Comments for: “Evangelical Angst: ‘Moderate’ Evangelicals Worry About The Movement’s Image”

It would be silly place any trust in these people with their new manifesto. Recommending staying out of politics while still working to defeat gay marriage initiatives is an internal contradiction that reveals their true intent, narrowing their focus down to one issue they think they can direct their way.

Over the years I have learned to rightly associate the term ‘evangelical’ with deceit, arrogance and a lust for power. Nothing about this so-called manifesto would made me change my mind.

I think, without a doubt, that there are some “moderate” evangelicals out there to whom the religious right is an embarrassment. The folks who just want to quietly live their faith and go about their lives without “shoving their dogma up our karma”. The RR is going to come out against those people with a vengeance. The RR is not quiet about anything. That’s what makes them the RR. They think if they’re not making noise they’re not doing their job. Personally, I am more impressed by those who quietly live their faith than by those who loudly insist that everyone live by their version of the “good news”. But then that’s just me.

Sky, you are absolutely right. I trust a fundie about as far as I could throw my house. “Deceit, arrogance and a lust for power” pretty much sums up the fundie agenda. Gotta hand it to them for perseverance, though. Now if they could only learn to use that energy for good instead of evil…….

It’s at least a little refreshing to see “fellow” evangelicals speak out again the RR, and I can’t say that I blame them. I don’t expect this manifesto to have much impact, but it might motivate others to make their voices of dissent heard. I’m interested in the responses this will elicit from RR leadership. How much will they lambaste their co-religionists and how much more intolerant will they appear to be afterward?

Given the actual, literal meaning of the word “evangelical”, and the common impression of what the term has come to mean in the last 30 years, I think the hijacking of the term is a done deal. The meaning of words change over time, and the RR has successfully changed the meaning of “evangelical”.
The moderates will probably fail, since what they are offering is not “anti-RR” (actual opposition to RR positions) or “RR-lite” (toning down RR positions), but “RR-Green” (RR positions + social and environmental concern). It’s a minor improvement, but it’s still religious-based political activism, and it’s not different enough from basic RR to matter much.

At least Boston acknowledges the need for Christians to spread the good news. Of course, being the coward he is, he refuses to acknowledge 45 years of religion-purging by his bigoted kind.

Wow! Pop is almost being civil! (For some reason “good news” and “Pop” just don’t go together very well in my mind. I wonder why?)

I read the article about the manifesto, and the whole interprise seems a bit confused. We will find out what they actually have to say when they release their manefesto.

What I would find interesting is if they were to stress that in the political realm they have a responsibility to the polity as a whole to make a strong secular case in support of their positions. But they may not be able to do that. Then it would be back to bible beating.

Tim - you nailed it 100%.

The RR is willing to butcher the religion they claim to cherish in order to further their all-important extremist political agenda of controlling others.

Moderate, huh? Many have been known to dislike the word and what it indicates. Among them was Martin Luther King, Jr. In one of his books– I think it was Why We Can’t Wait– he said the greatest impediment to racial equality was the “white moderate;” not the terrorists who commit violent acts against protestors or movement leaders, but the moderates who can accept gradual changes as they come, but seek the comforts of the present situation, whatever it is.

Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson, John Brown, and Madalyn Murray O’Hair are/were all non-moderates. Among those who were moderates include John C. Calhoun, Andrew Johnson, William Howard Taft, and Loyd Bentsen.

This is all opinion, but mine concerning moderates would be those who think they can please everybody– or at least a clear majority overall– and end up pleasing nobody (that is, very few).

I bet this Pastor would sign if he was asked, people like this have been trying for years to say that they are Christians, and they are not RR. Note the date of the article - 2006. It’s a good read.

“Disowning Conservative Politics, Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock,” By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07.....1154404800

I also remember years back another preacher who was lambasted by the SBC because he was talking about global warming. He was accused of being a “liberal” and a “Democrat” and not a “true Christian.” I’m still searching for that one; I can’t remember his name for the life of me.

People are right to be leery; it would be foolish to believe the RR is dead.

Here’s an article about a pastor who would probably sign on to this manifesto. There are those Christians who have felt weighed down by the RRR. Note the date of the article - 2006. So voices have been speaking, just as we have.

“Disowning Conservative Politics, Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock”
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: July 30, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07.....1154404800

If the post appears, twice, I apologize. For some reason, my posts today have vanished. It’s happened four times - with no policy violation.

There are some who have been speaking out on this for years, and of course they are called heretics by the RRR. This story goes back to 2006. The good Rev seems to be one who feels politics merged with religion is an atrocity.

