Manifested

I've now had a chance to read the "Evangelical Manifesto" that we discussed earlier.

It's rather well done and there's much to commend here. The concluding "Invitation to All" is particularly welcome. So too is what is probably the document's strongest contribution and best hope for achieving what it seeks to accomplish, namely its tone, which is reasonable and almost aggressively civil.

I'm also quite pleased to find that this document, endorsed by some notable and influential leaders in American evangelicalism, includes concern for the poor and the powerless as non-negotiable hallmarks of the faith. And I'm even more pleased that it does so without any sense that such commitments must be over-defended as matters of "controversy." Ditto for the manifesto's repeated references to the stewardship of creation and its fleeting, but welcome, endorsement of "a high view of science" and condemnation of the oppression of women.

There are also several points on which I disagree with the writers and several more points I would need to ask them to clarify. Here, for example:

All too often we have tried to be relevant, but instead of creating "new wineskins for the new wine," we have succumbed to the passing fashions of the moment and made noisy attacks on yesterday’s errors, such as modernism, while capitulating tamely to today’s, such as postmodernism.

The writers here seem to be endorsing something other than "modernism" or "postmodernism," but what that might be isn't quite clear. The logical implication would seem to be pre-modernism, but I'm fairly sure that's not what they mean either.

Postmodern there seems to be a bogeyman word meaning, I take it, all the bad things that it might possibly mean and none of the good. (That's a bit odd in a document that otherwise seems to borrow an awful lot from Stanley Hauerwas.)

Elsewhere the document criticizes fundamentalism as "an essentially modern reaction to the modern world." That's astute, but it's difficult to understand such a critique if a discussion of the failures of modernism, i.e., postmodernism, is forbidden as "error." My best guess here is that what the writers are really on about is what they earlier condemn as "an inadequate view of truth." Their dedication to truth is admirable, but it's also troublesome throughout the document due to their own inadequate view of uncertainty.

One gets the sense that one is reading a document written by people who automatically translate "we cannot be certain" into "there is no truth." This makes it difficult for someone like me, who believes the former but not the latter, to engage what they're saying. In any case a bit of humble, postmodern, chastened, glass-darkly epistemology might have helped to rescue the manifesto's discussion of sola scriptura, which seems premised on the idea that certainty is readily and easily available to us humans. (That notion strikes me as, to borrow a phrase, "an essentially modern reaction to the modern world.")

The other bogeyman word here seems to be "secularism." Making this a bogeyman word leads to some serious confusion in the section of the manifesto subtitled, "A civil rather than a sacred or naked public square." What they're advocating here is secularism, but they've decided they can't call it that, so instead we get a page and a half endorsing secularism and the separation of church and state while simultaneously condemning "secularism" and the "strict separation of church and state." It isn't pretty.

The language they are thus forced to rely on comes from the man who led them into this linguistic mess, from Richard John Neuhaus and his book The Naked Public Square. Neuhaus' big idea there was that secularism is, itself, a kind of religion. Thus, for Neuhaus, a non-sectarian government is really sectarian -- it sides with and privileges non-sectarianism as a kind of state religion. The refusal to impose state-sanctioned sectarian prayer on public school students is thus, in this view, an establishment of the "religion" of secularism. And the refusal to accede to a sectarian argument based primarily on the particular tenets of a sect is thus mere bigotry.

That's just a slightly more sophisticated version of the whole "your 'tolerance' is really just intolerance of my intolerance" shtick, the boilerplate nonsense of bigots attempting to pose as victims. Since the writers of the "Evangelical Manifesto" explicitly condemn "posing as victims" for political gain, they might want to rethink relying on Neuhaus here for the framing of this question.

Where the manifesto ends up on the matter is this:

Our commitment is to a civil public square -- a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths too.

"A civil public square" providing a "framework of what is agreed to be just and free" to "citizens of all faiths" regardless of sectarian particulars. If I were on the "$25,000 Pyramid" and Betty White said all that to me, I'd be shouting "secularism! ... separation of church and state!"

But here's my biggest problem with the document. "Contrary to widespread misunderstanding today, we Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially or culturally," it says on page 4. "Evangelicalism must be defined theologically and not politically; confessionally and not culturally," it repeats on page 8.

