As with many others who have blogged on this have said, there are many good points with the EM, unfortunately there are some poison pills in the EM that would prevent the evangelicals from forming a consensus. One poison pill is found under the second mandate – We Must Reform Our Own Behavior – and I quote,

We call for an expansion of our concern beyond single-issue politics, such as abortion and marriage, and a fuller recognition of the comprehensive causes and concerns of the Gospel, and of all the human issues that must be engaged in public life.

I am so glad they chose to use the words “biblically rooted commitment” for the issues of abortion and traditional marriage. These are not Republicans or Democrats issues. These are Biblical truth and principles that all Christians must hold to.

http://www.teleological.org/theology/?p=64

As with many others who have blogged on this have said, there are many good points with the EM, unfortunately there are some poison pills in the EM that would prevent the evangelicals from forming a consensus. One poison pill is found under the second mandate – We Must Reform Our Own Behavior – and I quote,

We call for an expansion of our concern beyond single-issue politics, such as abortion and marriage, and a fuller recognition of the comprehensive causes and concerns of the Gospel, and of all the human issues that must be engaged in public life.

I am so glad they chose to use the words “biblically rooted commitment” for the issues of abortion and traditional marriage. These are not Republicans or Democrats issues. These are Biblical truth and principles that all Christians must hold to.

(To read the rest of my comments go to my post at http://www.teleological.org/theology/?p=64)

As with many others who have blogged on this have said, there are many good points with the EM, unfortunately there are some poison pills in the EM that would prevent the evangelicals from forming a consensus. One poison pill is found under the second mandate – We Must Reform Our Own Behavior – and I quote,

We call for an expansion of our concern beyond single-issue politics, such as abortion and marriage, and a fuller recognition of the comprehensive causes and concerns of the Gospel, and of all the human issues that must be engaged in public life.

I am so glad they chose to use the words “biblically rooted commitment” for the issues of abortion and traditional marriage. These are not Republicans or Democrats issues. These are Biblical truth and principles that all Christians must hold to. The EM essentially reprioritizes unilaterally for evangelicals what issues should have greater attention. Do you not think that is presumptuous for this document to make that determination when, I think, they know full well that many evangelicals would not agree to their priorities. It seems ironic that in the preceding paragraph to the quote, the writers call for unity and they demonstrate this unity by thrusting a sword into some core beliefs of other evangelicals.

As I’ve said maybe there are issues that could rival the significance of these single issues that we should unite in recognizing their priorities. So what are some of those issues? In the next paragraph from the EM.

(To read the rest of my comments please go to my post The Evangelical Manifesto or the Evangelical Inconsonance)

Re: post 24, I want to apologize for impugning motives. That was not my intent (God is the only one who can judge motives, of course), but I can see how the tenor of my argument did cast judgment on motives. So, I’m sorry for that.

Reflecting on Manifesto this past week, my greatest concern is that the document seems to imply that there is nothing inherently good or bad about the moral frameworks that the left (liberals) and the right (conservatives) use to apply their beliefs. This, in my view, is very wishy washy and sends a message that we ought not concern ourselves with the worldview and philosophies that are offered to us in our cultural, educational and political arenas.

Fact of the matter is, November of 2008 is likely to be a historic election. The Democratic party is about to win in dramatic fashion, and they are already celebrating unprecedented support from the evangelical community. They will probably win the White House as well as U.S. Senate and House. Waiting in the wings are thousands of judicial vacancies, unfilled because liberal activist groups in league with a particular political party have been using all kinds of tactics to make sure that judges who hold a conservative and/or Christian worldview are kept out of the courts.

Why? So they can continue to foist major societal, political and cultural changes via judicial fiat in our nation’s courts. Sadly, we are about to receive an avalanche of judges have no tolerance for the so-called “intolerance” of seminaries like DTS, who they view to be hate speech mongering institutions that need to be “reformed”, because they teach a literal interpretation of Scripture and even dare to exegete Romans 1 and other disagreeable passages.

