I Didn't Move; You Did (Part 11): The Shifting View On Violence And War

In the first post of this series, I noted that my struggle with modern conservative evangelicalism is not with its theological orthodoxy. I still affirm doctrines that historically defined evangelical Christianity. The deeper question is whether our orthopraxy—the way we live out those beliefs—still resembles the commitments we once publicly embraced. 

I reviewed a number of evangelical statements, declarations, and manifestos spanning more than fifty years in order to look at the orthopraxy to which we were called: Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern (1973); Lausanne Covenant (1974); The Manila Manifesto (1989); The Amsterdam Declaration (2000); The Health Of Our Nation (2004); An Evangelical Manifesto (2008); The Capetown Commitment (2010); For the Health Of The Nation 2014; and the Seoul Statement (2024).

In the previous post, I addressed the public shift - revealed through votes and voices (or lack of them) - in responding to racism and discrimination.  In this post, we are looking at the conservative evangelical shift in regards to violence and war.

If there is one thing that distinguished the Kingdom Jesus announced from every kingdom of this world, it was this: Jesus refused to establish God's reign through coercion or violence.

He rebuked Peter for taking up the sword in His defense. He told Pilate that His kingdom was "not from this world," because if it were, His servants would fight. He taught His followers to love their enemies, pray for those who persecuted them, bless those who cursed them, and overcome evil with good.

Christians have disagreed about many things throughout history, including when governments may legitimately wage war. But historically, evangelicals consistently warned against glorifying violence, confusing nationalism with the Kingdom of God (I will address this in an upcoming post), or treating military power as God's preferred instrument for accomplishing His purposes.

That concern appears repeatedly in the major evangelical statements of the last fifty years.

• "we must challenge our misplaced trust of the nation in economic and military might – a proud trust that promotes a national pathology of war and violence which victimizes our neighbors at home and abroad."
• "Among the evils we deplore are destructive violence, including institutionalized violence, political corruption, all forms of exploitation of people and of the earth..."
• "We urge governments to pursue thoroughly nonviolent paths to peace before resorting to military force. We believe that if governments are going to use military force, they must use it in the service of peace and not merely in their national interest. Military force must be guided by the classical just-war principles, which are designed to restrain violence by establishing the right conditions for and right conduct in fighting a war. In an age of nuclear and biological terrorism, such principles are more important than ever. We urge followers of Jesus to engage in practical peacemaking locally, nationally, and internationally. As followers of Jesus, we should, in our civic capacity, work to reduce conflict by promoting international understanding and engaging in non-violent conflict resolution."
• "We acknowledge with grief and shame the complicity of Christians in some of the most destructive contexts of ethnic violence and oppression, and the lamentable silence of large parts of the Church when such conflicts take place. Such contexts include the history and legacy of racism and black slavery; the holocaust against Jews; apartheid; ‘ethnic cleansing’; inter-Christian sectarian violence; decimation of indigenous populations; inter-religious, political and ethnic violence; Palestinian suffering; caste oppression; and tribal genocide…"
• "We urge governments to pursue domestic, foreign and security policies that encourage justice and peace by preventing conflict. We urge governments to thoroughly pursue nonviolent paths to peace. If governments use military force, they should deploy it justly in the service of sustainable peace and not to serve narrow national interests. Governments should at a minimum restrain violence by applying classical just war principles, which are designed to clarify the limited conditions under which military action is justifiable, and establish standards of right conduct in fighting a war...As such, we urge the Body of Christ to engage in sober, practical peacemaking, nonviolent conflict resolution and citizen diplomacy at local, national and international levels."
• "We repent of our failures to condemn and restrain violence by remaining silent, by promoting nationalism, or by unjustly supporting conflicts through deficient theological justification. We condemn those who use their influence in world affairs to promote avoidable conflicts and wars, merely to further their economic and political interests. We are saddened by the immense suffering their actions have caused. We believe that they will be held accountable before God on the day of judgement. We call all Christians to serve the vulnerable in contexts of war by pooling our resources and supporting the relief efforts of churches and humanitarian organizations that are situated near conflict zones..."