Amen and amen. But then on page 13 it says this:

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. Although we cannot back away from our biblically rooted commitment to the sanctity of every human life, including those unborn, nor can we deny the holiness of marriage as instituted by God between one man and one woman ...

The "A-word" is out of the bag, and I don't suppose there's anything I could write here to prevent that from becoming the sole and heated topic in the comment thread below, but my point here is not the substance of the anti-abortion and anti-gay stances that the authors say they "cannot back away from." Nor do I want to get distracted by the question of whether or not "the holiness of marriage as instituted by God" would be an adequate line of argument "within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths too."

My point here is 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. 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.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not questioning the sincerity of the authors and signatories when they reaffirm these political stances. I am sure they are being perfectly sincere. But what is it that they are doing here with such sincerity? What is the purpose of this ritual reaffirmation?

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.

Comments

[Nathan]

Excellent analysis. As a mainline Presbyterian it is hard for me to wade into a document like this without a degree of cynicism. I have seen what happens when we get so wrapped up in words that we end up tripping over what we say. Then again, the whole 'confessional church' thing doesn't work too well when my denomination tries to base its theological unity on an entire book full of every Reformed confession known to man.

[anon for now]

Delurking to ask a question (no snark):

Can someone explain to me about this "biblically rooted commitment to the sanctity of every human life" thingy? Because I've read the Bible, and I never noticed anything in it that would suggest that human life has any value whatsoever. That is, I see the Bible -- and religion in general -- as being about human relations with God, and to a lesser extent, rules for how humans are supposed to treat each other.

So, yeah, there are rules about how we are to behave to each other, like Thou Shall Not Kill and so forth, but mostly I get the impression that we are forbidden to judge and to kill and so on because that's God's job, not ours. Like, God can commit mass murders or genocides or whatever, but people aren't necessarily allowed not because our lives are so valuable, but because we're, you know: not God. And I gather that Jesus redeems souls, not lives.

In fact, reading the Bible makes me think that human life is considered utterly valueless, except in our usefulness to God.

So an explanation of where this Value Of Human Life thing comes from would be much appreciated.

[Amy]

It seems to me that paragraph on page 13, rather than being a capitulation to the Evangelical status quo, is in fact a challenge to the notion that abortion and gay-marriage are the only two "Shibboleths" as you put them. By saying "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" they seem to be acknowledging the rest of Evangelical's fixation on those two issues, they find them insufficient as "defining" issues. Just because they admit they are in agreement with regard to those issues doesn't, in my mind, undermine their point. Rather than wanting to placate other Evangelicals, you could just as well assume they may have been trying to avoid appearing to give their tacit approval of the freedom to hold pro-choice or pro-gay views to Christians with weaker ties to Evangelicalism by omitting their stance on these two issues.

[badger3k]

"Our commitment is to a civil public square -- a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths too."

Not quite secularism, since there is no mention of people without faith in supernatural beings. I guess atheists and other nontheists who do not like that word are going to be relegated to a back room somewhere and should stay quiet. Expected from Evangelicals, but still pretty pathetic.

[Trevel]

I think the "Secularism! Separation of Church and State!" comes across as it does because the WORDS are bogeymen, and they want people to read the actual ideas rather than the labels that go with them. (vaguely akin to the need to touch on marriage and abortion)

I.e., "I agree with what you've been told! Secularism is evil! But this other idea I had, which ISN'T secularism because we've already agreed that that's evil, seems a good idea! Let's all do that!"

People: "Hey! That doesn't sound nearly as evil as secularism is, according to what we've been told about it! Let's do that! Down with secularism! Hooray for Secularism 2: The Revenge!"

[Tonio]

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.

That would explain why they employ the nebulous term "public life." For the fundamentalists who they're trying to reach, the term is code for Christian beliefs or doctrines influencing the lawmaking process.

That's just a slightly more sophisticated version of the whole "your 'tolerance' is really just intolerance of my intolerance" shtick, the boilerplate nonsense of bigots attempting to pose as victims.

Dumb question - did Neuhaus explicitly favor tilting American government in the direction of theocracy? I've never heard his argument used for any other purpose.

[Tonio]

Although we cannot back away from our biblically rooted commitment to the sanctity of every human life, including those unborn, nor can we deny the holiness of marriage as instituted by God between one man and one woman ...

How is that any different from Mike Huckabee's stance? To expand on the point Fred made recently about Huck and King, the Manifesto seems to reject any possibility of secular arguments against abortion and gay marriage. While I'm not interested in debating those issues in this thread, I would like to see how debates on those issues would turn out if they were carried out strictly on secular grounds.

[Craig]

So an explanation of where this Value Of Human Life thing comes from would be much appreciated.

"The sanctity of human life" is a dog whistle denoting opposition to abortion (and sometimes euthanasia). So, you and the Manifesto are sort of talking past each other here.

[anon for now]

Craig, thank you--I actually do understand that here it's a dogwhistle. I was wondering if someone might explain in general where the idea came from, if it in fact comes from the Bible at all. Because I don't see it there. Sorry if this is off topic.

[Stan McCullars]

anon for now,

Regarding your questions regarding the Value Of Human Life...

Genesis 9:5-6 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. Whoever sheds human blood, by human beings shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made humankind.

Psalms 139:13-16 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

Proverbs 24:11-12 Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, "But we knew nothing about this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?

Regarding your statement that "reading the Bible makes me think that human life is considered utterly valueless, except in our usefulness to God" I would encourage you to read the Book of Romans from the New Testament. Following is chapter 8 of the Book of Romans...

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful humanity to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in human flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind controlled by the sinful nature is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace. The sinful mind is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. You, however, are not controlled by the sinful nature but are in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you. Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have?

But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God's people in accordance with the will of God. And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who then can condemn? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[anon for now]

Stan McCullars, thank you. I appreciate this.

I think I read here, though, that the human spirit is valuable (being basically God's spirit), not human life (the sinful body)? My confusion arises from the emphasis in "The Evangelical Manifesto" on the value of human life -- do they mean spirit? And if they do, isn't that rather a hatred of, you know, actual life (lived in the body)?

Not meaning to threadjack, by the way. This is just something that bugs me. I usually lurk but I've been meaning to ask this question here for some time.

[Turcano]

The writers here seem to be endorsing something other than "modernism" or "postmodernism," but what that might be isn't quite clear. The logical implication would seem to be pre-modernism, but I'm fairly sure that's not what they mean either.

It is possible that they're referring to what goes by the inelegant label of post-postmodernism -- essentially the Hegelian synthesis of modernism and postmodernism -- but the context doesn't make that likely.

[Indecisive]

"Postmodern there seems to be a bogeyman word meaning, I take it, all the bad things that it might possibly mean and none of the good. (That's a bit odd in a document that otherwise seems to borrow an awful lot from Stanley Hauerwas.)"

And perhaps it is borrowing this vague usage of the word "postmodernism" from Hauerwas himself. In an essay entitled "The Christian Difference: Or, Surviving Postmodernism" (found in _A Better Hope_), Hauerwas seems obstinate in his refusal to provide an actual definition for this vague term, really only agreeing with Nicholas Boyle's description (no where close to a *definition*) of "PM is the pessimism of an obsolescent class." But there's certainly an "I'm only talking about the bad things 'pomo' might refer to" vibe to the whole article; but he's certainly on board with the good parts of pomo, as long as they don't go by that label. One footnote says "I have no idea what it would mean to say that [Stanley] Fish is a postmodernist." He flatly refuses to name scholars whom he would consider postmodernists, usually a sign that a straw man is being constructed. Unsurprisingly, then, he cites Terry Eagleton as having a good definition of pomo, and Eagleton's book on the subject also flatly refuses to name people who suffer what he calls the "illusions of postmodernism."

[Jeff]

The writers here seem to be endorsing something other than "modernism" or "postmodernism," but what that might be isn't quite clear. The logical implication would seem to be pre-modernism, but I'm fairly sure that's not what they mean either.

Un-moderenism? Proto-modernism? Antidiseastablishmodernatarianism?

[Stan McCullars]

anon for now,
In response to your questions regarding spirit and body...

I got much of the following from Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem.
"Everyone agrees that we have physical bodies. Most people sense that they also have an immaterial part - a "soul" that will live on after their bodies die." When Christians refer to life they generally mean soul (which I would argue is the spirit) and body together. I am, unfortunately, unqualified philosophically to argue the finer points of that view which is known as "dichotomy." Some Christians argue that the soul and spirit are distinct and that view is known as "trichotomy." There is also a view known as "monism" which holds that the soul and spirit actually refer to the "person" or that person's "life."

