Liberty University officials criticize ‘Evangelical Manifesto’
Ergun Caner, president of the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, said the manifesto is “like coming out to a Pittsburgh Steelers game wearing a Cleveland Browns jersey. It’s a document that has great intentions but will never happen.”
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
By Justin Faulconer
Published: May 21, 2008
It’s a document that a group of Christian leaders hope can rally evangelicals and ease political polarization.
But Liberty University officials feel parts of a recently released, 20-page “Evangelical Manifesto” undercuts the political activism and voice in modern culture that founder Jerry Falwell spent his life advocating.
A committee of nine pastors, seminary deans and writers from across the country released the manifesto earlier this month. Its intent is to reaffirm, and redefine, evangelicals’ identity and public involvement.
“That word evangelical has taken on increasingly political connections,” said David Neff, editor-in-chief of Christianity Today and a committee member. “That’s not what we’re about. Our identity is promoting faith in Jesus Christ and all that goes with that.”
A section that has drawn particular ire from Liberty officials states that neither the religious right nor religious left should “politicize faith.” In that case, Christians become “useful idiots” for one political party or another, it states, and beliefs become weapons for political interests.
Ergun Caner, president of the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, said the manifesto “muddies the water” when it comes to being an evangelical.
Caner, a former Muslim who converted in 1982, defines the term as “pro-life, pro-family” and having solely Christian beliefs.
“To me, it’s like coming out to a Pittsburgh Steelers game wearing a Cleveland Browns jersey,” Caner said of the manifesto. “It’s a document that has great intentions but will never happen.”
Caner said he wasn’t happy to learn his name was listed as a charter signatory to the manifesto when it was unveiled May 7 in Washington D.C. The committee contacted him to review the document’s language, he said, but he never gave consent to include his signature.
Neff said it was an oversight that Caner’s name had been included and it has since been removed.
Caner said Falwell was also listed as having signed it, though Neff said he was not aware of that and the manifesto’s Web site does not list Falwell as a signatory.
Jerry Falwell Jr., chancellor of Liberty University, said his father would never sign anything that would discourage political involvement.
“Anyone who knew Dad knew that’s not what he believed,” Falwell said.
The manifesto, which Neff admits is a self-critical look at evangelicals, stresses reforming behavior and pushing for more denominational unity.
Neff said there also must be a different approach in engaging in the public square, like trying to decrease political polarization.
“We don’t feel like it’s our task to further that polarization,” Neff said. “If anything, we should bridge people.”
The manifesto also calls for a need to go beyond “single-issue” politics such as abortion and marriage to fight against racism, corruption, poverty and illiteracy.
Caner said he does not disagree with the manifesto as a whole, but called the section addressing political activism “spineless” and a “group hug approach to Christianity.”
He said in a written statement that he does not apologize for stances the university has taken for decades.
“We believe Christianity has been pushed out of the public square,” Caner wrote. “We are not owned by any political party, but we will stand with and for candidates that are for our values and against those values that we see as unbiblical.”
Neff said reaction to the manifesto so far has been “mixed.” There was no intent, he said, to impact the upcoming presidential election by swaying evangelical voters who played a part in electing President Bush to two terms.
Falwell said there always have been people in both parties who call themselves evangelicals, but the turnout in recent elections for the pro-life, pro-family candidate has been reassuring.
He said he predicts the same kind of turnout in this year’s election.
“It’s a little harder for evangelicals to get excited about John McCain than it was for Bush,” Falwell said. “But when it comes to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, he’s better than the given alternatives.”
Neff said the evangelical term has been around for centuries, but was revived in the 1940s by the ministry of Billy Graham. He personally defines an evangelical as someone who has converted, has Christian and Bible-centered beliefs and participates in social activism based on compassion.
Nearly 29 percent of the United States population consider themselves evangelical, according to the 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, a publication of the Census Bureau.
