The Latest Evangelical Manifesto
May 12th, 2008
(by Jesse Johnson)
Last week, a group of evangelical leaders released “An Evangelical Manifesto: The Washington Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment.” The most prominent names to sign it have been Max Lucado, Jack Hayford, Os Guinness, and Mark Noll. The document is 20 pages long, and is worth the read (click here to read the manifesto, or a summary can be found here).
I must confess that my initial response to manifestos and public declarations is usually one of skepticism followed by indifference. However, I enjoyed reading this one, was challenged by it, and found myself agreeing with much of it. It contains a description of what it means to be an evangelical, and a seven-part statement of faith that I would consider a good summary of what I believe.
There is much in this self-described manifesto that is excellent. Mostly it is a call to allow Christians into the public square—the market place of ideas, politics and culture—on the same terms as that of the secular world. There is a very thoughtful and helpful description of religion’s roll in shaping politics and culture. The manifesto warns that the public square is being dominated by liberal elitists who try and drive religion out, and thus alienate most real cultural and political conversation, while capitulating to a militant form of atheism.
Beyond that, this statement is a clear denunciation of the fads that seem to most threaten the Gospel’s clarity from inside Christian circles. The seeker-sensitive movement, Olsteen-esqe churches, prosperity churches, and churches that embrace post-modern values are all clearly repudiated. Consider this section:
“All too often we have trumpeted the gospel of Jesus, but we have replaced biblical truths with therapeutic techniques, worship with entertainment, discipleship with growth in human potential, church growth with business entrepreneurialism, concern for the local congregation with expressions of the faith that are churchless and little better than vapid spirituality, meeting real needs with pandering to felt needs, and mission principles with marketing precepts. In the process we have become known for commercial diluted, and feel-good gospels of health, wealth, human potential, and religious happy talk…”
I felt like I was reading John MacArthur’s The Truth War.
This document also clearly says that Jesus is the only way to heaven, and that his followers become his servants, and spend their lives in submission to Scripture. But there is some ambiguity. For example there are a few sentences that seem to call Evangelicals to be involved with stewardship of the earth, which I guess I agree with, but also don’t understand quite what it means. Do they want churches to start recycling programs, replace busses with hybrids and grass with xeriscape? They don’t really say. There is a another sentence that implies, in PEACE plan fashion, that Jesus was involved with fighting illiteracy. I would have liked a verse for that one.
Also, the manifesto distinguishes between liberal Christians and Evangelicals on the one hand, and between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals on the other hand. I’m not sure quite what they had in mind, and this is why the document in my mind ultimately falls short. Their description of Fundamentalists is not really clear, and I’m not sure if they were not talking about me. They defined Fundamentalists as those content not to be engaged with the culture, but did not really define “culture” or “engaged,” and I’m probably on the fence of that description anyway.
I must agree with Wheaton’s Alan Jacob’s when he asked why the document was written and structured like it is. It is unclear what the main thrust is. If I had to guess, I would say its main call is for Christians to simultaneously distance themselves from both political parties, to continue their work for social change through loving the poor and fighting injustice in the world, while keeping that work and fight subservient to the Gospel itself.
Because this is a call that I would agree with, I would not have viewed signing this document negatively. But because of the ambiguity surrounding “Fundamentalism” I will not add my name to the growing list.
I also can’t help but wonder what the point of such a document is. I understand that it is healthy to recognize that the body of Christ is larger than my particular statement of faith, and that it is helpful to clarify how wide of a circle can be drawn. However, I also can’t help but see public manifestos unveiled at the National Press Club as some form of grandstanding. Who is the target audience? What is the goal of this document? Because that is not clear, I am not entirely sure how much impact this manifesto will ultimately have.
One thing I find interesting is that Jack Hayford signed the document. You comment on the repudiation in this document of “Olsteen-esqe churches”, which I would concur with; however, at Jack Hayford’s church they sell Joel Otsteen’s books!
One thing I find interesting is that Jack Hayford signed the document. You comment on the repudiation in this document of “Olsteen-esqe churches”, which I would concur with; however, at Jack Hayford’s church they sell Joel Otsteen’s books!
Thanks for the review. I read it, and it seemed too human-centered for me. Though it’s an alright statement, I suppose.
Just didn’t do much for me. It’s statements on theology was good, though i disagree with Jack Hayford when it comes to losing your salvation, which he says a person surely can, because it’s a choice we make, to be saved, and to even stay saved.
“Let it be known unequivocally that we are committed to religious liberty for people of all faiths, including the right to convert to or from the Christian faith.” (pg. 16)
One huh? of many statements in the document and study guide that read Trojan Horse to me. The list of those signing and being able to read thoughts of some not signing along with considering individual signer’s doctrinal stand on synergism vs. monergism concerning the beginning/keeping of faith might speak volumes if one where to dig deeper. Truth sprinkled here and there ~ but is another gospel message thread woven in there?
“one were to dig”
The document has it’s value. To what degree it warranted release at the National Press Club in DC is another issue. Interesting how the doc denounces seeker sensitive gospel preaching when there are indications that Rick Warren participated in the draft.
The political motivations of the Manifesto aside, the doc was laced with:
* an appeal for ecumenism for the global good
* reducing Biblical Christianity to one of the world’s faith traditions
* edification of Roman Catholicism.
May I refer the reader to these details at:
http://watcherslamp.blogspot.com/2008/05/decoding-evangelical-manifestos-call.html
Dr. Mohler has an excellent review at his blog site about this subject. Check it out at http://www.ralbertmohler.com
These, too.
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5007
http://www.dennyburk.com/?cat=4
A large international company has a blurb in it’s employee handbook that says something like this: It is not possible to legislate morality. One may write laws, but forcing every last person to obey those laws is not practical. Therefore, the decision to be moral, to adhere to commonly-agreed-upon restrictions on human behavior, ultimately rests upon the condition of a person’s heart.
Our form of government is the process of turning personal beliefs into public policy. This process starts in the local public square; majority rules. The process then bubbles up through county, state, and finally into Federal government expressions of public policy. For the most part, majority rules. But do we redeemed follow God’s moral law because it is the law of the land, or because it was given by the Lawgiver? I think the answer to that question lies at the heart of the Evangelical Manifesto. Ultimately, we follow God’s moral law for theological reasons, not political ones.
The document calls for civility. How can one remain civil when the majority beliefs turned into public policy are at odds with God’s moral law? One can respond by taking up arms to slay the infidel. Or one can say, I participated in the political process, I voted to uphold God’s moral law in our public policies, but my vote was overruled by those who do not care about God’s moral law. I will continue to honor God’s moral law, not because it is the law of the land, but because I honor the Lawgiver. This is who I am and what I believe, this is how and why I will behave, in spite of the fact that your vote just overrode mine.
In so speaking, I tell my neighbor in the public square, civilly, that I participated in the public process by voting my concious, my neighbor’s vote overrode my vote, but ultimately my behavior is not determined by my neighbor’s vote. I am civilly political in that I participate in the process. But my behavior is governed by my theology. I don’t need to take over the government in order to behave properly.
That is the overriding point I took away from the document’s discussion of the need to be civil in discussion in the public square. We are primarily theological, not political. We will politely explain our position to our neighbor, but will allow him to have his own beliefs, even when different from ours, and even when/if they are turned into public policy. Our behavior is governed by the condition of our hearts, not by the state of public policy. (I believe we still have an obligation to teach the Law and the Gospel to our neighbor in the public square. I think the document acknowledges this, but perhaps not as directly as it might have. This teaching would be a Theological activity, not a Political one.)
God told Israel to drive the infidel from the land (roughly speaking). So, I wonder if the accomodation discussed above is really what God wants from us, politcally speaking. I think the fact that Jesus totally ignored the issue of overthrowing the Roman government while he was alive speaks to this issue.
I think the document is calling us to reconsider that, ultimately, the condition of a person’s heart is a theological issue, not a political one.
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1147
There seems to be Consensus among my esteemed and scholared, grace Reformed Brethren. There is not enough context and there is just not clear definition to key areas concerning Biblically Orthodox Christianity in this Manefesto.