What is it looking like now in terms of what evangelicals are supporting, both with their votes and their words (or lack of them)? And I'm not just talking about full-blown war. I'm talking about creating a culture that is comfortable with violence and aggression as a means justified by an end.

I will begin with the rhetoric of the Trump administration, then move to violence itself.

I Didn't Move; You Did (Part 12) Environmental Stewardship

The last post looked at racism and discrimination. This one moves to another subject that many people now assume is progressive rather than biblical:  caring for God's creation.

Across five decades of statements, declarations, and manifestos, environmental stewardship was presented not as partisan activism, but as an expression of faithful discipleship. Caring for the earth, protecting human health, and preserving creation were understood to be responsibilities entrusted to humanity by God.

That is why the current silence—or even hostility—toward environmental protections among many leading evangelical voices is so striking. Once again, I find myself asking what changed.

If those statements still reflected the priorities of today's evangelical gatekeepers, we would expect to hear consistent concern whenever policies increased pollution, weakened environmental protections, or placed creation and human health at greater risk.

Instead, the response has largely been indifference, justification, or enthusiastic political support.

The issue of environmental stewardship comes up consistently in the evangelical statements, declarations, and manifestos that I have covered (Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern (1973); Lausanne Covenant (1974); The Manila Manifesto (1989); The Amsterdam Declaration (2000); The Health Of Our Nation (2004); An Evangelical Manifesto (2008); The Capetown Commitment (2010); For the Health Of The Nation 2014; and the Seoul Statement (2024).)

• Among the evils we deplore are destructive violence, including institutionalized violence, political corruption, all forms of exploitation of people and of the earth...when our evangelism is linked with concern to alleviate poverty, uphold justice, oppose abuses of secular and economic power, stand against racism, and advance responsible stewardship of the global environment, it reflects the compassion of Christ and may gain an acceptance it would not otherwise receive. 

• God gave the care of his earth and its species to our first parents. That responsibility has passed into our hands. We affirm that God-given dominion is a sacred responsibility to steward the earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part. We are not the owners of creation, but its stewards, summoned by God to “watch over and care for it” (Gen. 2:15). This implies the principle of sustainability: our uses of the Earth must be designed to conserve and renew the Earth rather than to deplete or destroy it… 

• Just as we show our love for the Savior by reaching out to the lost, we believe that we show our love for the Creator by caring for his creation. Because clean air, pure water, and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order, government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation. This involves both the urgent need to relieve human suffering caused by bad environmental practice… 

• Such love for God’s creation demands that we repent of our part in the destruction, waste and pollution of the earth’s resources and our collusion in the toxic idolatry of consumerism. Instead, we commit ourselves to urgent and prophetic ecological responsibility….  

• We lament over the widespread abuse and destruction of the earth’s resources, including its bio-diversity... We encourage Christians worldwide to A) adopt lifestyles that renounce habits of consumption that are destructive or polluting; B) Exert legitimate means to persuade governments to put moral imperatives above political expediency on issues of environmental destruction and potential climate change. 

• We have depleted and devastated many of creation’s resources instead of working to conserve and live in balance within the created order. We have polluted the air, water and soil with thousands of harmful chemicals... Clean air, pure water and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order. Therefore, government has an obligation to protect its citizens from environmental degradation and from human suffering that it causes. 

Why was this so important?

In the United States, there are 91,000 premature annual deaths linked to air pollution from oil and gas. Globally, it's 5 million. The United States is the second most contributing nation (behind China). Globally, deaths from pollution-linked diseases, like heart disease and cancer, were three times higher than deaths from AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined. 

* * * * *

Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from the Paris agreement and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, rolled back Biden's executive orders that prioritized addressing climate change, and issued an executive order abolishing the Office of Domestic Climate Policy.

This administration has rolled back fuel efficiency standards. It has overturned numerous pollution reduction measures, while The United States ranks second in the world for total greenhouse gas emissions, producing approximately 11% to 13% of global carbon emissions annually

It has overturned policies working toward the sustainable use of natural resources. The federal government has paid more than $2.5 billion in total to multiple energy developers to cancel offshore wind projects, which includes a specific $928 million payout to the French energy giant TotalEnergies. In exchange, they are supposed to invest in fossil fuels. Seven states have sued in response.

