- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (5/7)
- Next Post »All Men Are Equal Down at the Cross
The Evangelical Manifesto
- 05/07/08
- 17
You have probably heard about the Evangelical Manifesto—a document that has received some attention in the press over the past few days. This manifesto was made public for the first time just a few minutes ago and is now publicly available at anevangelicalmanifesto.com. According to those who drafted the document, “The two-fold purpose of this declaration is first to address the confusions and corruptions that attend the term Evangelical in the United States and much of the Western world today, and second to clarify where we stand on issues that have caused consternation over Evangelicals in public life.”
An Evangelical Manifesto is an open declaration of who Evangelicals are and what they stand for. It has been drafted and published by a representative group of Evangelical leaders who do not claim to speak for all Evangelicals, but who invite all other Evangelicals to stand with them and help clarify what Evangelical means in light of “confusions within and the consternation without” the movement. As the Manifesto states, the signers are not out to attack or exclude anyone, but to rally and to call for reform.
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 document was drafted by a Steering Committee comprised of Timothy George, Os Guinness, John Huffman, Rich Mouw, Jesse Miranda, David Neff, Richard Ohman, Larry Ross and Dallas Willard. Among the Charter Signatories are such diverse notables as Leith Anderson, Kay Arthur, Darrell Bock, Jack Hayford, Max Lucado, Erwin Lutzer, J. P. Moreland, Mark Noll, Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Jim Wallis.
I look forward to reading through it as soon as I’ve got a few minutes to do so!
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (17)
I am surprised to see Dallas Willard as one of the Steering Committee. Good for him! :-)
I'm surprised to see Rich Mouw's name in there, given Fuller Seminary's stance on Scripture and various ways the school has undermined evangelicalism.
Timothy George, Os Guinness......
Just those 2 names is enough to get me yawning.......ECT redux no doubt........
Great Stuff
I am proud to be an Evangelical
Given that within the document there is fairly specific list of sins and errors which it calls out and repents of, couldn't we charitably consider each signature to mean an acknowledgement of such and a participation in that repentance? I for one see my own sins of materialism and lack of charity described there.... In immediately calling out those individuals with whom we disagree as a justification for our disagreement with the whole document, are we perhaps committing one of the fundamental errors it seeks to correct?
To quote from the document itsself- "Just as Jesus did, Evangelicals sometimes have to make strong judgments about what is false, unjust, and evil. But first and foremost we Evangelicals are for Someone and for something rather than against anyone or anything. The Gospel of Jesus is the Good News of welcome, forgiveness, grace, and liberation from law and legalism. It is a colossal Yes to life and human aspirations, and an emphatic No only to what contradicts our true destiny as human beings made in the image of God."
Just read it and have to say I was disappointed as a "fundamentalist", to see how man centered it was. Did find it refreshing that they dared to call the emergent church dangerously close to being not Christian.
While I agreed with much in the manifesto, it was not a complete definition of Evangelical. Though the document does give a statement of faith with which many Evangelicals would agree, it seems its main purpose was to define Evangelism with reference to politics. Anyone else read it that way?
I agree with Reformed Mommy, and also Dan K. Is that possible?
I work in christian radio, and this manifesto first made it's appearance on a goup I belong to's message board on Monday. It is a lot to read through.
And something one should thoroughly examine before making any declarations.
One of the first things I did do though, was to look at the signees list. Associated Press put out an article noting that "Noted Evangelical leaders james Dobson and Richard Land were not among the signee's"
I just read through it quickly this morning, and will be anxious to digest it more later, and get comments from others that I trust like Team Pyro and Challies in guiding me in forming my analysis, along with careful research of Gods Word.
Looking forward to more dialogue on this.
Bill
Found this review of the manifesto
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=27999&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed0507
I think labels were created by people to keep their jobs-yuck...If people spent enough time living who they are they wouldn't need to take the time clarify who they are.
I haven't read it, but should Reformational Christians sign a document with the names of bad examples of Christians listed? I am feeling more inclined to throw away the term "evangelical" to describe myself due to things like this.
I always get uneasy feelings when I read about people like those listed. I more inclined to move away from the term "evangelical" due to things like this.
That's a charitable assumption. I'll keep the question in mind when I read the next issue of Sojourners Magazine.
thanks for making me aware of this.. odd they did not invite me to help craft the document... LOL
Seriously, thanks for the info.
It's great that they attempt to put a distance between theologically defined evangelicals, and political evangelicals.
It's somewhat concerning in light of this that there is no clear and explicit reference to divine judgement.
And the use of the word 'fundamentalist' seems to be pejorative and a-historical.
I blogged some similar thoughts here.
Interestingly, James Dobson (one of the prominent faces of the evangelical right along with Falwell, Robinson, etc) did NOT sign the evangelical manifesto due to the fact that there were no African-American pastor or theologians on the 70 person committee. He had other issues with it. Any one know any of these other issues?
The Evangelical Manifesto
I hereby declare that I sign off on the Evangelical Manifesto both in spirit and in letter. But that does not mean that I subscribe or support any particular church or organization or movement in America or anywhere else. Anyone who accepts the Bible and the teaching of Christ as the supreme rule of faith and practice and believes in the Lord Jesus Christ as his/her personal Savior and that the glorious Gospel is the central message of God to humankind must be an evangelical.
1. The biggest historical lie has been “white man’s burden.” The idea that white peoples were superior and given the divine right to rule other peoples who were backward and uncivilized was malicious and pernicious in nature. This diabolical doctrine justified the creation of colonialism and imperialism, hegemonism and even Nazism, aggressive and oppressive acts of white nations. There was no accident, except Japan, that all colonial and imperialistic powers have been and still are Western nations. Colonial and imperialistic powers used military force to attack, dominate and control over other nations, territories and peoples. Europe was made rich by robbing and exploiting the natural resources and forced labor of Asian, African and Latin American colonies. The identification of Christianity as a white man’s religion and associated with Western colonialism and imperialism have done great harm to the cause of evangelism.
2. For a couple hundred years American preachers have tacitly and implicitly taught that capitalism was compatible with Christianity. This distortion produced different gospels such as prosperity gospel, possibility gospel, etc. Love of money has become a virtue and greed has become respectable. For examples, Christmas is a capitalistic tool of money making, instead of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ to the world. Many churches have become business centers of preachers, and they merchandise the Gospel for profit. Many TV evangelists have become multi-millionaires. Giving to the church is a financial investment, a tax deduction, and a path to prosperity and material blessings. Consequently, the prevailing American values of money, power and sex are diametrically opposed to the Christian values of faith, hope and love.
3. There is no ideology which can correctly label God’s chosen people who devote their lives to the spreading of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ. Imperfect as they are, but what they believe is the perfect and absolute Word of God. There are some who call themselves Christians and want to be scientifically respectable and so and they believe in evolution as a fact contrary to Jesus’ teaching of creation. There are fundamentalists who believe the Bible verbatim, and yet they are lacking love and full of bitterness. There are those who call themselves evangelicals but they build “spiritual empire” that enriches themselves by monopolizing the proclamation of the Gospel. The equalization of religious freedom with American democracy is a fatal flaw. Not only the West is no model for the world, much less is the model of Christianity. Let us hope Christians and preachers everywhere will exalt the Lord Jesus and not themselves. Let us identify ourselves as citizens of the Kingdom of God, not representatives of any nation or superpower, race or culture.
May 12, 2008
Willie Wong
http://www.wongwillie.zoomshare.com/