It
has become common in the media to use the term "Evangelical
Christianity" as an equivalent of the religious right, meaning the portion
of American Christians that support the policies and actions of the Republican
Party. In many ways, this is apparently true -- a third of GOP members are
Conservative Christians. James Dobson, the leader of Focus on the Family,
revels in his access to the White House; and President Bush regularly sends video
greetings to the annual meetings of the Southern Baptist Convention.
In response to this situation, an alliance of evangelical leaders has
released an "Evangelical Manifesto" that calls for a more centrist
and flexible position for evangelicalism, one in which evangelical is defined
in theological rather than political terms, where adherence to Christianity
does not also require support of a political party.
This manifesto (http://www.evangelicalmanifesto.com)
has been signed by a wide range of evangelical leaders, inviting others to read
and sign it if they wish. Some of the more than 100 signatories include Mark
Bailey, the president of Dallas Theological Seminary; Dean Hirsch, president of
World Vision International; Walter Kaiser, president emeritus of Gordon-Conwell
Theological Seminary; Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourner Magazine; and Frank
Wright, president of the National Religious Broadcasters. Since evangelicalism
is a movement rather than an organization, acceptance of the document is
voluntary rather than coercive.
Without ever saying it in so many words, the manifesto is heavily
critical of evangelical representatives involved in politics. This is made
clear by its comparison between Constantine and Jesus, an analogy that most
press reports missed.
The Roman Emperor Constantine created the Christian Church in 324 by
organizing and funding the disparate Christian communities throughout the
empire. According to the manifesto, by bringing them together for the first
time at the Council of Nicea, he joined the Church with the state. In so doing,
he established Christianity as the one religion supported by the Roman Empire.
Although this picture smooths over many details, it is true that the empire
helped Christianity become its dominant and ultimately its only fully legal
religion, using force to exterminate paganism.
The manifesto argues that evangelicals should not ally themselves with
the state and its power as the church did in the time of Constantine, but
should instead follow the example of Jesus who participated in his society
simply as an equal. He taught and debated those around him on even footing and
spread his message with the same means available to others, even subjecting
himself to the ruling authorities.
In modern America, the equivalent is the "civil public
square," which the manifesto sees as the place where all citizens have an
equal voice. It is not a "sacred square" where (certain) religious
voices predominate, nor is it a "naked square" where secular voices
stand privileged.
Rather than seeking special rights for evangelicals, the manifesto sees
the Christian message as special, not its adherents. "Thus every right we
assert for ourselves is at once a right we defend for others. A right for a
Christian is a right for a Jew, and a right for a secularist, and a right for a
Mormon, and a right for a Muslim, and a right for a Scientologist, and a right
for all the believers in all the faiths across the wide land."
But this is not the manifesto's largest concern. "We are also
troubled by the fact that the advance of globalization and the emergence of a
global public square finds no matching vision of how we are to live freely,
justly and peacefully with our deepest differences on the global stage."
The future will intensify the "challenges of living with our deepest
differences,"
namely, the religious differences of
people around the world.
The manifesto raises this as humanity's greatest concern, one which must
be faced by everyone, not just Christians. While it offers no vision to
overcome, it suggests to the evangelical community that it must change,
approaching the future with the humility borne of equality and egalitarianism
rather than striving for political dominance. The coercion that comes from such
dominance, it argues, "leads inevitably to conflict."