Overall, the Trump administration has canceled 216 large-scale clean energy manufacturing and power projects, at the cost of 470,000 jobs (and $53 billion in wages). (It would have been enough clean energy to power 3 million homes.)

Trump has undermined proper care of wildlife and habitations by slashing the National Park service; selling 10 of millions of acres of public land to oil, gas, mining, and timber industries; and removed nearly all habitat protections for endangered species. 

The US Environmental Protection Agency has proposed repealing or delaying some landmark limits on “forever chemicals” in drinking water. (Biden did this too. Both are not good.)

"President Donald Trump's budget plan would cut $1.3 billion from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, reducing its funding by about one-third. Scientists warn that Great Lakes research would be hit especially hard. At stake are programs that gather information tied to public safety and lake conditions, including work involving weather, water quality, climate, and maritime safety...People use the information that these organizations provide every day to judge whether a beach is safe, whether surf conditions are too dangerous, and whether algal blooms could threaten humans or pets...he data also supports commercial shipping, fishing, and state-level resource management." ("Scientists say Trump's NOAA cuts would wipe out Great Lakes data used for weather, waves, and safety.")

But it's not just the Great Lakes.

"The Trump administration has announced it will dismantle a $368 million deep-ocean monitoring system that provides critical data on the world’s oceans...“I’d call this penny wise, tons foolish,” said Rick Spinrad, an oceanographer who led the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration during the Biden administration. “OOI is proving its value for a range of economic and social benefits: from fisheries management to weather forecasting, to protection from coastal flooding … Where’s the analysis of return on investment that shows that eliminating OOI is in the taxpayers’ best interest?”...Experts say the ripple effects of what is being lost will be wide. It will “create an irreparable blind spot for our country in predicting earthquakes, fishery health, storm forecasting, coastal flooding and more,” said Chris Robbins, associate director of scientific initiatives at Ocean Conservancy. “It just doesn’t make sense.” ('The oceans are in deep trouble. The Trump administration is ditching a vital deep-sea monitoring system.")

This, by the way got overturned because of bipartisan backlash.

The Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights (OEJECR) was a national division within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tasked with protecting overburdened and disadvantaged communities from pollution, while enforcing federal civil rights laws across recipients of EPA funding. It also oversaw the use of EJSCREEN, a national screening tool used to identify communities heavily burdened by environmental factors. The EPA dismantled this office under the current administration.

“Trump administration officials earlier this year killed a federal criminal investigation into the coal empire owned by Sen. Jim Justice, a Republican from West Virginia and a close ally of the president’s. The investigation examined potential criminal violations of the Clean Water Act by the multi-state mining operations largely run by Justice’s son, Jay, according to current and former officials familiar with the matter.... In the past decade, Southern Coal and other Justice corporations have racked up tens of thousands of alleged violations of the Clean Water Act and have been sued repeatedly by state and federal prosecutors over their failure to properly follow environmental laws at their mining sites.

Environmental enforcement against large polluters has plunged under the second Trump administration. Just days after inauguration, the administration reassigned top career environmental lawyers at the DOJ, including those overseeing the Southern Coal case, to work on the president’s immigration crackdown. At the beginning of the year, Blanche personally ordered prosecutors to stand down from cases against diesel emissions cheating." ("Trump Administration Killed Criminal Investigation of GOP Senator’s Coal Companies.")

After the Trump administration installed former chemical industry lobbyists to run the offices that are supposed to regulate the chemical industry, EPA scientists say they are being pushed to downplay potential risks of household products by making chemical risks “disappear on paper” by shrinking household scenarios until the poison looks safe.

In 2024, Trump reportedly asked oil and gas executives to raise $1 billion for his campaign, promising to grant their policy "wish list"—including tax and regulation avoidances—if he won. Following his victory, his administration began embracing this agenda.

“During his first term and now in his second, Trump has delivered hundreds of billions of dollars in favors to the industry, including tax breaks and subsidies, access to more federal land and waters, a major rollback of environmental regulations, the suppression of competition from clean energy technologies, access to Venezuela’s oil reserves, and of course the very profitable Iran war. No one has stopped him. This arrangement is clearly unethical, if not illegal. That became obvious in April 2024 when candidate Trump offered the oil industry a deal, telling its executives that if they gave $1 billion to his campaign, he would deliver their wish list when he recaptured the White House. He has been delivering ever since." ("Trump’s crooked ‘art of the deal’ with Big Oil.")

On Friday, February 20, 2026, the Trump administration announced it is rolling back clean air regulations that limit mercury and other hazardous pollutants from power plants. The rollback will lead to greater emissions of mercury, heavy metals, and increase the risk of cancer, lung, and heart disease for communities living near coal power plants. Low-income communities and communities of color bear a disproportionate share of the effects of air pollution because they live closer to industrial facilities, including power plants, and to high traffic areas. ("The Trump Admin Rolls Back Limits to Toxic Air Pollution from Power Plants.")

"On Feb. 17, Bayer announced a proposed class settlement [7.25 billion] for the tens of thousands of people who say Roundup has given them cancer. And on Feb. 18, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order declaring domestic production of glyphosate-based herbicides and the elemental phosphorus that goes into them [that's what was in Roundup] a matter of national security. He invoked the Defense Production Act to “ensure a continued and adequate supply” and potentially shield manufacturers from liability associated with supplying these products." ("Farm bill and Trump’s glyphosate order magnify pesticides’ ‘watershed moment’")

MAHA has something to say about this. “'This executive order reads like it was drafted in a chemical company boardroom,' said Vani Hari, a food activist, author and one of the grass roots leaders of the Maha coalition. 'Calling it "national defense" while expanding protections for toxic products is a dangerous misdirection. Real national security is protecting American families, farmers, and children.' Kelly Ryerson, another key actor in the Maha movement who has been lobbying US regulators and lawmakers for restrictions on glyphosate and other pesticides, said the move by Trump is an insult to those who have largely supported the administration because of promises that Maha issues would be taken seriously."

* * * * *

None of this means every environmental policy is wise, nor that Christians must agree on every proposed solution. Reasonable people can debate regulations, economics, and the best ways to care for creation.

But the larger question is harder to escape. If the evangelical leaders who shaped me once taught that caring for God's creation was part of loving our neighbor and honoring our Creator, why has that conviction become so easily discarded?

Scripture begins with humanity being commissioned to tend the garden. It ends with God renewing heaven and earth—not abandoning them. Throughout the biblical story, creation is God's handiwork, entrusted to our care rather than our exploitation.

I still believe those earlier evangelical voices were right about that.I cannot celebrate policies that unnecessarily damage what God called good, nor can I quietly follow a movement that no longer seems interested in protecting it. If that is now where evangelicalism has chosen to stand, then I must stand somewhere else.The evangelical leaders and institutions that formed me repeatedly taught that caring for creation was part of Christian discipleship. Many of those same circles now appear largely unconcerned about it.

I cannot support this nor be party to it. The evangelicalism that does has lost its way, and I will not be lost with it.

Up Next: The Shifting View of Immigrants and Refugees

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 10): The Shift In Addressing Racism and Discrimination

In the first post of this series, I noted that my struggle with modern conservative evangelicalism is not with its theological orthodoxy. I still affirm doctrines that historically defined evangelical Christianity. The deeper question is whether our orthopraxy—the way we live out those beliefs—still resembles the commitments our mainstream leadership once publicly embraced. 

I reviewed a number of evangelical statements, declarations, and manifestos spanning more than fifty years in order to look at the orthopraxy to which we were called: Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern (1973); Lausanne Covenant (1974); The Manila Manifesto (1989); The Amsterdam Declaration (2000); The Health Of Our Nation (2004); An Evangelical Manifesto (2008); The Capetown Commitment (2010); For the Health Of The Nation 2014; and the Seoul Statement (2024).

In the previous post, I addressed the public shift in leadership - revealed through votes, endorsements, and voices (or lack of them) - in the evangelical stance toward the poor and underprivileged. 

Next is one of the other consistently important commitments: addressing racial justice and seeking reconciliation. [1]

The declarations and statements I posted spoke clearly about racism as a sin, acknowledged the lingering effects of our nation's history, and called Christians to stand with those who suffered under discrimination and injustice as it shows up in personal relationships and societal structures. 