In either view, referring to human life (even if it specifically was in reference to the soul or spirit) would not involve hating the body. Christians believe that God dwells in the body of the Christian. 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 states "Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person; for God's temple is sacred, and you together are that temple."

As such, Christians have a great respect for the body. In fact, a primary reason many Christians give for not smoking is that the body is temple of God's Spirit. It's not an either/or. Rather it's a both/and.

I hope this helps.

[Spherical Time]

I have a question that I'd like to get an opinion on.

What is the best answer to the "your 'tolerance' is really just intolerance of my intolerance" shtick? I used to run into this regularly at Christian Forums, and I've never had an answer that I felt entirely comfortable with.

My usual response usually wavers between "Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance in the first place" and "Tolerance of people is more important than tolerance of ideas."

Does anyone have a good one-liner or one-paragraph answer to that shtick?

[Doctor Science]

I'm going to link to a post I made following a Slacktivist discussion last fall: Truth and certainty. I said then: IMO ... the greatest philosophical achievement of 20th-century science was realizing that the quest for capital-T Truth means you have to give up capital-C Certainty. That, I think, is what "post-modernism" is getting at, too, though post-modernists seem less willing than scientists to say that there *is* such a thing as capital-T Truth.

I don't get the feeling the authors of this Manifesto have really assimilated the conflict between Truth -- which in Christian terms is divine and unfathomable -- and the human desire for Certainty, for everything to fit inside the human mind.

I must admit that as an outsider I find it amusing that the Manifesto apparently owes so much to the Catholic Neuhaus, and less to the fully Protestant Hauermas -- whom I find one of the greatest of living Evangelical thinkers.

[Turcano]

Does anyone have a good one-liner or one-paragraph answer to that shtick?

I would suggest a quote from Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies:

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

[Doctor Science]

Spherical Time:
What is the best answer to the "your 'tolerance' is really just intolerance of my intolerance" schtick?

The short answer: "No."

"Tolerance of people is more important than tolerance of ideas" is one good way of putting it. Tolerance of people is also *completely different* than tolerance of ideas. Ideas do not have feelings (or, for believers, souls). Refusing to tolerate unkindness is not "intolerance", because intolerance (of persons) is unkind. The tolerance they are arguing against is nothing more than decent, well-mannered behavior, and their argument can be translated to, "your good manners are just bad manners toward my bad manners." Which, in the language of today's youth, = FAIL.

Refusing to deal with the ill-mannered is *not* bad manners, it is enforcing a standard. The intolerance these people are clinging to is not a standard of kindness.

[Nina]

That's an excellent quote, Turcano. Thanks for posting it.

[Doctor Science]

Thanks for the quote, Turcano. I don't think it's coincidence that Popper was both an ethicist and a philosopher of science, one of the most important architects of the new consensus I talked about above.

[Robb]

Oy - I go away for a while, and come back to this? AWESOME!

Disclaimer - I've not read the whole thing yet, but I'll be poring over it in the next few days.

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

Well, yeah. . . not to be too impolite, but duh - the sad fact is that most American Christians are not only myopically unaware of the topics outside of this focus, but in many churches, there's a specific indoctrination toward this end. That the authors of this document connect with mainstream Evangelicals here is essential if they're to have any hope of influencing them on other topics, even if there isn't a consensus on all topics.

*****

The writers here seem to be endorsing something other than "modernism" or "postmodernism," but what that might be isn't quite clear. The logical implication would seem to be pre-modernism, but I'm fairly sure that's not what they mean either.

Again, I've not read the whole thing yet, but I'm fairly sure they're looking to avoid the dual minefields of "Postmodernism is GODLESS PLURALISM!" vs. "Modernism is ARCHAIC DOGMATISM!"* that most often form the extreme polemic arguments. Given the warm & fuzzy, ecumenical and unifying tone of what I've read so far (and I agree that a great term for it is "welcoming"), I'd say they're looking to forge a "practical" middle path. I'm reminded of DA Carson's lecture series on A Confessional Response to Postmodernism and Brian McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy in their attempts to parse the good from the bad in a scholarly and conversational (respectively) way.

Damn. . . this is good stuff. . . gotta sit down & read the whole thing... as soon as I put my daugher to bed.

