Why I Signed the Evangelical Manifesto
The much discussed Evangelical Manifesto has created quite a stir in the media and evangelical community alike. The statement clearly articulates a broad but specified understanding of what the word “evangelical” stands for in historical, theological, and political terms. It has received a wide range of support from leaders that normally are seen at odds with one another such as the Deans of both Dallas and Fuller Theological Seminaries and leaders from Jerry Falwell’s college and Sojourners’ Jim Wallis.
Criticism of the document has been equally wide-ranging. Leaders of the Religious Right such as James Dobson have complained that the document was not representative enough of African Americans, and Southern Baptist leader Al Mohler finds it too expansive in terms of public relations and too theologically thin. Conversely, those friendly to postmodernism see its emphasis on doctrine to be endemic of a modern mindset (surprise, surprise) concerned with beliefs over practice, and most interestingly, a noteworthy literary critic doesn’t think it is “manifesto-ish” enough (needs to be more like Marx and Engles!).
But perhaps the biggest complaint I’ve heard is its forthright repudiation of one-issue voting. The document states:
We call for an expansion of our concern beyond single-issue politics, such as abortion and marriage, and a fuller recognition of the comprehensive causes and concerns of the Gospel, and of all the human issues that must be engaged in public life. Although we cannot back away from our biblically rooted commitment to the sanctity of every human life, including those unborn, nor can we deny the holiness of marriage as instituted by God between one man and one woman, we must follow the model of Jesus, the Prince of Peace, engaging the global giants of conflict, racism, corruption, poverty, pandemic diseases, illiteracy, ignorance, and spiritual emptiness, by promoting reconciliation, encouraging ethical servant leadership, assisting the poor, caring for the sick, and educating the next generation. We believe it is our calling to be good stewards of all God has entrusted to our care so that it may be passed on to generations yet to be born.
For political activists of the evangelical variety that see the issues of abortion and gay marriage as transcendent “non-negotiable” this is a concession and perhaps a defeat.
I will not recount all that the Manifesto says (you can read it in full here or see a summary of it) but a few things stood out. First, it clearly recognizes that evangelicalism is a sociological phenomenon of theologically like-minded believers, not an organized sect with confessional standards. Second, it demonstrates an awareness of the key doctrines that distinguish evangelical theology from the theological liberalism of mainline and emergent churches. Third, it calls for a many-issued approach to politics and makes a call to repentance for a lack of believing practice to match a believing faith. It recognizes the world-wide influence of Christianity, yet does not shy away from salient issues formed in an American context. It declares commitment to Christ over Constantine, and condemns the errors of antagonism to science and intellectual life.
In my view, those that are upset over the document are those it was intended to upset, and for that I am thankful. Very few documents have been produced that confront the growing influence of neo-fundamentalism and postmodern liberalism within the evangelical community, and for those that are concerned about the false choice that accompanies this state of affairs this document is a breath of fresh air that reminds us that there are strong voices of moderation, conviction, and civility that keep Christ at the center of the Christian faith.
For that I am thankful and throw my hat in with the signatories.
Tags: evangelical manifesto
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
May 12, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I read the summary, and there’s one part that troubles me. In one of their repudiations, they say, “First, those who believe their way is the only way and the way for everyone, and are therefore prepared to coerce them. This position leads inevitably to conflict.”
I’m doubtful that this position should be repudiated.
Don’t we as Christians believe that our way is the only way? John 14:6–”I am the way, the truth and the life.” Standing against that exclusivity would seem to lead to the complacency that they repudiate next.
Also, aren’t we as Christians inevitably led into conflict merely by following Christ? Matthew 10:34–”I have not come to bring peace but a sword.” If we seek to get along with our fellow man at the expense of Christ or the Gospel, as this claim against exclusivity suggests, then we don’t understand the call of Christ.
It seems to me that making this repudiation, unless I misuderstand, secularizes the manifesto and softens it on the critical point of discipleship.
May 12, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I don’t think it is a secularization or a call against exclusivity. Rather, it is making a call against religious extremism that emerged on a global scale that is seen radical Islam. The issue of coercion is at issue in that paragraph about global engagment.
May 12, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Ah, too often I read “coercion” like I’d read “persuasion.”