• "We deplore the historic involvement of the church in America with racism and the conspicuous responsibility of the evangelical community for perpetuating the personal attitudes and institutional structures that have divided the body of Christ along color lines. Further, we have failed to condemn the exploitation of racism at home and abroad by our economic system."
• "The message of salvation implies also a message of judgment upon every form of alienation, oppression and discrimination..."
• "The gospel does not presuppose the superiority of any culture to another...
• "We deplore the failures in Christian consistency...[concerning]  racial, social, and sexual discrimination."
• "While the United States has achieved legal and social equality in principle, the legacy of racism still makes many African Americans, Hispanics, and other ethnic minorities particularly vulnerable to a variety of social ills. Our churches have a special responsibility to model good race relations (Rom. 10:12). To correct the lingering effects of our racist history, Christians should support well-conceived efforts that foster dignity and responsibility."
• "Such love for all peoples demands that we reject the evils of racism and ethnocentrism, and treat every ethnic and cultural group with dignity and respect, on the grounds of their value to God in creation and redemption."
• "In the name of the God of truth, we...denounce and resist the racist prejudice, hatred and fear incited in popular media and political rhetoric.
• "When accompanied and sustained by imbalances of power, prejudice moves beyond individual relationships to institutional practices. Such racial injustice is the systemic perpetuation of racism."

These statements do not speak reluctantly or quietly about racism. They speak with clarity, confession, and urgency at both an individual and systemic level. 

That is why the shift that is happening has been so disorienting. When advocacy for racial justice is offered today, it is too often dismissed ("This is a woke DEI agenda!") or turned back on the speaker: “Actually, it’s an anti-white agenda that is the problem.”  

Evangelicals can and do disagree about what the best public policy is for addressing racism, of course. But do we still recognize that racial injustice on both a personal and systemic level is something the church should grieve, actively oppose, and seek to heal? It appears not, considering the unwavering support for an administration that has been characterized by the following personal attacks and policy implementation.

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 9): The Shift In Caring the Poor and Vulnerable

After explaining my motivation for writing this series, I reviewed a number of evangelical statements, declarations, and manifestos spanning more than fifty years: Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern (1973); Lausanne Covenant (1974); The Manila Manifesto (1989); The Amsterdam Declaration (2000); The Health Of Our Nation (2004); An Evangelical Manifesto (2008); The Capetown Commitment (2010); For the Health Of The Nation 2014; and the Seoul Statement (2024).

Among other issues, they shared a remarkable consistency on one key point: Christians have a responsibility to care for the poor, the vulnerable, and those who lack power through personal commitment and public advocacy.

• "...defend the social and economic rights of the poor and the oppressed."
• "...maldistribution of the nation's wealth and services..."
• "...feed the hungry, care for prisoners, help the disadvantaged and handicapped..."
• "...when our evangelism is linked with concern to alleviate poverty... it reflects the compassion of Christ and may gain an acceptance it would not otherwise receive."
• "We will work for measures that strengthen the economic viability of marriages and families, especially among the poor."
• "God identifies with the poor (Ps. 146:5-9), and says that those who 'are kind to the poor lend to the Lord' (Prov. 19:17), while those who oppress the poor 'show contempt for their Maker' (Prov. 14:31). Jesus said that those who do not care for the needy and the imprisoned will depart eternally from the living God (Matt. 25:31-46). The vulnerable may include not only the poor, but women, children, the aged, persons with disabilities, immigrants, refugees, minorities, the persecuted, and prisoners. God measures societies by how they treat the people at the bottom."
• "The prophetic teaching insists on both a fair legal system (which does not favor either the rich or the poor) and a fair economic system (which does not tolerate perpetual poverty). Though the Bible does not call for economic equality, it condemns gross disparities in opportunity and outcome that cause suffering and perpetuate poverty, and it calls us to work toward equality of opportunity."
• "What we are about is captured not only in books or declarations, but in our care for the poor, the homeless, and the orphaned; our outreach to those in prison; our compassion for the hungry and the victims of disaster..."
• "The Bible tells us that the Lord is loving toward all he has made, upholds the cause of the oppressed, loves the foreigner, feeds the hungry, sustains the fatherless and widow… God holds responsible especially those who are appointed to political or judicial leadership in society, but all God’s people are commanded…to reflect the love and justice of God in practical love and justice for the needy...We embrace the witness of the whole Bible, as it shows us God’s desire both for systemic economic justice and for personal compassion, respect and generosity towards the poor and needy."
• "Just as faith comes by hearing, faith is always accompanied by works. These works promote the common good, prioritise care for the poor and most vulnerable, and advance the cause of justice following the example of our Lord. (Matt 5:16; John 13:35; Eph 2:8-10; Luke 4:18-19)."