*****

What is the best answer to the "your 'tolerance' is really just intolerance of my intolerance" shtick?

Sheesh. . . I dunno. I cringe whenever I hear another Christian throw that out - such people are typically readily critical of other's [perceived] logical flaws while ignoring their own hula-hoops. Try responding with this, and hope they get the point Paul was trying to make.

* - I'm thinking of Christian Epistemology here, in which case matters of doctrine, dogmatism, orthodoxy, etc are of slightly more prominence, due to their specific relation to the field in question.

[Dylan]

I don't get the feeling the authors of this Manifesto have really assimilated the conflict between Truth -- which in Christian terms is divine and unfathomable -- and the human desire for Certainty, for everything to fit inside the human mind.

That's a really good perspective on it; I don't think I've ever heard it phrased that way. It's extremely hard to say "I don't know" on these matters, as if God/religion/doctrine couldn't exist outside our own minds.

On the other hand, I can't help but think that attitude is prevalent because of a lot of hostile discussions between people of different beliefs. Uncertainty doesn't win a debate; if you don't have an answer for everything then it's generally assumed your beliefs are wrong. (The trick, of course, is to avoid that trap altogether, and be able to accept that your beliefs don't need everyone's approval to be valid.)

[Indecisive]

>>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

>Well, yeah. . . not to be too impolite, but duh - the sad fact is that most American Christians are not only myopically unaware of the topics
>outside of this focus, but in many churches, there's a specific indoctrination toward this end. That the authors of this document connect with
>mainstream Evangelicals here is essential if they're to have any hope of influencing them on other topics, even if there isn't a consensus on
>all topics.

Robb, on the practical side, you're probably absolutely correct. Though it may be changing somewhat (or maybe I just hope that), one often has to establish one's evangelical bona fides by chastising abortion and gay marriage before most evangelicals will even start to listen to anything else that you say (this goes doubly if you're a politician wooing their vote). But this fact actually proves Fred's point: if one has to toe the line on these two political subjects before being recognizable to most evangelicals as an evangelical, then it is a de facto definition of what it means to be an evangelical no matter how much the authors of this document want to emphasize theological over and above political definitions of the term.

[McJulie]

What is the best answer to the "your 'tolerance' is really just intolerance of my intolerance" shtick?

"You're kidding, right?"

"That's nonsense and you know it."

"There are words coming out of your mouth -- the seem to be in English -- and yet, they convey no meaning whatsoever."

"That's because I tolerate everything *except complete idiots.*"

Also, the instant I see the word "postmodernism" in any context, my brain glazes over and I find myself humming the intro to "I Think I Love You" by The Partridge Family.

[mcc]

I'm beginning to consider the word "postmodernism", in any context except architecture, a filler word, like "the" or "um", taking up space in a sentence but without semantic content. The word has been applied to so many shifting definitions by both its advocates and enemies for so long that the amount of information communicated by use of that word is zero.

[Ursula L]

Tolerance and intolerance are opposites, and like most opposites, are mutually incompatible. I'm not intolerant of you - I value tolerance, which means, by definition, that I oppose intolerant behavior.

Tolerance doesn't mean "everything for everyone." It is a positive, affirmative values system, which has a proper moral structure. It says "this is good" sometimes, and "this is bad" at other times. It isn't relativism, it isn't the idea that everything is good, or the idea that you can't know good from bad. The values of a culture which are positive and affirming for everyone are to be celebrated, while the values of a culture that are harmful and intolerant are to be changed.

Tolerance isn't a "kick me" sign, or a "go ahead and kick whom you want" sign. It's a "no kicking" sign. Because "kicking" however defined, harms other people, and harming another person is wrong.

[Doctor Science]

Tolerance isn't a "kick me" sign, or a "go ahead and kick whom you want" sign. It's a "no kicking" sign.

I think this is the most vivid & memorable way of expressing it so far.

I think Fred is slightly off the mark when he characterizes the two Evangelical Shibboleths as "political" opinions. Opposition to abortion and homosexuality are both about gender norms -- politics is just brought in to try to enforce them.

Why does gender -- issues of appropriately masculine or feminine behavior -- seem so central to Evangelical belief, when it's a minor concern in both Old Testament & New? And it's not just Christians, of course -- fundamentalist Jews & Muslims seem just as riveted to gender norms as the touchstone of their religions.