May 13, 2008 at 3:42 am
“First, those who believe their way is the only way and the way for everyone, and are therefore prepared to coerce them. This position leads inevitably to conflict.”
This is how secularists and atheists see Christianity.
The EM is an excellent document for those people looking for an “intellectual” discourse on Christianity IMO. It is written in English and not Christianese. Incidently, some have called the EM unbiblical partly for this reason, that there was not one Bible verse reference citation.
Since this document is so very mis-quotable, I look forward to seeing many interpretations in the next weeks or so.
May 13, 2008 at 4:28 am
Adam,
Interesting post. I’ll have to give the manifesto a read once I get a chance. My brother and I share a blog where we recently finished a series on religion and politics. One of the resources I came across that I was most impressed by was David Gushee’s new book “The Future of Faith in American Politics: The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center.” I noticed he was one of the charter signatories of the manifesto. You may have already picked up his book, but if not it’s an excellent read. We certainly need more centrist evangelical voices. I see that in general you like to cover a lot of the same subjects that we do. I found you by surfing the science and religion tag. I’m sure I’ll be around again.
May 13, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I have browsed the book by Gushee at the bookstore, and it looks great. Good to hear some positive buzz about it from someone who has read it.
May 13, 2008 at 4:00 pm
You can believe that there are other pressing political issues, (everyone knows about Christ’s crusades on behalf of adult literacy) but if you can reconcile Christ’s message of justice for the oppressed with the government-sanctioned of babies, don’t expect me to respect your opinions on other faith issues.
I don’t understand the recent trend toward Christianity in press release form. What is this trying to achieve? It says very little.
May 13, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Kevin, I don’t think anyone can reconcile Christ’s message of justice with how the government opperates and implements its laws on a variety of issues. That’s the problem a lot of Evangelicals are wrestling with. One side says the only valid way to deal with the problem is to pick the most important issue (protecing the life of the unborn) and nevermind the consequences in other matters. Others believe that there can be a more comprehensive approach. There is simply nothing in Scripture of essential Christian doctrines that says you must take a one-issue approach to political engagment in a democratic society, and I think it is important to allow liberty in this area otherwise we wrongfully bind people’s consciences with rules that are not divinely mandated. Read the Manifesto and you will see that it does not back away from the importance of life in any way shape or form.
May 14, 2008 at 3:26 am
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 and 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
May 14, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I am not arguing for political myopia re: abortion. Rather, I am uninterested in listening to a treatise on social justice from one whose vision of justice can accommodate legal murder of innocents.
I agree with Mike that this manifesto is high on inclusiveness, and light on evangelicalism. As a result, it will serve as a marketing piece for various interests within the Christian community, but ultimately have little or no impact.
May 14, 2008 at 7:39 pm
So since the statement doesn’t make any declarations about evangelism which should in turn inspires missions the statement is useless?
May 14, 2008 at 10:24 pm
It is useless because the only people who could find any cause for disagreement are highly educated atheists, and the manifesto treats even this group with kid gloves. Contrast this inclusivity with, for example, the Bible.
May 14, 2008 at 10:51 pm
I’m not sure we are reading the same things Kevin. The document expounds upon seven beliefs that identify what an Evangelical is:
1. Jesus, fully divine and fully human, as the only full and complete revelation of God and therefore the only Savior.
2. The death of Jesus on the cross, in which he took the penalty for our sins and reconciled us to God.
3. Salvation as God’s gift grasped through faith. We contribute nothing to our salvation.
4. New life in the Holy Spirit, who brings us spiritual rebirth and power to live as Jesus did, reaching out to the poor, sick, and oppressed.
5. The Bible as God’s Word written, fully trustworthy as our final guide to faith and practice.
6. The future personal return of Jesus to establish the reign of God.
7. The importance of sharing these beliefs so that others may experience God’s salvation and may walk in Jesus’ way.
I’m not sure what you are talking about when you say the only people who would disagree with those are “highly educated atheists.” Lots of “new kinds of Christians” already repudiate point number 2 and still want to retain the evangelical label. The document is far from useless.
May 14, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Oh, manifestos! I am thinking of writing one. I just have to figure out the topic. Pizza?
May 15, 2008 at 2:37 am
Lots of “New Kinds of Christians” signed the document. But yes, for those who consider the term”evangelical” to be anachronistic in and of itself, there will be dissent for obvious reasons.