The question the media keeps asking is why didn't James Dobson sign? (The direct answer is he was invited to.) The observation that needs to be made is that James Dobson et al. don't speak for all Evangelicals nor does he represent them all -- and the mistake the media makes is to assume that they do, an assumption the media has long made.

The initiators of the Manifesto are -- perhaps belatedly -- coming out to correct the media's over simplification. The parallel I see is when we say to the bulk of Muslims your reticence to speak out for yourself allows a minority of Muslims who are more vocal define you in the eyes of the world.

I would be interested in hearing people's responses to the content of the manifesto. After a very quick reading, I think it is a good articulation of a theological perspective with a clear call for both reform and focus. I'm looking forward to a discussion about the content and how our "catholic - protestant comprehensiveness" (unless the Pope gets his way and we choose) relates to the arcitulation in this document. I also wonder what an Episcopal manifesto might look like. I'm not interested in opening a coveant-like can of worms, but reading this raises the question in my mind, "How would I write somthing that articulates my own beliefs?"

A couple of quick comments. First, I'm new to this site and it looks very interesting so I'm looking forward to poking around and seeing what it's all about.

With regard to the Manifesto, I spoke with Os Guinness a month or so ago and he was very excited about the potential the document holds to provide a starting point for a common sense-common ground approach to helping Evangelicals understand better who they are historically and who they are called to be Biblically. He himself said it is not a perfect document nor is it meant to be inclusive to all who consider themselves Evangelicals.

With regard to Dobson and others from the Christian right, they're the ones giving the marching orders to the foot soldiers who battle many of the precepts the Manifesto stands for. Moderation or accommodation has never been part of their fixed mindset; rather they would be just as happy to war against their brothers and sisters in the faith as they would the perceived secular agents of darkness. Disagreement with the Christian right's positions is seen by them as disloyalty to the cause of Christ. They are sadly mistaken yet they continue to shout against the wind and will do anything they can to downplay the Manifesto and its purposes. Not because they weren't included but because they fundamentally (no pun intended) disagree with it.

The mainstream media is only beginning to understand the nuances of evangelicalism as opposed to fundamentalism. Thanks largely to younger evangelicals who are equally concerned about issues of human dignity and ethics as they are about abortion or gay rights, there is hope that evangelicalism may begin to retrieve its orthodox roots and leave behind the politicization that has characterized it for the last 25 years.

- Cecil Van Houten [name added by ed. Remember the commenting policy. Only signed comments will be published.]

Cecil writes approvingly of Os Guinness as opposed to James Dobson.

But this Washington Post op-ed by Guinness and Yates,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/07/AR2007010700982_pf.html

appears to me to fit this description, in Cecil's words: Moderation or accommodation has never been part of their fixed mindset; rather they would be just as happy to war against their brothers and sisters in the faith as they would the perceived secular agents of darkness.

In particular, The Episcopal Church is not a secular agent of darkness no matter how much Guinness would paint it as such.