[Chris]

Tolerance isn't a "kick me" sign, or a "go ahead and kick whom you want" sign. It's a "no kicking" sign.

A million times better than "yes, you may ask to kick me".

[Lila]

Dr. Science, Turcano, et al:

My take on the tolerance issue is this: you formed your beliefs about the universe on the basis of your own experiences (what you've seen and read, what your parents taught you, what you feel intuitively to be true, etc.) and you try to lead your life in accordance with those beliefs.

As a matter of simple respect, you owe other people the opportunity to decide their beliefs for themselves and to attempt to lead their lives in accordance with those beliefs, to the extent that they do not attempt to oppress or harm others (and we have laws to help with that last part).

Possibly the most important factor in my formulating this argument was a friend's pointing out to me that I do things every day that outrage someone's religious/cultural/ethical sensibilities (eat meat, wear pants, cut my hair, work on the wrong day of the week); I expect those outraged people to leave me alone anyway.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is, IMO, the closest thing we have to a universal ethical principle.

[Tonio]

It isn't relativism, it isn't the idea that everything is good, or the idea that you can't know good from bad.

Excellent point. Why do fundamentalists mischaracterize the concept as relativistic? Do they not grasp the distinction, or are they deliberately creating a straw man to push their political agenda? Or is it some of both?

Why does gender -- issues of appropriately masculine or feminine behavior -- seem so central to Evangelical belief...fundamentalist Jews & Muslims seem just as riveted to gender norms as the touchstone of their religions.

Maybe it has something to do with the desert origins of all three religions. Maybe the demands of living in the desert lead to certain views about gender norms. I ask because all three religions have a messiah tradition, and the desert correlation was one of the inspirations for Frank Herbert's "Dune."

[anon for now]

Stan McCullars, thank you kindly.

Relurking now to enjoy the conversation quietly.

[Ursula L]

Why do fundamentalists mischaracterize the concept as relativistic? Do they not grasp the distinction, or are they deliberately creating a straw man to push their political agenda? Or is it some of both?

I think it is some of both.

If you believe that people are inherently evil, and that you can only be good when coerced by the idea of eternal damnation for the bad, or that you can't know good from bad without explicit instruction from some type of outside divinity setting arbitrary rules, then you can't understand genuine relativism, or tolerance. There is no internal sense of good, only an external list of Rules From God, enforced by the threat of damnation, so any variation from the Rules From God must be Bad.

Plus, particularly when brandished politically, the idea that tolerance/relativism means that anything is good can be quite cynically used, both to condemn people who favor tolerance as tolerating anything and to demand that their own wrongs be accepted by the tolerant as good, even when their wrongs involve things that violate a tolerant person's moral code, such as intolerance and discrimination.

[Tonio]

There is no internal sense of good, only an external list of Rules From God, enforced by the threat of damnation, so any variation from the Rules From God must be Bad.

On other boards I've tried many times to refute that concept, stressing that humans have an internal moral sense, but it's like talking to a wall.

[Praline]

My usual response usually wavers between "Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance in the first place" and "Tolerance of people is more important than tolerance of ideas."

First, hats off to Ursula! The 'no kicking' quote deserves an Internet.

Can't really top it, but a few thoughts:

There's a good quote on Making Light - "I'm a fuzzy-headed warm-hearted liberal, and I think fuzzy-headed warm-hearted liberalism is an ideological stance that needs defending — if necessary, with a hob-nailed boot-kick to the bollocks of budding totalitarianism." (Charles Stross)

I think that the fundamental misconception is in assuming that tolerance ought to be passive. But tolerance is active; it involves obtaining the same rights for everyone, and that doesn't happen unless you push for them. If someone is trying to legislate intolerance, I think it's fair to say that you can tolerate their existence while fighting their policies, otherwise you might as well never say anything.

If someone holds intolerant opinions and never acts on them, that's completely tolerable. But if they try to prevent society from tolerating other people, then you have to step in if tolerance is going to be anything other than universal inaction. Tolerance is about preventing intolerant behaviour as well as tolerating everyone's opinions. Otherwise, the police would be sitting in their station granting me the right to my own views while bigots burn my house down.

