The much-discussed Evangelical Manifesto, "an open declaration of who Evangelicals are and what they stand for," has been released. Several high-profile evangelicals (perhaps most notably Os Guiness) helped to bring it into being, and it's already been heavily debated on blogs and in the news.
It's a blunt and ambitious document; its statements about the relationship between politics and Christianity are drawing the most commentary. There's too much to simply quote here; I'd encourage you to go read it for yourself. Then come back here and share your thoughts. Did you sign the manifesto? Is a document like this a step in the right direction, and do you see it catching on in the broader evangelical world? Is it a much-needed refocusing of what it means to be an evangelical in a society battered by years of the Culture Wars?
I've just read through it quickly, and a few minor quibbles aside, there's not much I can find to disagree with. How about you?
Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (9)
I haven't all of it, but it seems to be bound up too much in the present. maybe that was the intent, but it sort of becomes an essay that way. it's certainly not a bad document, i think it's doctrinally sound, and you never know, it may last like the Westminster Confession.
one of the things i like is that the authors have chosen not to list creationism and inerrancy as non-negotiables. for the first, there's very little biblical justification anymore behind whatever the latest flavor of anti-natural-selection dessert is being served up; for the latter, somehow we can admit that we can't prove the existence of God, but goshdarnit we have a golden egg this unprovable God laid right here. still, some people hold to these positions; so be it. there's simply too much of a tendency to add items to the ever-increasing laundry list of ideas and doctrines to which we have to pledge allegiance before we're allowed into the room marked "Christian."
nothing's going to please everybody, and there are a few things i object to. for instance, i don't agree with this statement: We Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally. Jesus' message uses "action" verbs: teach them to DO as I have commanded you, LOVE God and LOVE your neighbor, by this will all men know ... if you LOVE one another. any theology that defines us must have feet.
i did, however, like these words: We are also troubled by the fact that the advance of globalization and the emergence of a global public square finds no matching vision of how we are to live freely, justly, and peacefully with our deepest differences on the global stage. somehow, we've got to figure out how we're going to peacefully share the same bathroom over the next few decades in our ever-shrinking world.
one interesting thing: maybe i missed it, but there doesn't seem to be a great emphasis on evangelism in this Evangelical Manifesto. do you think that was intentional? i didn't see a single chick tract referenced in the bibliography...
more than anything, i find myself motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece - that it isn't yet another "here's everything we're against" rant but an effort to make the gospel again a message of good news. imagine that - the gospel being good news. American Christianity has lost this defining characteristic that once served it well.
perhaps one unintended benefit of the proposal is a clear opportunity to take this EM (Evangelical Manifesto) and align it with the other EM (Emergent Manifesto) and finally have all our EM & EMs in a row without demonizing the other side.
one can only hope...
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
1) I didn't find any direct quotations from the Bible. This is a problem, because it therefore has no authority for Christians. If it has no authority for Christians, it has no authority for anyone; if we're not going to listen to it, the world certainly isn't.
2) The swipe at fundamentalism. It is zeitgeist that the basic problem with the world today is something called fundamentalism, that there are Christian forms of fundamentalism, as well as Muslim, Hindu, Confucian, etc., and that each one is as bad as the other. I find this idea being alluded to in the Evangelical Manifesto, I have heard it from prominent spokespeople for Evangelicalism such as Jimmy Carter, and I think it is dead wrong. You simply can't believe strongly enough in the inerrancy of Scripture, which is what Christian fundamentalism is; once you do so, you are on the road to liberal apostasy. If a desire to become politically more relevant leads you to jettison this belief, then that is a very serious problem. Fundamentalism properly understood is the real evangelicalism.
3) I really wish it would be more specific. Heck, I'll do it for 'em. "The political influence of the religious right has been a disaster. It could easily be shown that blind support for the policies of the State of Israel by the religious right has been a major reason for the catastrophe that is the Iraq war. There are Congressmen who are willing to stand up and say that what they ask themselves when they decide how to vote is what is best for the state of Israel--not what is best for the US. Thus the military might of the US has been hijacked and put at the disposal of the state of Israel, a state which persecutes Evangelical Christians (i.e. Messianic Jews and Palestinian Christians)--and our present policy in the middle East is the result. The state of the economy, with the dollar losing value every day, is caused by the massive spending on this war. We Evangelicals therefore need to rethink our policy on Israel, and examine errors in our theology which have resulted in the present state of affairs." There you go. One paragraph, not many pages, but says everything that needs to be said. However, it takes guts, and therefore will never be said by anyone in power.
I'm not so sure the state of the US economy is caused by military operations in Iraq, but then again it's very easy for me to sit across the Atlantic and type about reckless banks and people taking on more debt than they could afford and property developers building more condos than people. Shame is, something similar happened in the UK. Just goes to show Gordon Brown was lucky until now because China's cheap labour kept inflation down for so long, but that's not directly related.
Bring back GospelCom.Net so we can look up scriptures in peace without having lock-step political dogma rammed down our throats!
The ministries that make up gospel.com are the same ones that made up gospelcom.net--so in theory, there's nothing new, politics-wise, at gospel.com that wasn't at gospelcom.net. Would you mind emailing me (andyrau AT gospelcommunications DOT org) to tell me more about what bugs/concerns you? I'd love to hear--it's definitely not our goal to make the site about politics or to push a particular political agenda. Please feel free to email me!
It would be useful to see a map or tree of how the term Evangelical fits into the map of denominations and how say Baptists fit into the picture. Perhaps even a list of denominations manifestly NOT Evangelical!
After reading the definition of "Evangelical" in the manifesto I was suprised to find myself outside their definition. I did not realize that one had to be a Calvinist to be considered an Evangelical which point 3 seems to imply, at least to me. How grace works is not fully defined in the document so that may not have been the intent, but that, along with the continued use of the word "reformation" at least hints at Calvinism to me. As a fellow Christ follower I appreciate the people who put this manifesto together and I completely agree with their points concerning upholding the rights of all and engaging in civil converasation about Christianity. I believe this is how to reveal Christ to those who do not know him. It is how Christ revealed himself when he was on earth.