What struck me was the sense that the Manifesto gives a broad and bland meaning to the Sermon on the Mount. It seems as if the Manifesto would take “blessed are the peacemakers” to mean “blessed are those who do not rudely quarrel,” whereas for there to exist true peace, one side wins and the other sides lose. Christ came as the ultimate peacemaker, to reconcile man with God, not to enable us to argue peaceably. Therefore, as a Christian in the culture, my witness will be offensive to some. If it had emphasized that the Gospel message is offensive enough to pagans and that Christians ought not to go out of their way to add to that offensiveness, I would look at the Manifesto more favorably.
Richard Mouw, one of the Manifesto signatories, writes about the tendency for Calvinists to be obnoxious and offensive in “Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport.” To some extent he is correct but we often forget that while the Gospel is good news, unless the Spirit awakens our heart to hear it, it is foolishness and offensive and always will be. We cannot claim moral or righteous action to be evidence of the truth of the Gospel, because pagans can and do display sublime acts of righteousness. Rather, the good news is the objective testimony of the New Testament writers as to who Jesus was and what he did.
It didn’t have enough mention of what the Gospel is for my taste, but overall it wasn’t bad.
The more I’ve read the internal bickering regarding the Evangelical Manifesto, the more “Methinks the (evangelicals) doth protest too much.”
I can only imagine how we would respond to the following letter:
“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.”
Not much gospel.
FWIW, I enjoyed civil interchanges with Professors Darrel Bock and Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, both of whom support the Manifesto.
Bock in comment labeled “Cultural War”?
Wallace in comment #9 and resuming in #41
Here’s another critique to consider:
Questioning “An Evangelical Manifesto”
there are a few sentences that seem to call Evangelicals to be involved with stewardship of the earth, which I guess I agree with, but also don’t understand quite what it means. Do they want churches to start recycling programs, replace busses with hybrids and grass with xeriscape?
okay, maybe i’m being oversensitive, and this isn’t really a huge deal. but do conservative Christians ALWAYS have to get in a little dig at environmentalism? “you guess” we should be involved with stewardship of the earth – do you, or don’t you?
and recycling programs, hybrids and better grass don’t sound like bad ideas to me. why the slightly sarcastic tone?
Well,
We’ve seen worse (ahem… ECT) and I’m glad that this one just didn’t say enough, instead of too much
c.a.a.
I don’t mean a sarcastic tone at environmentalism, as such. I mean a sarcastic tone at a vague phrase such as “stewardship of the earth” being tossed into an evangelical statment of faith that includes such things as the trinity, crucifixion, resurrection, salvation by faith alone, and the sufficiency of Scripture. If you are going to tack on “stewardship of the earth” to that list, at least let me know what you mean. That phrase is loaded with political connotations, that I would not agree with. As far as recycling programs and such go, I’m fine with that. My question is, “is that what is meant?” They why not say so? The vaguery is much more on the side of the people that tack that on to an Evangelical Manefesto w/o comment or explanation.
Jesse
listening to moody radio out of chicago this morning and they were discussing it. one person speaking about it stated that they felt that it deliberately sidestepped the claim to the inerrancy of scripture. your thought….?
Jesse,
A wonderful and clear review! Well thought through and well written.
Thanks
“Second, we wish to reposition ourselves in public life. To be Evangelical is
to be faithful to the freedom, justice, peace, and well-being that are at the heart of the good news of Jesus. Fundamentalism was world-denying and politically disengaged at its outset, but Evangelicals have made a distinguished contribution to politics—attested by causes such the abolition of slavery and woman’s suffrage, and by names such as John Jay, John Witherspoon, Frances Willard, and Sojourner Truth in America and William Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury in England.” This quote is taken from the summary of the Manifesto. Since when does the “Evangelicals” get to claim John Jay and William Wilberforce amongst them. Correct me if I am wrong, but the terms “fundamentalist” and “Evangelical” did not come into their accepted meanings till the 20 century.
Terry,
I have heard that objection from others, but I don’t have it myself. It does not use the word “inerrancy” but my memory is that the concept was there. If you read it, let me know what you think.
Jesse
Bill,
The terms “Evangelical” and “Fundamentalists” took on a new meaning in the 20th century, especially as they relate to each other. The 20th century saw the terms define two different elements inside of Christianity. Prior to that though, the concept of what it means to be an Evangelical has been there. And I think the Manifesto’s point is that others, such as Wilberforce and Jay would have identified themselves with the essence of the Manifesto itself. In other words, they may not have called themselves “Evangelicals”, but the did identify themselves with the beliefs that make a 20th century Evangelical.
