Os Guinness on Potential Evangelical Manifesto Concerns

I previously expressed my thoughts on the recently published Evangelical Manifesto. I was honored that Dr. Guinness, one of the document's originators, was willing to field a few questions from me on this matter. He permitted me to publish his response, only requesting that I mention these are "hasty responses on a hectic day! Above all we are not out to attack or exclude anyone, but to call for reforms that make us all better followers of Christ. So we hope people will not make knee-jerk reactions, but study, think , and pray."

CHEDIAK: According to this AP article, Focus on the Family's Board of Directors had "myriad concerns about the effort". Any response?

GUINNESS: I have not spoken to Jim Dobson personally, but I know John Huffman has done so. People were asked to sign as individuals, not as representatives of organizations, but he said it was his board that advised him not to sign for the moment. I honestly don’t know the full thinking behind the decision. Remember that we call the signers ‘early signers’ because they are the signers so far. Hundreds of others are already joining us, and we invite all Evangelicals to consider and sign.

CHEDIAK: When you express your desire that we move beyond single-issue politics, are you saying that Christians should be more open to voting for pro-choice candidates if they demonstrate passion and concern for issues like poverty, racism, and the environment?

GUINNESS: Emphatically not, and the Manifesto is blunt about the undiminished fight for life and marriage.

CHEDIAK: Or are you saying that while it is morally advisable to vote pro-life, we should hold pro-life candidates to a higher standard on issues such as poverty, racism, and the environment? Is it both/and?

GUINNESS: One of the ways we have been exploited is that certain politicians have said they were pro-life (or pro-marriage, or pro-school prayer, or whatever), but have done nothing apart from a symbolic vote every so often. With any vote, there is always a raft of policy issues to be considered as well as other issues such as the candidate’s character. We should never vote on a single issue alone – unless 1) the issue is supremely important (which life is), and 2) there is a serious chance of it being resolved or forwarded in the next election cycle (which isn’t usually the case with life).

CHEDIAK: The Manifesto reads, "we Evangelicals wish to stand clear from certain conservative and fundamentalist positions in public life that are widely confused with Evangelicals." Why let others dictate what we can be (publicly) for or against merely by their inappropriately conflating pro-life (or whatever) with evangelicalism?

GUINNESS: Life is not the problem, and you are right that we should not be defined by the world. As I said at the press conference yesterday, the issue is not re-branding or image. It is reality. But the Bible says a lot about the fact that we should so live that the name of God is honored. Thus when the Lord is publicly represented by Pastor Fred Phelps (‘God hates fags’) or by the Reconstructionists, it is not surprising that we are called ‘homophobic,’ ‘theocratic,’ and seeking to impose Christendom.

CHEDIAK: You call on "Those who share our dedication to the poor, the suffering, and the oppressed," urging them to work with us to "bring care, peace, justice, and freedom to those millions of our fellow-humans who are now ignored, oppressed, enslaved, or treated as human waste and wasted humans by the established orders in the global world." I agree with this exhortation, but would you acknowledge that our differing worldviews might result in our having widely diverging methods to addressing these problems? For example, socialistic reforms seem to minimize the doctrine of man's depravity. Any thoughts?

GUINNESS: Good point. Francis Schaeffer used to call for our being ‘co-belligerents’ rather than ‘allies’ when it comes to causes we share with people of different faiths, such as atheists against abortion or feminists against pornography. But we always recognize the ultimate inadequacy of their basis for fighting the issue, and when the appropriate moment comes we can be clear about pointing them to Christ. William Wilberforce is a great example – he worked with people of all sorts of spiritual and moral (and immoral) backgrounds, yet led many of them to faith in Christ too.

[HT: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite]