Yesterday a document was released at the National Press Club entitled An Evangelical Manifesto: A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment, spearheaded by Os Guinness and signed by over 80 evangelical leaders. I would encourage anyone interested in evangelicalism to give it a careful reading, or at the very least, to read Justin Taylor's excellent summation.
Other than the Bible, there are few documents that I agree with word-for-word (and that includes most things that I have written). Still, I found enough to agree with in the manifesto to add my name as one of the additional signatories.
I hope to have more to say about it in the future but for now here are three initial thoughts:
1. This manifesto has bolstered my confidence that I won't be the last person in America to call himself an evangelical. On page 4, they note that the evangelical identity is "powerful and precious to groups as well as to individuals."
Identity is central to a classical liberal understanding of freedom. There are grave dangers in identity politics, but we insist that we ourselves, and not scholars, the press, or public opinion, have the right to say who we understand ourselves to be. We are who we say we are, and we resist all attempts to explain us in terms of our "true" motives and our "real" agenda.
This is an excellent point that should be acknowledged by the nomenclative cowards who have abandoned the term "evangelical." Too often my fellow former evangelicals think that dumping the term will make them (or to be more generous, The Gospel) more palatable to the outside world.
What they are missing (or simply refuse to admit to themselves) is that it is not the term "evangelical" that the world despises but the beliefs behind the word. Call yourself whatever you want--"post-evangelical is my favorite--but the minute you tell the world that homosexual behavior is sinful, that killing infants in the womb is wrong, and that man has an inherent dignity because we are made in the image of God then you can expect to have that label spat upon too.
How many labels are will willing to abandon before we finally realize it is our identity that we are shirking?
2. In addressing the issue of race and the church, the document notes, "All too often we have gloried in the racial and ethnic diversity of the church around the world, but remained content to be enclaves of separateness here at home." This is a laudatory sentiment. So why were there no African-American pastors or theologians asked to sign the document?
According to the AP, the "Rev. John Huffman, pastor of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, a megachurch in Pasadena, Calif., acknowledged the effort lacks participation from African-Americans and women. But he said the initial signers are merely a beginning and 'anyone can sign on if this resonates with them.'"
While it is true that anyone can sign it now, someone should have noticed the lack of racial diversity when that section was being included.
3. The one major quibble I have is not necessarily with the document but with it's chief drafter. Os Guiness is quoted in USA Today as saying:
"Our problem is not mislabeling by the press or rebranding because we have a bad image," said Os Guinness, an evangelical scholar and a drafter of the document, which was released in Washington. "The problem is reality. Much of evangelicalism is not evangelical."
With all due respect to Guinness, this is foolishness. No doubt much of evangelicalism is not evangelical (or even Christian) but that has little to do with the perception people have about the term "evangelical" being used as a synonym with right-wing politics. That blame can indeed be placed squarely on the shoulders of the media.
Consider that in the same article where Guiness is quoted the reporter says,
"Republicans need to realize that evangelicals care about a lot of things," Green said, "The message to Democrats is similar: Don't ignore us. If you pursue the right issues and have the right platform, there are many evangelicals who will consider voting for you."
The document says liberals share the blame for mingling politics and religion, but most sharply condemns evangelicals, saying many of their problems "are those of our own making."
The document is referring to theological liberalism while the context of the news article uses the term liberal in the political sense.
Indeed, every single news article focused on the political implications rather than on what it really said. Consider these headlines:
AP: Evangelical leaders say their faith is too politicized
USA Today: Manifesto aims to make 'evangelical' a less-political term
Reuters: US evangelicals call for step back from politics
NPR: 'Evangelical Manifesto' Aims to Depoliticize Religion
The media considers the term "evangelical" to be political rather than theological because of their own willful ignorance. Part of the problem is that they don't know anyone who would consider themselves an evangelical. Even at conservative media outlets you are more likely to an atheist on staff than you are an evangelical Christian.
But another part of the problem is that the elite media simply has no interest in evangelicals except for our political influence. The reason they don't see us as a theological movement is because in their minds "theology" isn't even a real category. For them to speak of theology is akin to talking about fairies and goblins and other such nonsense. Unlike Guinness, they do not believe that "secularism" is a religion or that faith has any place in the public square. This is the reason that his efforts to reach them--and change the perception they give about evangelicals--is bound to fail.
Nevertheless, these are all relatively minor concerns for such a worthy effort. Although I don't think the document will have much impact after it fades from the current news cycle, it will be useful to return to as a point of reference. And who knows, maybe someday we'll not only be able to come to an agreement about what the term "evangelical" means but also share a consensus about why preserving the term is important.
