From what I understand, the release of the Evangelical Manifesto was recent. I think I came across May 7 as the date it went public. In case you’re wondering who’s behind it, here are the people listed on the Steering Committee:
- Timothy George
Dean, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University - Os Guinness
Author/Social Critic - John Huffman
Pastor, St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach, CA
Chair, Christianity Today International - Rich Mouw
President, Fuller Theological Seminary - Jesse Miranda
Founder & Director, Miranda Center for Hispanic Leadership, Vanguard University - David Neff
Vice President and Editor in Chief, Christianity Today Media Group - Richard Ohman
Businessman - Larry Ross
President, A. Larry Ross Communications - Dallas Willard
Professor of Philosophy, University of Southern California
Author
The introduction to the project is also important because it clarifies motives, and there are three:
An Evangelical Manifesto is an open declaration of who Evangelicals are and what they stand for …
As an open declaration, An Evangelical Manifesto addresses not only Evangelicals and other Christians but other American citizens and people of all other faiths in America, including those who say they have no faith. It therefore stands as an example of how different faith communities may address each other in public life, without any compromise of their own faith but with a clear commitment to the common good of the societies in which we all live together.
For those who are Evangelicals, the deepest purpose of the Manifesto is a serious call to reform—an urgent challenge to reaffirm Evangelical identity, to reform Evangelical behavior, to reposition Evangelicals in public life, and so rededicate ourselves to the high calling of being Evangelical followers of Jesus Christ.
The Manifesto tackles all three areas, with the identity section first, the call for reform second, and the “let’s all get along” section third. OK, my characterization of the last section is simplistic. I wanted a nutshell way of referring to it, but it probably defies such paring. More accurately, the third section (second in their stated purpose in the intro) is to encourage openness and civility in discussion of faith or non-faith, as the case may be.
Yesterday I posted my initial three reactions to the Manifesto. I hope, at some point, you visitors here at A Christian Worldview of Fiction will take a look at the Manifesto for yourselves. It is beginning to create some stir—there are some 1300 blog posts on the subject already. Until then, here are a few more of my random thoughts on the content.
1. The Manifesto’s “identity definition” flies in the face of post-modern thought that resists propositional truth. There are parts of the document that make me think this is purposeful.
2. While I applaud much of what the Manifesto intends, I see areas that I wish were … more accurate, more Biblical.
And speaking of the Bible, one of the weak points is the watered-down statement of belief about the Bible. From the Manifesto itself, not the summary version (which is even weaker):
Fourth, we believe that Jesus’ own teaching and his attitude toward the total truthfulness and supreme authority of the Bible, God’s inspired Word, make the Scriptures our final rule for faith and practice.
Compare that to the statement about the Bible from the National Association of Evangelicals:
I. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.
Or how about this statement from my church, First Evangelical Free Church of Fullerton:
The Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are the inspired Word of God without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life.
Yes, the Manifesto states, in its round-about way, that the Bible is inspired and that it is authoritative. One could suppose that it implies the Bible is without error. But why the ambiguous language on such a pivotal point?
I mention this because I read one blog post in which the writer praises the Manifesto as needed since from his church experience he had not received clear teaching on “these seven foundational points,” referring to the beliefs the Manifesto enumerates as part of the evangelical identity.
Granted, the Steering Committee probably wanted to choose wording that would allow believers with different shades of understanding to agree, but isn’t that what started the slippery slide away from a clear understanding of evangelical—and more importantly of Christian (you knew I’d throw this in one more time, didn’t you? 
)—in the first place?
OK, this post is much too long, and I have more to say on the subject. As always, I’m interested in your reaction, either to what I’ve spouted or to the original document that brought these ideas bubbling to the surface.
Manifesto. Gee, I always wanted to write one of those. On something. Hmmm… what to tackle? : )
Comment by L.L. Barkat — May 13, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
good thoughts. i’m enjoying reading the various opinions here and there around the web. i had some hesitations and misgivings before reading the document, but i’m actually quite impressed – even invigorated – after taking in the whole of what it addresses.
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
Comment by mikerucker — May 13, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
Laura, thanks for stopping by. You’ve WANTED to write a manifesto? I had to look it up to really understand what one is!
No, I can’t say this is my favorite kind of writing, by any stretch of the imagination.
Mike, welcome to A Christian Worldview of Fiction. I wasn’t aware the Emergent Manifesto existed. Thanks for the link.
As to the issue of “evangelism” in the Evangelical M, I agree there isn’t much. It does appear in the last point of what you might consider the list of doctrines in the Identity section. Here’s the relevant part: …and share Christ with those who do not yet know him, inviting people to the ends of the earth and to the end of time to join us as his disciples and followers of his way.
As to that line you didn’t like, it actually reads this way: Fourth, as stressed above, Evangelicalism must be defined theologically and not politically; confessionally and not culturally. I tend to agree with that. Jesus made it very clear He did not come to initiate a political movement, and He didn’t favor the tax collectors over the zealots or vice versa. He was not about revamping the culture, nor should we be.
It’s a little trickier in a democracy, however, because we the people play a part in establishing the laws. I think the tension between setting our minds on the kingdom of God and being the kinds of citizens (rendering to Caesar) the Bible seems to require is a topic under-discussed.
And the line you liked? Well, I have some thoughts about that I hope to post one of these days.
Becky
Comment by Rebecca LuElla Miller — May 14, 2008 @ 1:43 pm