Historically, evangelicalism called for deep concern and active care for the poor and vulnerable on a personal and corporate level. If evangelical commitments were good and sincere in 1973, 1974, 1989, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2014 and 2024, they should still matter now.

But today, in practice, conservative evangelicalism votes for, defends, and even celebrates politicians and policies that disproportionately burden the poor, minorities, the handicapped, and other vulnerable people. I am astonished and disheartened at the complicity. 

It might not be intentional, but it is happening. Please allow me to explain by giving examples of what has been happening to the poor and vulnerable under the Trump administration's leadership.

After all, as Trump himself said, "We're fighting wars. It's not possible for us to have daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these things." 

I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 8): The Move

I am chronicling why I don't think I can associate myself with the label "evangelical" anymore after decades of association.

After reading through all of the evangelical statements and declarations in the past five decades (start here), what strikes me is not any single issue, but a remarkably holistic moral vision that appears over and over again from 1973 through 2024.

1. Recognize that discipleship has public implications. Christianity is not merely private spirituality. Faith should shape how believers think about poverty, justice, war, racism, economics, immigration, human rights, and public life.

2. Care for the poor, vulnerable, and marginalized as a central expression of Christian discipleship. Help the poor and disadvantaged; defend the oppressed. Protect children (including the unborn), widows, refugees, immigrants, minorities, and the disabled. Work to alleviate poverty both locally and globally.

3. Pursue justice. Address both personal sin and structural injustice. Challenge systems that perpetuate poverty, exploitation, discrimination, and oppression by advocating for fair economic and legal structures. Speak prophetically (as if we are Nathan and the Empire is King David) against injustice wherever it exists.

4. Reject racism, ethnocentrism, and ethnic supremacy. Repent of racism in both personal attitudes and institutional structures and work to end racial discrimination. Model the affirmation of dignity and goal of reconciliation across racial and cultural boundaries.

5. Treat every human being as bearing the image of God. Respect the dignity of all people by refusing to practice or ignore exploitation, dehumanization, or contempt wherever it it found.

6. Maintain a clear distinction between the Kingdom of God and political power.  Refuse idolatrous loyalty to any nation. Avoid identifying "being Christian" by a close alignment with any political party, person, ideology, or national movement. Since we must resist the temptation to seek influence through domination or state power, Christian nationalism must be rejected.

7. Practice peacemaking and restrain violence. Be on the front lines of pursuing peaceful resolution of conflict whenever possible. Be skeptical of war-making and militarism; oppose violence motivated by political, economic, ethnic, or religious interests.

8. Defend religious liberty for everyone. Protect freedom of conscience and defend the rights of religious minorities. This will mean demand for others the same freedoms Christians seek for ourselves. Reject coercive evangelism, which will mean opposing the urge to theocracy, which will use the state to coerce adherence to the church.

9. Love neighbors, strangers, immigrants, and even enemies. Practice hospitality by building friendships across cultural and religious boundaries. If people are hostile, respond with kindness rather than retaliation.

10. Engage people of other faiths with humility, respect, and truthfulness. Reject caricatures that cause fearmongering; reject hostility and contempt while recognizing truth, beauty, and goodness wherever it exists.

11. Live lives of personal integrity and visible holiness. Reject greed, corruption, dishonesty, pride, exploitation, lying, hypocrisy, and cruelty. Ensure that public and private behavior aligns with professed beliefs.

