The recently published Evangelical Manifesto has, no surprise, generated a lot of commentary. The responses I've read include Joe Carter's, Dan Edelen's, and Janice Shaw Crouse's. Joe basically liked it and added his signature, although he doesn't think that people don't like evangelicals because of the way they behave; he believes, and rightly so, that the world is simply opposed to the truth of Christ, and "doesn't get" that religion might actually be different from politics. Dan Edelen thinks that the manifesto is too apologetic and takes no stand for praxis, offering no practical definitives. Crouse believes that it "muddies the Evangelical waters." She thinks that the document has been timed politically and attempts to give evangelicalism a new face, one that shifts emphasis away from tradition and conservatism. She even suggests that it's hypocritical.
Obviously, anyone's opinion of the Manifesto is going to reveal their bias, mine included. The Manifesto itself is biased insofar as any human opinion cannot avoid having tendency to favor something against something else. But this is not a problem unless said bias crosses the line to prejudice. A wrong opinion, one that can actually be proven wrong, does not always contain prejudice.
The Manifesto, like any other human work, has an agenda. Whether that agenda is spurious or genuine, I'm not sure who can know, besides Him. Not seeing any blatant reason not to, though, I accept it at face value as being sincere, and being a sincere attempt to salvage the meaning of the term "evangelical" and the importance of the Evangelical presence in the world. Do I like the Manifesto because I generally agree with it, and do I agree with it because I share its bias? Perhaps. But mostly what I see is a plea for understanding, and for a common civil understanding so that we can live together as well as possible. While this could be construed as going the direction of "Let's just all get along," representing pie-in-the-sky over-tolerant wishful thinking, perhaps what it means is that the framers are presenting their intention, not to be combative or purposely stir up trouble, but to offer a good-will gesture.
Regarding the way many may read the manifesto, the trouble is, even when things are taken at face value, an author's exact meaning can still be unclear. Sometimes it may help to know something of the author's other works and acts, but not always. Yet even if there is little face-value doubt, people will still read assumptions and biases and prejudices into pretty much anything, as was discussed in this post. And you simply can't please everybody. Therefore, I read the document, not looking to see whether or not it pleased me or I agreed with everything in it, but simply to see what it had to say. And I basically am encouraged by what it had to say.
Could some additional statements have been made? Yes. Is there anything in there that should've been left out? Well, I might reword a few things. For example, the statement that the Gospel is a "'No' only to what contradicts our true destiny as human beings made in the image of God," and the explanation of the backlash against religion in public life, that Joe took issue with (outside of the document). There is no mention that those who are of the world will reject Christ no matter what, yet I don't think this would've been appropriate in a document such as this one, intended for the public-at-large. I see the document as extending an invitation, and rightly pointing out that anger against any religious fundamental extremism is understandable and even justified.
Some think the EM places too much blame on Evangelicals, yet I do not see that it places all the blame on Evangelicals, nor that it claims that the world will simply fall at Christ's feet if only Evangelicals represent Him properly. It simply tries to clarify what being Evangelical means and to accept proper blame, and for that I applaud it. I think that takes guts. I also agree with the assessment that Evangelicalism, especially as embodied in institutions and present in the political sphere, needs to be reformed, and applaud statements outlining the two errors of "liberal revisionism" and "conservative fundamentalism," which are deeply insightful.
To those like Mr. Edelen who feel there is no set-out, specific declaration of what evangelicals should do, I would respond that it's true that the document does not speak specifically to the less advantaged in our own country - those somewhere in-between well-off and poor (the lower middle-class or upper lower-class). Yet it makes very clear call for proper spiritual behavior and action, which, when lived out, will result in what Dan would like to see.
I am dismayed by Dr. Crouse's painting of the document, and fear that hers is the political-evangelical fundamentalism against which the Manifesto speaks. I respect Dr. Crouse on many fronts and find her writings strong and insightful, but this one is unfortunate. Her commentary was written before the document's release and appears to predate her reading of it. Therefore she is making assumptions, based on someone else's comments about the document's timing and authors (those of Warren Cole Smith of the Evangelical Press News). She is one whom Smith lists as those who were not asked to contribute.
While the Manifesto pleads for a civil public square, it pleads to those who would approach the world, not with hand outstretched, but with hand busy or formed in a fist. I do not believe, as Dr. Crouse seems to, in "policy litmus tests." I think that the true litmus test is found in the Ten Commandments; people will always disagree on policy even sometimes when they share the same goals. If it happens in marriage and friendship, it will invariably happen in public policy. Nor do I see that the Evangelical Manifesto promotes "sophisticated rhetoric and "clever obfuscation." Not at all. I see a sincere attempt to clarify, and one that largely succeeds.