What strikes me, in fact, is two things. One, 'You're just refusing to tolerate my intolerance' is a common right-wing tactic, out of the same slop-bucket as 'I'm not oppressing you, you're oppressing me by giving rights to people I disagree with!': it's basically just saying 'The same to you with knobs on!'. The best thing to do is probably not to waste too much time answering, as anyone saying that is trying to get their opponent on the defensive so they don't have to defend themselves. 'Well, you're just as bad' is not an argument, it's a diversionary tactic.

Two, in the context of secularism, it seems part of a worrying trend that beliefs and policies are one and the same. 'Secularism is a religion' is either the opinion of someone who genuinely can't conceive of a non-religious opinion, or a cynical attempt to force secularists to fight on religious ground, where the religous have the advantage of experience. To think that your opinions, religious, cultural and political, are all in one category instead of three separate ones, is the beginnings of totalitarianism. And it scares me.

[lightning]

Spherical Time: What is the best answer to the "your 'tolerance' is really just intolerance of my intolerance" shtick?

My take is here:

Tolerance is a two-way street. The only way I can "tolerate" you is if you "tolerate" me. If you don't tolerate me, the proper phrase for what I'm doing is "putting up with", or "trying to ignore", or some such.

[Keith]

Un-moderenism? Proto-modernism? Antidiseastablishmodernatarianism?

Classicism, maybe? Though I doubt any Evangelicals would call it that.* Or maybe it's a side effect of thirty years of lip service to the Golden Age of Yore fallacy, that if we could just do things like Granddad did, without all this modern stuff, which shall remain nameless (*Cough* Gays! Abortionists! Atheists! *Caugh*) then everything would be peachy keen and there'd be plenty of apple pie, oil and Jesus for everyone. Which is silly.

Modernism was a response to the failures of previous traditions to respond to the changes that had accumulated over time. Post Modernism, as I understand it, is a response to the breakdown in those traditions caused by Modernism. Since we no longer had shared traditions to provide us a common language, we had to build a new common language out of the bits and pieces of the traditional iconography and memes that had survived the modernist smash-up. Rejecting Modernism and Post modernism is like trying to unlearn what we have learned (as Yoda would say) or hit a cultural reset button that would erase the Enlightenment.

_________
*What is it with this manifesto in not daring to name a thing? Are they afraid of summoning the dreaded elder god, Pomo down from his wobbly, ambiguous mountain? Obviously a religious manifesto is going to have the occasional artifact of magical thinking in it but it seems that the authors of this manifesto have an almost a pathological aversion to calling complex ideas by their common name.

[Praline]

Tolerance is a two-way street. The only way I can "tolerate" you is if you "tolerate" me. If you don't tolerate me, the proper phrase for what I'm doing is "putting up with", or "trying to ignore", or some such.

And off goes my bonnet again to Lightning!

[MikhailBorg]

Or maybe it's a side effect of thirty years of lip service to the Golden Age of Yore fallacy, that if we could just do things like Granddad did, without all this modern stuff, [...] then everything would be peachy keen and there'd be plenty of apple pie, oil and Jesus for everyone.

Of course, they are awful choosy about the modern stuff they're willing to ditch. Few of them seem to want to give up cell phones, satellite TV, and e-mail, for example. And, of course, all the medical science that keeps them alive is good, while the rest is Abomination.

[MikhailBorg]

the authors of this manifesto have an almost a pathological aversion to calling complex ideas by their common name

'Cause if they did that, you could Google and Wikipedia the common name, and that would just lead to tears for everyone.

[Tonio]

I strongly suspect the Golden Age of Yore fallacy began mostly as a reaction to the civil rights and women's rights movements. It may be possible to trace the lineage back to the false romanticism for the antebellum South - the modern fallacy seems to have inherited the language of the older fallacy, but with most of the context missing.

[Brandi]

I strongly suspect the Golden Age of Yore fallacy began mostly as a reaction to the civil rights and women's rights movements.

More like around the time the first hominid capable of longterm memory looked at how complicated its life seemed at this point and wondered about how so much easier/happier/more beautiful the past had been...

[Praline]

The Golden Age of Yore fallacy is always with us; it's a basic human misconception, like 'Our children are different'. The Classical poet Horace expressed it in 23BC, writing in his Odes III thus:

aetas parentum, peior avis, tulit
nos nequiores, mox daturos
progeniem vitiosiorem.