I think that we need to start educating Christians and explaining why the moral framework of the left is firmly established in opposition to Christianity, the family and the Gospel. Yet, the Manifesto just muddies the water and provides comfort to those who wish to believe that either are compatible with Christian faith.

In fact, I think that making clear distinctions between the worldview/moral framework of the left and the right is even more important than explaining why abortion is wrong and ought to be opposed.

I will respond to you because you graciously responded to directly to me…I wasn’t “name-calling.” I was basing my comment solely on your comment.

You wrote: “…(it affirms being pro-life and the importance of this, which I am all for)…Abortion breaks my heart every bit as much as it does yours, but this by no means says that I MUST vote for a candidate who verbally proclaims that he is pro-life.”

If you are pro-life and if abortion breaks your heart (and if this is because you realize that abortion is murder)…and you do claim all of these things…then by according to your convictions, YES, you MUST vote for a candidate who claims to be pro-life. Sure, you can decide from among the pro-life candidates which one you will endorse based on the myriad of other issues that are important to you. But if you truly mean what you wrote about abortion and life, you wouldn’t endorse someone who endorsed murder.

And, to be clear, we’re not talking about a man who “verbally claims to be pro-life.” Claim away for all I care. Obama’s voting record solidly proves his stance on abortion and life. And regardless of where he stands on all the other important issues, he allows and condones and supports and pushes for murder.

Thus, my statement about your being confounded in your convictions.

Being “well-meaning” doesn’t make one right. What you seem to not understand is that there is such a thing as right and wrong political views and we’re not just living in a postmodern “everything is relative and right for you” world.

I respect your opinions and carefully listen to them. This whole manifesto thing, and what some of us on here have been trying to say, is that others see it differently than you, and we ask you to respect that without the venom and vitriol that has been common amongst moral majority Evangelicals in the past.

A well-informed, Jesus-loving, Evangelical Christian can come to the exact opposite conclusions that you come to in regards to these issues, and think he/she is as right as you think you are. What binds us together and unifies us is our commitment to Christ, not on whether we think concern for the environment is a legitimate pro-life issue or a “political stump for votes” that is such a “joke.” In fact, many on your side would probably disagree with some of your conclusions. You look at the Supreme Court being the only avenue through which something can happen and are pretty convinced of it…other Evangelical Christians are not. Lets make room for the diversity in Evangelicalism and cling to what binds us together…Christ himself.

The whole point of this is that we ask you to acknowledge and respect this, and in return, we will be more unified and can lighten our tone in regards to political talk in Christian and non-Christian contexts and stop demonizing well-meaning people and parties.

Are you on board or not?

Poverty will never be eradicated. Never. Hit the problem with as much money as you want; never.

Health care will never get fixed. Clinton’s has 8 years of broken promises. Bush too. It will never be fixed and will always be a stump for candidates.

Environment. Nothing more than a political stump for votes. What a joke.

Immigration. It’s a great idea; just do it legally. If I rob a store to feed my family and get caught they will put me in jail; split my family; imagine that; actions actually having consequences. Illegal immigration is illegal. Either change the laws or enforce them, either way.

Pre-emptive war. As Teddy said, speak softly and carry a big stick. Same idea. On Iraq, say all day long Bush lied. Bottom line, had it’s leader allowed inspections to continue as required by UN resolution the bombs wouldn’t have landed. Sadam played his bluff to the end. Again, politicians play this up only for votes.

By the way, this world has never known peace and never will until the Prince of Peace returns. Another stump for votes.

Torture. McCain was tortured for serving his country. And yet Brett still wants to vote for a guy whose only service for his country has made him filthy rich.

Due process of law. Which laws? Immigration laws? What ever. Another joke.

Our politicians are a sad lot. Fleecing those whom they pretend to serve. Mark my words. Nothing will change. I don’t care who’s in office. Nothing will change. Be concerned for as many issues as you want if that makes you feel intelligent and informed. But nothing substantial will change. It won’t…sorry. The system is broken and appears un-reparable.

However, if anything is going to change in American law. Only the Supreme Court can make it happen. Period. As the court goes, so goes America.

I want conservative strict constructionist on the bench if at all possible.