Hope this goes through - I’ve tried to post it 3 times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07.....03b2cb9953

testing…

is anyone else having any problems posting today?

I have trying to post about Rev. Boyd who would be a likely signer (if asked) of this manifesto…if it is what it sounds.

Boyd has been speaking out against the RR hijacking of the term evangelical for years, and actually lost congregation members, and was called a heretic by people like Chuck Colson.

I’ll try again. It’s a good read, and encouraging to know that there are people like this out there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/us/30pastor.html

I have trying to post about Rev. Boyd who would be a likely signer (if asked) of this manifesto…if it is what it sounds.

Boyd has been speaking out against the RR hijacking of the term evangelical for years, and actually lost congregation members, and was called a heretic by people like Chuck Colson.

I’ll try again. It’s a good read, and encouraging to know that there are people like this out there.

Nope. For some reason AU won’t let me post a link to a NY Times Story on this guy. I urge people to google the story. It’s titled: “Disowning Conservative Politics, Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock.”

J,

It is semantic camoflauge to create a category of “non-moderates” and then include Dobson and Robertson in with Jefferson and Paine. True, these folks aren’t in the middle, just opposite sides of the spectrum. While both a searing drought and a torrential flood are not average weather conditions, they certainly don’t belong in the same class of weather as a typical mild day.

As well, it is kind of unseemly to tarnish the names of Paine and Jefferson by trying to link them to a pair of obvious con-men.

Con-men is too kind when speaking of Dobson and Robertson. You are right, Sky, about the tarnishing.

I think J’s leading a run-up to a Rush Limbaugh commentary of moderates, which is why I chose to ignore his comment.

Albatross,

I could never ignore J’s comments. I feel like he and I have a very real connection, very soulful.

Pop, so you are admitting that the First Amendment is an enemy to religion? I though though, because I’ve seen a similar thought patter emerging from those who carry the “religious right” mantle.

Plus, my definition of “good news” and your definition of “good news” are probably light years apart. I fail to see what the radical form of Christianity has done positive for society.

Pop, so you are admitting that the First so, because I’ve seen a similar thought patter emerging from those who carry the “religious right” mantle.

Plus, my definition of “good news” and your definition of “good news” are probably light years apart. I fail to see what the radical form of Christianity has done positive for society.

Pop, so you are admitting that the First Amendment is an enemy to religion? I though so, because I’ve seen a similar thought patter emerging from those who carry the “religious right” mantle.

Plus, my definition of “good news” and your definition of “good news” are probably light years apart. I fail to see what the radical form of Christianity has done positive for society. Therefore, any “good news” you try to share with me will always be considered a form of harassment in my eyes.

(I apologize for the triple posting, my computer is wacky tonight.)

Pop, so you are admitting that the First Amendment is an enemy to religion? I’ve seen a similar thought pattern emerging from those who carry the “religious right” mantle.

Plus, my definition of “good news” and your definition of “good news” are probably light years apart. I fail to see what the radical form of Christianity has done positive for society. Therefore, any “good news” you try to share with me will always be considered a form of harassment in my eyes.

(I’m not leaving until all my spelling errors are corrected. Feel free to delete my first 3 posts.)

Albatross, thanks for the link to the article on Rev. Boyd. He made some very valid points. I hope we see more people like him speaking out.

Your welcome, Jax. I think we need more “heretics” like Boyd, and less fanatics like Robertson.

Sarah, thank you for confirming that you, too, had trouble posting :^).

I knew it wouldn’t take too long. Before anyone can even read the “manifesto,” the representatives of the RRR have much to say.

Here’s Janice Crouse from Concerned Women of America. (I know she was not a signer.)

Dr. Crouse said, “The select group drafting the manifesto apparently excludes traditional conservative, pro-life and pro-family evangelical voices. Further, the timing of the manifesto — at the end of primary election season and just before the general election in a presidential election year — makes this a decidedly political document when millions of evangelical votes are at stake.

“The manifesto seems to be targeting evangelicals by blurring the distinctions between liberal and conservatives, producing an amalgam that will become as impotent and barren in the 21st century as most mainline protestant churches became in the 20th century. Polls indicate that the majority of evangelical believers hold mainstream views and attend church weekly. They believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that personal faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. They oppose both homosexual ‘marriage’ and ‘civil unions’ as undermining marriage, and they believe that abortion should be illegal.