Which translates as 'the generation of our parents, worse than our grandparents', produced us, even worse, who will soon produce children even worse.' Or, if you want it in rhyme (my own translation, so apologies for the infelicities):

Our parents' age, which didn't match our gran's,
Gave birth to us, a less impressive set,
And soon we'll keep disgracing all our clans
By breeding children still more rotten yet.

Saying 'earlier eras were better' says far more about the speaker than their era.

[Tonio]

More like around the time the first hominid capable of longterm memory looked at how complicated its life seemed at this point and wondered about how so much easier/happier/more beautiful the past had been...

Sure, but we're talking about the particular American variety, dissecting the prejudices that lie behind the fallacy, and how the fallacy's language serves as a dog whistle for those prejudices.

[cosmicdancer]

Uncertainty doesn't win a debate; if you don't have an answer for everything then it's generally assumed your beliefs are wrong

Well, that is how American fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism started. Finding themselves stuck in a situation where people were demanding answers and they didn't *have* answers. So they had two choices- find new answers that sounded as logical and scientific as the other side's, or forbid the questions. Meanwhile, people were making fun of them, because in a debate, if you have no answer, or if you choose not to answer, you automatically lose. If you choose to retire from the game, you automatically lose in the eyes of everyone watching. And people don't want uncertainty, they want concrete answers.

[Lizzy L]

Super conversation!

With regard to how Christians regard the body; the current Catholic catechism states that the human body "shares in the dignity of the image of God;" Catholics are also taught that all that God created is fundamentally good, and that the fact that God Himself chose to incarnate in human flesh and became truly and completely human (Jesus did not just take on the "appearance" of a human being, that's considered a heresy, he was, and is, fully human and fully divine) confirms the ultimate value and worth of every human being, body and soul. We are all God's children; all brothers/sisters of Christ, and every one of us, including our bodies, is beloved by God.

Of course, there is a strong ascetic strain in Catholic thought as well, and over centuries it has been taken to some hideous extremes. The Church, as Catholics know well, has screwed up big time, over and over again, when it comes to honoring and loving the body as God's creation. We can only try to do better...

[Tonio]

And people don't want uncertainty, they want concrete answers.

I wonder if learning to accept maturity is part of developing emotional maturity, and if education can help people learn to accept it.

[Tonio]

More on the Manifesto:

Jacques Berlinerblau

the document might have been more aptly entitled “The Evangelical Intellectuals’ Manifesto.” It’s a thoughtful and challenging piece, full of self-criticism and open-ended questions. In this respect it brings to the fore a side of this culture which most non-Evangelicals never knew existed...

(However) it advances a shallow reading of secularism...it takes a page from the Mitt Romney playbook: “As this global public square emerges, we see two equal and opposite errors to avoid: coercive secularism on one side, once typified by communism and now by the softer but strict French-style secularism; and religious extremism on the other side, typified by Islamist violence”...The French have their flaws. Their tendency to relentlessly impose a Gallic monoculture on the multicultures of their citizenry is one of them. But they do not count among their vices the savagery, disdain for human rights, and infatuation with slaughter that prevails among the extremists.

[Dorothy]

We also warn of the danger of a two-tier global public square, one in which the top tier is for cosmopolitan secular liberals and the second tier is for local religious believers. Such an arrangement would be patronizing as well as a severe restriction of religious liberty and justice, and unworthy of genuine liberalism. p. 18-19

OK, on my quick skim-through, this is the section that pulled me up short. Did anyone else pick up a certain sense of moral superiority here, and that the authors are using a rhetorical device to make themselves out the be the humble, oppressed underdogs? As in: those patronizing cosmopolitan secular liberals are looking down on us local-yokel religious folks. Yes, it's fair to argue that there can be a distasteful, elitist attitude in the secular ranks, but I would argue that there is a mirror-image sense of moral superiority in the evangelical ranks, equally distasteful. (“Oh yeah? Well I'm more humble than you!”) Really, this sort of rhetoric doesn't get us anywhere.

[Tonio]

Did anyone else pick up a certain sense of moral superiority here, and that the authors are using a rhetorical device to make themselves out the be the humble, oppressed underdogs?

I pick on that same sense from "creation scientists" and intelligent design advocates, who content that science has unfair rules for theories and evidence. Secularism and science are really the same principle applied to two different areas of knowledge.