"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. 

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 4): The Amsterdam Declaration (2000) and The Health Of Our Nation (2004)

 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.

My second post began to offer a sampling of decades of statements beginning in the 1970s put out by evangelical leaders, organizations, denominations, colleges, and ministries. They provide a record of what the movement publicly claimed to stand for, even if evangelicalism did not always live consistently with its principles.

The third post was about a major manifesto in the 80s called the Manila Manifesto, drafted by the British evangelical pastor and theologian John Stott along with  the drafting team at the Second International Congress on World Evangelization (Lausanne II) held in Manila, Philippines in July 1989.

This post will look at two key declaration released in the 2000s.

Billy Graham released the Amsterdam Declaration in 2000. You can read the whole thing here. The Amsterdam Declaration is a lengthy document. Much of what it contains is a reiteration of historical Christian positions of both orthodoxy and orthopraxy in evangelical Christianity. It’s well worth your time to read the entire declaration.  I am posting sections that highlight what used to be mainstream evangelical beliefs that led to particular kinds of practices.

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 3): The Manila Manifesto (1989)

In my first post in this series, 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.

 

My second post began the process of offering a sampling of decades of statements (beginning in the 1970s) put out by evangelical leaders, organizations, denominations, colleges, and ministries. They are declarations and manifestos explaining what they believed Christian evangelicals should value and how Christians should engage the world. They provide a record of what the movement publicly claimed to stand for, even if evangelicalism did not always live consistently with its principles.

 

This post is about a major manifesto in the 80s called the Manila Manifesto. The Manila Manifesto was produced and drafted by the British evangelical pastor and theologian John Stott. He led the drafting team at the Second International Congress on World Evangelization (Lausanne II) held in Manila, Philippines in July 1989. [1]