I'd read you signed it.
Glad you posted.
I think it is more a maturing theological document for US evangelicalism than a political statement.
Having agreed with you on that that I am curious.
You work for the top religious right political organization at the moment.
None of your co-workers were approached, no Fotf or FRC leader and you'd have a better understanding than I do why they weren't.
How do you reconcile what you do for the FRC with what you just signed you believe?
If your bosses decide to attack this, and the people that signed it, are you going to be sending out your resume?
Your Justin Taylor link isn't working.:^)
I've other concerns about the document, as stated in my review.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
The link to Justin Taylor's summary is:
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/05/evangelical-manifesto-summary.html
It is Theologica not Theological.
""Our problem is not mislabeling by the press or rebranding because we have a bad image," said Os Guinness, an evangelical scholar and a drafter of the document, which was released in Washington. "The problem is reality. Much of evangelicalism is not evangelical.""
This is true. Like it or not, at some point Christians in America became more concerned with making homosexual marriage illegal than witnessing to homosexuals, banning anything we call porn than witnessing to those using or participating in porn, etc. When folks spend more time standing in front of an abortion clinic screaming obscenities at the women going in and trying to get Roe v. Wade overturned than actually telling these souls about Jesus than we have truly and deeply missed the point.
That is exactly what the envangelical movement has become, a political movement. It's not the press's fault. The "Moral Majority" can take some of the blame. We, like others before us, have bought into the idea that if we make "sin" illegal it will go away and everything will be alright. This is not true it just goes underground and causes more misery. We can change people's outward behaviors all we want but without a change of heart it's folly and totalitarianism.
DD
Joe writes:
"...nomenclative cowards who have abandoned the term 'evangelical.'"
Awesome. Yes, call those spades what they are, Joe. Love it.
Not that it matters, but John Huffman is from St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Newport Beach, CA, not Pasadena. A very good man, by the way.
Like it or not, at some point Christians in America became more concerned with making homosexual marriage illegal than witnessing to homosexuals,
Maybe I missed something, but when did homosexual marriage become legal? As far as I can tell, only one state, Massachusetts, allows recognizes same-sex marriages, and if I recall that recognition was more or less imposed on the, largely unwilling, people of Massachusetts by unelected judges. Without getting into the merits of same-sex marriage, wouldn't you agree that the Evangelical response to this issue is more of a response to an attempt to force acceptance of an immoral (not just from a Christian perspective) and, to some extent, an unhealthy lifestyle on an unwilling populace.
When folks spend more time standing in front of an abortion clinic screaming obscenities at the women going in and trying to get Roe v. Wade overturned than actually telling these souls about Jesus than we have truly and deeply missed the point.
Do Christians really "spend more time standing in front of abortion clinic(s), screaming obscenities at women" than they do in supporting institutions like CareNet and other agencies that offer alternatives to abortions? I am not convinced. I can only speak anecdotally, but I have occasion to drive by a Planned Parenthood clinic fairly often, surprisingly this PP clinic is in a strip mall and is two doors down from a Christian Book Store. Now, if it were the case that Evangelical Christians spend an inordinate amount of time protesting in front of abortion clinics, this would seem to be the ideal location. An ideal location to get extra WWJD bracelets in case you run out or to get an extra Bible if you break one with a little over enthusiastic thumping. Yet in all the dozens of times I have driven past there, I can only recall a handful of protests and none of the protests included more than one adult (of indeterminate denomination) with a sign and a couple of small children, who would obviously rather be at the ice cream parlor a few of doors down. Contrast this with the dinners I attend supporting CareNet, where hundreds of Evangelicals and Catholics get together to support a worthy organization with scarcely a condemnation of the women who have abortions, let alone an obscenity, to be heard. When people make statements like your's, it makes me wonder if you really know any Evangelicals or if you get most of your opinion of them from watching "Law and Order" re-runs.
ucfengr,
Well stated.
"it makes me wonder if you really know any Evangelicals or if you get most of your opinion of them from watching "Law and Order" re-runs."
Seeing as how I am one, yes I've run into a couple. Here and there. Once or twice.
Nitpicking about my choice of words about homosexual marriage is a poor argument. The simple fact is that Christians (at least those I know and the Focus on the Family crowd) are eager to vote against it. Is it it immoral? Yes. Does the government have a place in adjucating personal morality? I say no. The evangelical movement says yes, our morals should be the Law. Do you deny that?
You must be too young to remember the near riots in Kansas City (I think it was there.) when Operation Rescue was protesting left and right. If we have stopped protesting AND witnessing, that is even more sad. Again, people can rally every year to try to get R v W repealled. These people want the government to enforce their morality on everybody else.
Do you honestly argue the point that Evangelicals vote mainly for Big Government to enforce our view of the world? The numbers are dismal as to the percentage of believers who have shared their faith in the last year (the survey is quoted in Ray Comfort's book "The Way of the Master") yet we can certainly show up to vote against gambling, gay marriage, and we want to ban porn etc.
Point out to me one major area where we are trying to get laws passed etc. where we have instead changed the CULTURE to our point of view. We have abdicated our responsability to be light and salt to the government to force people to live like Christians.
Explain to me how using force to control people's actions (that do not harm others physically) is anything other than totalitarianism?
DD
This is nothing more then a purpose Driven indoctrination statement. Rick Warren's false gospel is all over it. Wake up people. These signers must be learning their theology from the Message bible becuase if they read a correct translation of the real bible they would see right through this heretical stuff.It's just an attempt to silence people who disagree with Warren. Look at it's referecnes to the five purposes and the global giants of Warren's peace plan. Theology is of the highest importance becasue it determines the God we worship. And if this is true then exposing errors helps lead the way to the one true God and to His only provision for the forgiveness of sins (Jesus Christ). We are not called to a social gospel. We are called to warn people of the wrath to come and point them to Christ as their only hope.
DD,
All governments employ force by coercion. That's the nature of government.
All governments enforce a morality. Again, that's the nature of government.
The difference here is a shift from the historical precedent of local moral consensus (self government) to a nationalization. Though you've conveniently altered your terminology, the simple fact of the matter is that the secularists are today working to change society with the use of coercion (esp. via judicial fiat) apart from public consensus. It is not the Religous Right which is nationalizing or forcing anything. As it has always done, the evangelical community is being reactionary, as it has been for many decades.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/
The Republican Party has NO intention of getting rid of RvW.
Those who use the excuse of abortion to stay in a political party with no intention of doing anything about abortion issue are contributing to the confusion of a Christian’s responsibility.
Again, RvW is here to stay and the Republican strategists who use it to keep naive Christians in the Party are laughing all the way to the bank.
On the other hand, I suspect many of you who claim your political priorities on the backs of murdered fetuses, already know this, but refuse to tell the real reason why you are devoted to right-wing politics.
Joe, to your points:
1. Amen.
2. What of the lack of female signers?
3. Isn’t calling Guinness’ statement “foolishness” a bit strong? How can we know, from a quote in a secular news piece, that Guinness had only our political image in mind when he made that statement? The manifesto spends some time laying blame at Evangelicals’ feet, under #1 and esp. #2.
I agree that it’s not the term “Evangelical” that gets people ticked, but what we stand for, yet it remains true that the picture Evangelicals have painted for themselves in the public eye (misrepresentation aside) hasn’t always been pretty, meaning often not representative of who we are supposed to be, by our own definition, as expounded in the manifesto. If the witness were clearer and more overwhelmingly obvious, I think it would be more difficult to misrepresent, and more difficult for the theological to be elided into the political.
Yes, the media seem to be focusing on the “political” part of the manifesto, but that subject did take up a large portion of it. I'd say the AP headline focuses on “faith” rather than political implications – it says faith is being too politicized. Is it possible that part of the reason for the media’s focus is that politics are seen as a common ground between secularists and Evangelicals, and perhaps secularists view Evangelicals’ call to reclaim their own identity as “personal” to them, and therefore not of secular concern?
It’s true that the media have turned Evangelicals’ political involvement into a monster. Yet they had some material to run with.
Besides, if image were not a problem, there would be no need for statements about it, nor for words as in I Peter 2:12, 15, and 3:16. (If it were only outsiders misrepresenting us, there’d be no need for comment.)
Seeing as how I am one, yes I've run into a couple. Here and there. Once or twice.
So, are you saying the one's you know spend a lot of time "standing in front of abortion clinic(s), screaming obscenities at women"? Maybe we just run with different crowds, but none of the Evangelicals I know do, but lots of them do commit a lot of time and money supporting organizations like CareNet. Here is CareNet's Mission Statement:
The mission of Care Net is to promote a culture of life through the delivery of valuable, life-affirming, evangelistic ministry to people facing unplanned pregnancies and related sexual issues. We carry out this mission by supporting the largest network of pregnancy centers in North America and by operating the Option Line call center and website that assist women in need around the clock.