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( jdrubeck ) on May 27, 2008 at 10:00 am
(Ducky) LU promotes a kind of religion that segregates all others who do not follow the doctrine they teach? I just want to know how they do this; is it by claiming they teach �the truth�, if it is then you�re doing the same thing. There isn�t any philosophical difference in your line of thinking and what you accuse them of doing. For instance, you�re calling LU terribly intolerant and you argue for being tolerant to all of mankind. However, you are intolerant to the intolerant; you may say you�re just giving them their dues, but this still makes you intolerant and guilty of breaking your own rule.
Furthermore you say �What right does anyone have to tell me or anyone else how to manage his or her spiritual beliefs?� Then you turn around and essentially say that LU�s opinions and teachings should be managed and controlled in a tolerant society, breaking your own code; so let�s forget the idea of freedom of speech.
You claim that LU and their followers have no idea on the concept of love and acceptance. Really, I don�t exactly know what you�ve seen to make you formulate an idea like that, but please share. I know while attending there I�ve seen Mel White, a Bahai leader, Mormons, Buddhists, and Hindus all come to speak in LU theology classes; not exactly what a close-minded fanatical school would do. Or is it that LU trains nurses, teachers, police officers, military leaders, or humanitarians that you don�t like them?
A comparison to Nazi Germany then at the end I assume? Wow, I love it when that comparison gets brought up. You truly believe LU is similar in way to a belief system that led to the deaths of over 30 million people; um they condemn the crusades at the school. I haven�t seen anyone walking around Lynchburg with an Ar-15 preaching acceptance of Christ, or else�.. If you want to make a comparison, please make one that logically follows, not just a straw man attack
Furthermore, the whole political thing; can you tell me if LU/TRBC preaches that one should vote for candidates that only believe exactly what the school teaches, or will make political decision that will agree with their values. The answer is the second one, and the fact of the matter is. EVERYONE picks a candidate based on his/her own values, because they want a candidate that they can agree with. So are you suggesting that Evangelicals be stifled because their religious views influence their values and beliefs and that influences their political decisions? Because stifling of any group of people because of their beliefs/ values (as long as they don�t want a state sponsored religion) is what is Anti-American according to the constitution. After all ducky, don�t your personal religious views alter your values and beliefs and thereby affects your voting? I hope it does, because it does it for everyone.
In summary, one can�t be truly tolerant unless they even tolerate the intolerant, also it would be nice to know who truly intolerant Libertyites are. Also, to manage no spiritual beliefs, accept for just those over there, is also another inherent contradiction. Finally, I�m just trying to address your post as a whole and note some inconsistencies (maybe there not a problem for you) but I don�t know what evidences your claiming, you have just stated an opinion and that�s fine that�s America; I�ve just stated mine back though
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( ducky ) on May 27, 2008 at 5:44 am
I find the entire subject brings on a case of nausea. I never heard of Jerry F. until I moved here 6 yrs ago. His beliefs and control that LU & TRBC on the Lynchburg population is one that reminds me of a historic marker during WWII. God is simply love; love of all mankind, acceptance. LU promotes a kind of religion that segregates all others who do not follow the doctrine they teach. Politics and religion need to stay in separate arenas, have we not learned from history when the two mix? What right does anyone have to tell me or anyone else how to manage his or her spiritual beliefs? I did not realize there are rules to follow concerning my spiritual way of life. As long as one is not being deliberate in harming another person or forcing his or her way of thinking what harm is being done. Thankfully the Lynchburg community and many outside this area (globally) realize this way of thought is very wrong and border line cult like. Thankfully the general public sees the LU way and its followers as basic fanatics that have not the concept of acceptance of all mankind regardless of his or hers spiritual beliefs. We have enough bully’s in this world, so please find the love that is truly behind God and leave the rest of us alone as we are fairly done with being forced, chastised and criticized for having acceptance for all mankind. This brand of politics is nothing more than control and brain washing; again it’s a reminder of the unfortunate and truly historic tragedy that occurred in WWII.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( jdrubeck ) on May 27, 2008 at 1:16 am
1.) I agree with many that the actions of alot of Christians are uneducated and abhorrent.
however…haha
2.) LU is anti Prosperity Theology/ Health n Wealth Gospel ( they teach against benny hinn, mike murdock, kenneth copeland, and oral roberts ect..ect.