“The term ‘evangelical’ means a Biblical worldview and dictates a philosophical/theological perspective on the timeless moral issues of Scripture. Those positions ought to be clear and unequivocal, rather than muddied by sophisticated rhetoric and clever obfuscation. The subtle danger is, as the old axiom states: ‘Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything,’” Crouse concluded.

Oh, I see Ms. Crouse - but wouldn’t the axiom ‘If you’re not with us, you’re against us,’ be more appropriate in conveying your views, and clarifying your tart remarks? It must be troubling to you that some Christians (those who obviously stand for nothing) have decided there is more to LIFE than the three A’s: abortion, abstinence-only-until-marriage, and the agenda of homosexuals. It must be troubling that some see the “dominion” of the Earth, as requiring care, compassion, and good stewardship. You and your pal Beverly LaHaye can’t see that as important because you’re all in your little “Left Behind” dream world, where you believe dominion means lack of regard for the planet because think you own it, and will be swept away from the damage you’ve left behind. You’re sad, Ms. Louse, I mean Ms. Crouse.

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/1...../index.htm

Hey hypocrites. How’s that IRS investigation of the UCC going?
Ain’t nothing like watching a bunch of buttholes eatin their own crap.

Did you all hear something? Sounds like a pesky knat is in the room.

Pop says:

“Hey hypocrites. How’s that IRS investigation of the UCC going?
Ain’t nothing like watching a bunch of buttholes eatin their own crap”

hay pop; what’s a hypocrite’s difinition of a hypocrite?? and you saying the ucc investigation ain’t going well?…that would be sad.

Albatross, Thank You, Thank You, Thank You!
There is a lot more to life than the 3A’s.
Personally I think if you find someone that you can commit to for a lifetime who am I to say you picked the wrong person? And how does a gay civil union undermine a heterosexual marriage? Ah, the mysteries of life. Oh, and who do they think is going to restore the planet once they have destroyed all of it’s natural resources?
Pop, who peed in your wheaties this morning?

Those who would like to take a look at the manifesto can find it here:

http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/

“I would rather you commit suicide than have you leave Love In Action wanting to return to the gay lifestyle. In a physical death you could still have a spiritual resurrection; whereas, returning to homosexuality you are yielding yourself to a spiritual death from which there is no recovery.”

These words are credited in many, many places to John Smid, Director, Love In Action (LIA), an institution dedicated to reprogramming teens to make them “ex-gay.” (The term is in quotes, because there is no such thing.) Smid denies having said this to the gay teens “enrolled” in the LIA program, but there are just too many sources to ignore it.

It was this statement that inspired me to write THINKING STRAIGHT, a novel about a gay teen in a place similar to LIA.

As long as anyone anywhere allows their human brain to be eclipsed by the primordial reptilian organ whose only weapon is fear and whose only calm comes from homogeneity, I don’t care whether they call themselves Religious Right, Religious Moderates, or Religious Nothing. They are allowing fear to subjugate their humanity. It isn’t just homosexuality that’s a threat; it’s anyone who doesn’t think the same way they do.

There is a word for what Janice Crouse (Concerned Women of America) is doing when she claims that same-sex marriage is a threat. It’s called confabulation. It’s what happens when her reptilian brain (R-25 Complex, for the scientifically interested out there) screams bloody murder and forces her human brain to take action that makes no sense. It’s her human brain desperately coming up with something – anything – to justify a senseless, fear-driven reaction. She doesn’t even know that this is what’s happening. Therefore, she can’t be trusted. And it doesn’t seem to me that by accepting the need for concern about the environment, the less “Right” evangelicals have earned trust, either.

The Author states that he knows the “Religious Right,” but I question whether he actually knows many Evangelicals or just knows about them. And for him to state that he believe the “Religious Right” has done more negative to this country than positive, then he needs to give substantial evidence, which he gives none.
Although, I would agree that some Evangelicals have become extremely political, most are not, but do hold to what they believe are biblical principles regarding life, the role of government in one’s life, and the importance of morals and right from wrong (not in a legalistic way though).
So, is the Relgious Right dead, you are correct, it is not, but I do think that it has matured and is not as hard as the author makes them out to be. As a matter of fact, looking at several of these comments, there seems to be several “mean-spirited,” angry people who call others names and de-mean individuals and Evangelicals and that is not productive.
It is important to have healthy dialogue, but both sides of the issues have to be willing to talk rationally and compassionately. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like many are willing to do that.

Daniel B. Gilbert says: “It is important to have healthy dialogue, but both sides of the issues have to be willing to talk rationally and compassionately. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like many are willing to do that.”

