A Take On An Evangelical Manifesto

Apparently “radical” Christians are not the only ones getting in on the manifesto love. A committee headed up by Os Guinness has recently published a document entitled An Evangelical Manifesto. With the emphasis being on the “An” (because one has to have a disclaimer on anything one writes now a days), the focus of the document is on recovering the essence and definition of the term “Evangelical,” particularly in the public square. So far the watchdog bloggers have been kind, but it is probably only a matter of time before Os and company get grouped in with Marx and the Unabomber for using the word manifesto.

Despite the unwanted baggage the term “Evangelical” has picked up over the last several decades, this manifesto is a declaration that that label, if properly understood, still conveys “all-important truth.” This is the twenty first century Evangelical’s attempt at doing what John Wesley did with his sermon The Character of a Methodist: distinguish what a true Evangelical really is in light of recent public questioning and counterfeit productions. This delineation comes in three mandates, written in the first person plural:

1. We Must Reaffirm Our Identity
2. We Must Reform Our Own Behavior
3. We Must Rethink Our Place in Public Life

There is as much to love in the document as there is to loathe, and everyone will have their favorite targets. The early responders have focused on who was and was not invited to be charter signatories, and then drawing conclusions from the snubbed list as to the true intention of the manifesto. Among this crowd is Warren Smith (who wonders where the conservatives are) and the Emergent Village blog (which briefly notes that Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, and Doug Pagitt were not asked either).

Please brace yourself for my next statement…but…I actually agree with Al Mohler’s take quite a bit (wow, that felt good to get off my chest!). The prime definition of “Evangelical” given in the manifesto is the sort of lowest common denominator approach that doesn’t really say anything at all. I realize the goal is unity and consensus, but the question of “what is an Evangelical” is tied up in history that makes the whole “Evangelicals are people who simply define themselves according the ‘good news’ (from the Greek word for gospel)” a little too a-historical for me. The authors insist that while the term “Protestant” has lost its usefulness, “Evangelical” still endures. They assert that the essence of “Evangelicalism” is pre-Protestant. Am I missing something in my reading of history? Then again, Mark Noll– a Christian historian of the top shelf– signed it, so what do I know.

James K. Smith has made these connections as well and has thrown one more in there that really gets at the heart of the issue. In response to the first mandate’s identity markers, Smith writes:

“…such definitions define “Evangelical” by what evangelicals THINK and BELIEVE, rather than what they DO. That, I think, reflects just the sort of modernism that gives us evangelicalism (and fundamentalism) in the first place. In contrast, what defines Orthodoxy or Catholicism is liturgy, the practices of the faith.”

Much of the manifesto is dedicated to repenting of behavior unbecoming to a true “Evangelical,” but most of the attitudes and actions listed seem to be aimed at the more Fundamentalist side of Christianity. This leads me to believe that one major aim of the document is to place further separation between Evangelicals and those political Fundamentalists that are still getting all the press. This group of “Evangelicals” has little to do with Colorado Springs, and they want to make that clear without resorting to finger pointing. The major question that many of us should ask is whether or not this group of “Evangelicals” is simply falling into the trap of creating a Religious Left to battle the Pat Roberton’s of the world. Not to say that you are guilty by association, but Jim Wallis’ signature should be in all CAPS. He might as well have taken a few of his articles from Sojourner’s, smashed them together, added a few more devotional phrases, and Os Guinness could’ve written his bit about “civility” and taken the rest of the year off.

But as mentioned above, there are good things that need to be said of the manifesto. The document is highly Christocentric, something that has been sorely missing in Evangelical public engagement in the past few decades. The constant focus on the person and work of Jesus should make us all shout out an “Amen” or two. There is also call for constant renewal and reformation that strongly denounces any falling in love with the status quo. Of particular interests to the Jesus Manifesto crowd, coming byway the section entitled “The Way of Jesus, Not Constantine:”

“We Evangelicals trace our heritage, not to Constantine, but to the very different stance of Jesus of Nazareth. While some of us are pacifists and others are advocates of just war, we all believe that Jesus’ Good News of justice for the whole world was promoted, not by a conqueror’s power and sword, but by a suffering servant emptied of power and ready to die for the ends he came to achieve.” (18)

So what are your thoughts?

Have you read this Manifesto? Would you sign it?

Where do you place yourself in the spectrum–are you an “Evangelical?”

for further reading . . .

• None Found