3.) If any church actually told a congregation who to vote for, they would lose their tax exempt status..so I don’t understand that straw man. However, a npo, can argue for beliefs or values; and in certain election years some canidates are easier to choose for certain npo’s than others. (should NOW be criticized b/c they would seem to endorse hillary?)
I agree with whoever said that we should vote issues, values,beliefs, and not party lines. George Washington made a comment to the extent that if the parties became the power over the issues instead of the power that brought forth the issues, then America would be in trouble (esentially he saw a problem with strict partisianship)
4.) Finally just because Bush was popular among evanglicals, don’t get uptight. I recall he was elected by 51%, his approval rating is around half that (seems to indicate people can admit mistakes). Furthermore, his approval rating at the end of 2001 was near 80%; so please don’t exagerrate the issue.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Reality Check ) on May 27, 2008 at 12:03 am
That is also what Reagan thought when he said “Tear down this wall.“ And he was right.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Reality Check ) on May 26, 2008 at 11:58 pm
You mean the Christ that ran the money changers out of the temple with a whip?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( JacksonPollock ) on May 26, 2008 at 9:58 pm
I started to write a response to the LU reaction to this wonderful evangelical manifesto that says what many Christians have been trying to say for the past two decades (plus) after the fundamentalists put Reagan (“I don’t go to church. I don’t have time”) in office as their “moral mentor.“
But . . . Punto has said it all, and I applaud your perfectly aligned prose in both substance and form. Well said.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( elvis ) on May 26, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Caner’s photo looks like he’s mad at the world. Why am I not surprised?
Falwell is responsible for the the current state of affairs in America. His lunacy gave us the neocons and the subsequent loss of our Constitutional rights— including the loss of habeas corpus—and the destruction of America. He put these corporate traitors in power. Thank you, Mr. Falwell, traitor to America.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Cosmo Wafflefoot ) on May 25, 2008 at 5:39 am
( Reality Check ).... That’s exactly what Custer thought.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Verite ) on May 24, 2008 at 7:03 pm
This is why religion must be separate from politics: �We believe Christianity has been pushed out of the public square,� Caner wrote. �We are not owned by any political party, but we will stand with and for candidates that are for our values and against those values that we see as unbiblical.�
This statement by Caner is one in many steps toward a theocracy desired by evangelicals. Here is what is wrong with it.
1. There are over 30-thousand “Christian” denominations in which interpretations of the bible vary. When Canner states, “unbiblical”, to which interpretation does he refer?
2. This is why Caner, LU and the Falwell clan do not support the manifesto. Neff states that evangelicals “participate[s] in social activism based on compassion.“ Far too many of today’s “Christians” have little or no compassion for the non-Christian. In fact, it is both sad and ironic that so many loud, and narcissistic so-called Christians in the US today act about as much like Christ as Hitler, Hussein, or Bin Laden. They lay the worst of human traits on their god: hate, envy, prejudice, scorn, and self-righteousness.
Disagree with me? Just look at some of the messages on the signs in front of churches and businesses in the Lynchburg area or on the bumper stickers of cars in the area. They use fear to market their brand of religion. There is little love or compassion for anyone not like themselves. It is no surprise then that LU disavows the manifesto. It is gentle like Christ.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( FedUpWithTRBC ) on May 24, 2008 at 11:08 am
Sorry [Reality Check], people in Lynchburg used to be silence and submissive to TRBC. They were afraid to speak out and expose the fools for who they (you) really are. We’re speaking out now and you fundies are freaking out because you don’t know how to take it. You were winning in the past, but now the tide has turned, so get ready for your defeat. Don’t worry, as long as there is stupidity, you will still have a congregation. When America stops dumbing-down the people in this country, then is the time fundies to worry.
Report Inappropriate Comment