Daniel, how do you propose to have a rational conversation with someone who suspends rational thought in favor of religious beliefs? How do you have a healthy dialogue with someone who automatically labels you as “bad” because you do not share their beliefs? In some cases, the “if you’re not with me, you’re against me mindset” is so deeply ingrained that it is impossible to converse. That is the experience many here have had when interacting with members of the religious right.

I’ve tried to appeal to a number of RR types on the common ground of our humanity. But they don’t seem to want to find common ground. They seem to want to take all of the “ground” for themselves and leave everyone else to deal with them on their terms only.

RE: Evangelicals vs. the Religious Right

Daniel, Some of the posters here have gone out of the way to distinguish between the religious right and Evangelicals in general. But I’ve heard quite a few of the more odious examples of the Religious Right claim the name “conservative Evangelical”.

I tend to think of the Religious Right extremists as “fundamentalists”, and to consider the term “Evangelical” as a more general, theological classification. I think fundamentalists sometimes use the term to escape the pejorative connotation of “fundamentalist”.

It seems like some Evangelicals (conservative or not) are getting sick and tired of it. The writers of the manifesto attempt to distinguish themselves from “liberal revisionism” and from “conservative fundamentalism.” They consider conservative fundamentalists (quite rightly) to be a modern reaction to the modern world (I’d just say reactionary) that “tends to… to radicalize the present… [and] are personally and publicly militant to the point where they are sub-Christian.”

I think that is an apt description and analysis, but they also admit that the fundimentalist tendancey is so close to Evangelicalism that they seem, to many, to overlap. “Seem” is their phrase. I’d say they do. And that is their problem.

If Evangelicals want the respect of others and to engage in a “civil public square” they need to fully and clearly disengage from the militant fundamentalists. Until they do, it will be the fundamentalists that determine the public perception of Evangelism.

So, this is a step in the right direction. Maybe a few Evangelicals will show up in the AU discussion board and support us against the “conservative Fundamentalists”. That would be an improvement.

Maybe they will raise a hue and cry against their “brother”, the teacher Freshwater in Ohio, and let him know, definitively, that he does not speak for them and that he is poising the “civil public square” for all of them.

Actions speak louder than manifestos. Repudiate and shame Freshwater and you will earn my respect.

Daniel B. Gilbert, I seriously doubt that there is not a poster here who cannot distinguish between the religious right, and “other” Christians, and mostly from personal experience.

Substantive evidence, you say? OK. Scroll over to the threads about Mr. Freshwater for one example. Look up the FDA approval process for big Pharma, then take a gander at the approval process for Plan B, or you could just go on seeing the RR as a sweet group of people who just want freedom to worship God. Ha Ha. They are theocrats, and if you can’t see that, then you are approving of their tactics for achieving theocracy, and have zero respect for others beliefs.

Sure, most evangelicals aren’t direct followers of the RR. However, many regard them as like-minded Christians who contribute meaningfully to theology and politics. Reality is, the RR do neither - in fact, they contribute very negatively to both. The best thing that evangelicals (and Christians in general) can do is to disown these RR figures. I don’t mean excommunicate. I simply mean that they should cease to take these people seriously and instead regard them as rather obnoxious talking heads.

For example, I have many Republican friends who who regard Anne Coulter with disgust and are quick to blast her, even though they vote the same way she does. This makes perfect sense, since she is a loon. Evangelicals should take the same attitutude toward Robertson, Dobson, and the rest of the RR spokespeople.

This manifesto is a good step in that direction. We’ll have to see if this changes the minds of people in the pews.

Daniel B. Gilbert wrote- “So, is the Relgious Right dead, you are correct, it is not, but I do think that it has matured and is not as hard as the author makes them out to be. As a matter of fact, looking at several of these comments, there seems to be several “mean-spirited,” angry people who call others names and de-mean individuals and Evangelicals and that is not productive.
It is important to have healthy dialogue, but both sides of the issues have to be willing to talk rationally and compassionately. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like many are willing to do that.”

It’s no wonder you would find an angry edge to some of the comments here. The religious right certainly makes me angry. These are a group of politicized radicals who seek to overthrow the U.S. government, wrapping themselves in the veneer of what they call christianity.
They’ve been very upfront about their goals. And their actions for achieving these goals could only be called ‘christian’ by someone suffering severe delusions.

Up is down. Black is white. Wrong is right.

You try having a rational discussion with one of these kooks.

RE: And their actions for achieving these goals could only be called ‘christian’ by someone suffering severe delusions.

The Evangelical Manifesto characterizes the “conservative fundimentalists” as “sub-Christian”. So even their brethren seems to find something pretty offensive about them.