12. Care for creation as a Christian responsibility. Steward the earth rather than exploit it, which will mean opposing environmental degradation by addressing pollution, resource depletion, and climate-related harms.

13. Challenge materialism, greed, and consumerism. Reject excessive wealth accumulation as something to be applauded, because greed is a contributor to poverty and injustice.

14. Work for the common good of society. Support policies that strengthen families and communities: encourage education, health care, opportunity, and human flourishing for all of society.

15. Show solidarity with those who suffer. Enter into the experiences of others with humility and empathy. Listen to the pain of the oppressed and share their burdens rather than remain detached from them.

Across five decades – the five decades that formed my 56 years as an evangelical - evangelical leaders repeatedly called Christians to be this kind of people. [1] This broad, holistic ethical vision is what I was trained to believe the conservative evangelicalism should look like when faith is put into practice. There weren't just one or two issues that guided how we lived (and voted). There were many.

I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 7): For the Health of our Nation (2014) and The Seoul Statement (2024)

In my first post of this series, I explained why I have become increasingly uncomfortable identifying as an evangelical. I encourage you to read it so you understand what I am doing.

Since then, I have been highlighting parts of mainstream evangelical Declarations and Statements that highlight expected orthopraxy (right actions) for evangelical followers of Jesus. This will lead into a much closer look at what kinds of shifts have taken place in the past 15 years. So far we have covered:

• the Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern (1973) , and the Lausanne Covenant (1974)
• the Manila Manifesto (1989)
• the Amsterdam Declaration (2000) and The Health Of Our Nation (2004)
•  the Evangelical Manifesto of 2008
• the Capetown Commitment (2010)

Finally, we will look at two in this post before wrapping up this portion of the series. As before, I am not focusing on the orthodoxy (right belief) part of the statements. I am focusing on orthopraxy (right practice).

I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 6): The Capetown Commitment (2010)

In my first post, I explained why I have become increasingly uncomfortable identifying as an evangelical. Since then, I have been highlighting parts of mainstream evangelical Declarations and Statements that highlight expected orthopraxy (right actions) for evangelical followers of Jesus. This will lead into a much closer look at what kinds of shifts have taken place in the past 15 years.

My second post offered a sampling of decades of statements beginning in the 1970s put out by evangelical leaders and organizations that examined how evangelics should live.

The third post was about a major manifesto in the 80s called the Manila Manifesto, published at the Second International Congress on World Evangelization in Manila, Philippines in July 1989.

The fourth post highlighted the Amsterdam Declaration (2000) and The Health Of Our Nation (2004).

The fifth post looked at the Evangelical Manifesto of 2008.

* * * * * 

In 2010, the Cape Town Commitment emerged from the Third Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization. It brought together 4,200 evangelical leaders from 198 countries. As far as I can tell, it is one of the first formal evangelical documents (at least of this magnitude) that begins to specifically address marriage and sexuality. This does not mean what they said was necessarily a new stance; it’s just the first time I see it firmly articulated in a global declaration. [1]

Aside from the extensive re-stated commitment to orthodox evangelical pillars of faith, there is so much in this statement on orthopraxy - penned a mere 16 years ago - that is relevant to our discussion. I urge you to read the whole thing, of course. I am heavily excerpting the parts relevant to this series, but it will still be a lot of reading!

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 5): An Evangelical Manifesto (2008)

 In my first post, I explained why I have become increasingly uncomfortable identifying as an evangelical, as it has become increasingly willing to excuse attitudes, behaviors, and priorities that seem incompatible with the character and teaching of Jesus as taught to me in my evangelical upbringing.

My second post began to offer a sampling of decades of statements beginning in the 1970s put out by evangelical leaders and organizations.  

The third post was about a major manifesto in the 80s called the Manila Manifesto, published at the Second International Congress on World Evangelization (Lausanne II) held in Manila, Philippines in July 1989.

The fourth post highlighted the Amsterdam Declaration (2000) and The Health Of Our Nation (2004).

This post remains in the 2000s. There will be two more 'declaration' posts to consider after this one, and then we will move into the contrast between the conservative evangelicalism in which I was raised vs. what it has now become.

I know this is a lot of background, but the framing is important.