Our vision is to help build a culture of life in which every pregnant woman is offered the support she needs to choose life for her unborn baby. We also envision a future where people will be transformed by the Gospel and desire to live out their lives in accordance with God's design for sexuality.
We know that none of these positive changes can occur unless we are first committed to sharing the love, hope, and truth of Jesus Christ, both in word and deed. In the words of Isaiah 61, Care Net and its network of pregnancy centers are truly committed to sharing the Good News, caring for the brokenhearted, and bringing gladness to those who despair.
Notice there is lot's of talk about helping individuals and working to change the culture, but nothing about shouting obscenities.
Nitpicking about my choice of words about homosexual marriage is a poor argument. The simple fact is that Christians (at least those I know and the Focus on the Family crowd) are eager to vote against it.
Are you arguing that they should be eager to vote for it?
Does the government have a place in adjucating personal morality? I say no.
So then, you would be in favor of repealing all laws criminalizing drug use, prostitution, age of consent laws? What about zoning laws that mandate adult bookstores can't be next to schools? What are those laws other than government "adjudicating personal morality"?
You must be too young to remember the near riots in Kansas City (I think it was there.) when Operation Rescue was protesting left and right.
What I remember about the "Summer of Mercy" is a lot of prayer and non-violent civil disobedience, rather like the Civil Rights protests of the 1960's. I don't remember much yelling of obscenities from the Operation Rescue side, though I will concede there may have been a little.
Do you honestly argue the point that Evangelicals vote mainly for Big Government to enforce our view of the world?
Who's view of the world should we vote to enforce? Nature abhors a vacuum; someone's view of the world is going to be enforced by the government, why not something close to ours? If you don't think the Christian world view is better than the others, I guess I can understand you position, but then I would ask, why are you a Christian?
Point out to me one major area where we are trying to get laws passed etc. where we have instead changed the CULTURE to our point of view.
Abortion via CareNet and other like minded organizations.
Explain to me how using force to control people's actions (that do not harm others physically) is anything other than totalitarianism?
This is what George Washington said about government"
Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
And yet, that same George Washington became the first head of our government. So was George Washington a totalitarian? The government of Washington was far more tolerant of "using force to control people's actions" than even James Dobson's would be; so again, was Washington a totalitarian?
Rob,
A quick response...
1) When I read through my bible in Greek I come to the same conclusions this document is talking about (give or take). It is trying to negotiate a middle way and articulate Evangelicalism as apart from fundamentalism and its highly politicized nature. If you cannot read this document and agree then its time to wake up and smell the coffee... your a fundamentalist.
2) Why Warren? I've yet to read him and I didn't think of his as I read this document. Perhaps that's your own context coming into play? For me it feels like the heart and soul of what has historically been the Evangelical spirit.
3) No social gospel eh? Could have sworn Jesus talks more about money than anything else... proper living too... how often does he "warn people of the wrath to come" again in contrast to proper living or money... oh yeah not much. :)
Undoubtedly, many people would place all Christians in this category, because of the Emperor Constantine and the state-sponsored oppression he inaugurated, leading to the dangerous alliance between church and state continued in European church-state relations down to the present.
You guys might want to get your history straight. Constantine legitimized the Christian church and gave it official status within the Roman Empire, but he did not discourage paganism or Judaism. He was an early proponent of religious tolerance. It was Theodosius who made Christianity the official religion of the empire and who outlawed other faiths.
Although elated by this conversation long overdue, I’ve enumerated my laundry-list of misgivings about the document(s)... at IndyChristian.com.
However, the following phrase exposes the document’s fundamentally-flawed premise…
“In a diverse society, it will always be unjust and unworkable to privilege one religion.”
How does a Bible-believing Christian leader sign such a statement, while simultaneously asserting that God Almighty is the very definition of pure justice & mercy? Moreover, how do signers assert on Sundays that “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord”? Or pray “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”?
Bottom line: If evangelicals are at all monolithic, it’s in our confession together that “Jesus is Lord”. As such, we’re called to pray and work redemptively, aligned with that certainty. To exempt the ‘civic public square’ as a sterile safe-haven from any religious preference, is to suboptimize our fealty and take an 'early-out' on our mission of transformation.
The very concept of civility is not an evolved one; it’s a designed one, crafted by our self-sacrificing God and defended by our self-sacrificing forebears.