempt to live and embody the teachings of Christ.
— conradg · May 11, 09:27 PM · #
When I was a kid in Lynchburg, VA during the 70’s and 80’s Jerry Falwell proudly wore the fundamentalist label. Some time in the 90’s he decided he (and his university) was evangelical, though without (as far as I could tell) disavowing any of his former core beliefs. The change in label always seemed to me to be more for political and pragmatic reasons, than theological ones.
— Karl · May 12, 06:31 PM · #
As to the final question above, I believe I have an answer.
This “manifesto” was written, well, to people like me: young (under 30), educated, historically Christian, and increasingly uncomfortable with the association between conservative theology and movement conservatism. The fear is that people just like me will, like so many of my peers have, either walk straight out of the church or into the “Religious Left,” which given that movements’ theological commitments is frequently a pit-stop on the way to walking out entirely. Theologically conservative churches of all stripes are seeing large numbers of their young people abandon the faith, and leaders rightly believe that this is at least in part due to politics.
Though not earth-shaking in its content—it does seem to be largely duplicative of Lausanne—it may well be quite influential in its timing, as it signals to various interested parties that Evangelicals can no longer be counted on as a predictable, reliable voting block at a time when political lines are increasingly strident.
— Ryan Davidson · May 15, 01:05 PM · #
Slacktivist has another interesting observation about the manifesto:
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/05/manifested.html
[Note the] authors’ perception, probably correct, that their call to move “beyond single-issue politics” needed to be followed immediately by an emphatic demonstration of their agreement with the majority of Evangelicals on those two issues [abortion and same-sex marriage]. This document is not about those two things, but the authors recognize that unless they reaffirm these positions on these two issues, then none of the people they’re trying to reach will listen to another word they say.
[…]
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.
— Michael · May 21, 05:21 PM · #