Jesse
I’m confused. I consider myself to be a Fundamentalist because I believe in the fundamental truth of the Bible. I consider myself to be an Evangelical because I do my best to obey the great commission and evangelize to others about the Good News. Where am I wrong?
BobP,
Historically, there are differences between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are marked by a separation from culture, a separation from denominations, inerrancy over inspiration, a negative view toward mass evangelism (crusades), premil/pretrib, and unwillingness to cooperate with theological liberals on social work. Evangelicals, historically, were more willing to influence the culture, work w/in denominations, view inspiration as more important that inerrancy, work with mass evangelism, tolerant of other eschatological views, and to work with liberals on social issues.
Neither word is perfect for today’s generation, as most people probably are like you—fundamentalist toward doctrine, but a sympathy toward an evangelical approach to working outside the church. I confess that Grace Community Church does not fit either mold well, and probably would not identify with either list.
This is partially why I think this manifesto was written—to try and reclaim the word “Evangelical.”
This might be a topic for a future post though…
Jesse
“…Sadly, we repeatedly fail to live up to our high calling, and all too often illustrate our own doctrine of sin. The full list of our failures is no secret to God or to many who watch us. If we would share the good news of Jesus with others, we must first be shaped by that good news ourselves.”
“…Today, however, enormous confusion surrounds Evangelicals in public life and we wish to clarify our stand through the following assertions:
First, we repudiate two equal and opposite errors into which many Christians have fallen. One error is to privatize faith, applying it to the personal and spiritual realm only. Such dualism falsely divorces the spiritual from the secular and causes faith to lose its integrity.
The other error, made by both the religious left and the religious right, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth. That way faith loses its independence, Christians become the “useful idiots” for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology. Christian beliefs become the weapons of political factions.”
I believe the manifesto is a reaction to the recent scandals sorrounding personalities identified with the evangelical church, the public political activities of renowned church leaders, and the tendency of some local evangelical churches so stay away from political issues altogether.
The most recent scandal involving an evangelical personality is that of Ted Haggard, former president of National Evangelical Alliance. Haggard was implicated in drugs and gay sex scandal and has publicly admitted having committed “immorality.” There’s also the congressional investigation of tele-evangelists Creflo Dollar, Eddie Long, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer and Kenneth Copeland concerning their luxurious lifestyles and anomalies in the use of funds of their ministries.
The political face of the evangelical church represents division and extremism in the public eye. Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Jerry Falwell have taken on the persona of political kingmakers closely identified with right wing of the Republican Party. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, both Reverends, are known mostly for political activism and closely identified with the liberal Democratic Party. These are probably the persons being referred to in the Manifesto as the “useful idiots” of the political parties, whose Christian faith have become ideologies, and whose Christian beliefs have become weapons of political factions.
The Manifesto criticizes as in error those Christians who “privatize faith, applying it to the personal and spiritual realm only” and states that “such dualism falsely divorces the spiritual from the secular and causes faith to lose its integrity.” I’m sure there are Christians who privatize their faith and apply it to personal and spiritual realm only. I’m not sure though if such attitude necessarily divorces the spiritual from the secular or that such attitude causes faith to lose integrity. I think what really diminishes faith’s integrity is our public church leaders’ too much entanglement with the secular.
Earlier quote: “It is not possible to legislate morality. One may write laws, but forcing every last person to obey those laws is not practical. Therefore, the decision to be moral, to adhere to commonly-agreed-upon restrictions on human behavior, ultimately rests upon the condition of a person’s heart.”
This many believe to be a true statement. Yet, today, we have many laws forcing Christians to obey and thereby violate their own morals. There are no more commonly agreed-upon restrictions on human behavior. With the majority of people living with a huge vacuum in the heart, the only thing to fill it is the wickedness that is the world, that rules the world, and will ultimately bring destruction of the soul unless it is breached by the Christ of the Cross of Calvary.
I know my previous post was a “rabbit trail” from the blog. I saw the quote and having heard it before by a “Fundamentalist” preacher, it caught my eye, and I just couldn’t let it pass without comment.