First of all … assuming that I have anyone left reading this … I’m sorry that I’ve been gone for so long. There’s been a combination of tiredness, busy-ness, computer problems, and such factoring into it … I’ll spare you the details.
Anyway … Last week, on the 7th (which was also my second wedding anniversary … by which I mean the second anniversary of my wedding, not the anniversary of my second wedding, though I guess that that also applies, as well), a document came out called “An Evangelical Manifesto.” As such documents are wont to do, this one has prompted some interesting response from around the evangelical community. Much of it seems to be from people who haven’t read the Manifesto, and a lot of them seem not to know what the word “evangelical” means. I, though, have read it, do know what the word means, and I would love to comment on it.
The document takes a realistic look at evangelicals, what we are supposed to be, and what the movement means, and how it relates to the world. It’s one of the best documents that I’ve read in a very long time dealing with religion and the world. I expect that it will be much-maligned in the major Christian outlets, for taking a remarkably even-handed approach to rebuke. It rebukes equally those whose errors lie to the Right or Left of politics or theology, and doesn’t try to make one less serious than the other.
In the second paragraph, I knew that this was going to be something very different from the normal fare we see from American evangelical groups:
Evangelicals have no supreme leader or official spokesperson, so no one speaks for all Evangelicals, least of all those who claim to. We speak for ourselves, but as a representative group of evangelicals in America. We gratefully acknowledge that our spiritual and historical roots lie outside this country, the the great majority of our fellow-Evangelicals are in the Global South rather than the North, and that we have recently had a fresh infusion of Evangelicals from Lain America, Africa, and Asia.
Yes, folks, there are still some Christians who recognize that the US is not the center of the world. Note the freedom of attacking those who claim to speak for all Evangelicals. The writers of this manifesto admit that they speak only for themselves, but that only makes it more challenging to those who would refute it — unlike statements put out by many purported leaders (Tony Perkins and Pat Robertson come immediately to mind), this document isn’t going to assert its own importance, it is going to be a statement of principles and do so on its own merits.
By the fourth paragraph, I was sure that I could find abundant criticism of this document from certain sectors. The writers of this document were honest about something that a lot of Christian Americans are not:
We certainly do not face persecution like our fellow-believers elsewhere in the world.
It’s a big money-maker to claim that Christians are persecuted in the US. Sure, we’re not lit up as torches as was done in Nero’s day, and we aren’t jailed for preaching as happens in China or many Muslim nations, and I don’t even remember the last time a Christian was fed to a lion, but did you know that some stores were selling “Family Trees” instead of Christmas trees last year? It doesn’t get much worse than that!
(If you missed the sarcasm, please reread that.)
… we are troubled by the fact that the confusions and corruptions surrounding the term Evangelical have grown so deep that the character of what it means has been obscured and its importance lost. Many people outside the movement now doubt that Evangelical is ever positive, and many inside wonder whether the term any longer serves a useful purpose.
Indeed.
“Evangelical” is often somewhat synonymous with “anti-science” and “narrow-minded,” and quite possibly “hateful.” None of those terms is really part of being Evangelical, but that’s how we have allowed ourselves to be presented — and how we have acted in too many cases. Worse, it is also sometimes thought of synonymous with “Republican,” which represents a miserable error on the part of many Evangelical Christians.
Thankfully, the authors are wise enough to address these points directly. I can’t really communicate how thrilled I was to see the statement made plainly:
Contrary to widespread misunderstanding today, we Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally.
Can I get an “Amen”?
The manifesto then goes on to define the term “Evangelical.” Not to redefine it. To define it the way it has always been — the Evangelical movement is nothing more and nothing less than a commitment to Christianity and belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. We have specific beliefs (spelled out in the manifesto, but I’m not going to do it here, simply because of space and time) about salvation and redemption.
I literally cheered (ask my wife!) when I read this sentence:
What we about is captured not only in books or declarations, but in our care for the poor, the homeless, and the orphaned; our outreach to those in prison; our compassion for the hungry and the victims of disaster; and our fight for justice for those oppressed by such evils as slavery and human trafficking.
Too many Evangelicals are content to be theologians, when there is actual work to do. I am very excited to see an Evangelical group which is acknowledging this openly.
I was also very excited when I read:
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.
Yes! Far too many Christians that I know see our role as opposing all kinds of things. Much like William F. Buckley, Jr.’s image of the conservative standing and trying to stop history from rolling by, they see our role as trying to stop this, that, and the other thing from happening.
Why?
If it’s to promote something, then the battle is already lost if we spend all of our time opposing something else. One of my professors in college talked about how he tried fervently to reach, figuratively speaking, for the Tree of Life rather than the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Yes, he knows good and evil. But when he focuses on it, he inevitably spends too much time on what is evil — either by giving in to temptations of one kind or another, or by spending his time fighting something. Instead, he said, it is better to focus on life and on what is good.
He has a great point, there.
The manifesto goes on to rebuke liberal theology as well as fundamentalism, which is done very well for the brief space given it.
Perhaps not surprisingly, most of the conversation about the manifesto has focused on what it has to say about politics. This is where I think that the manifesto shines as a brilliantly-written document. While I agree with Albert Mohler, Jr. that it is somewhat shallow in theology (though I think that his criticism goes too far … maybe I’ll deal with that some other time), this is an area that shows absolutely wonderful thought.
The other error, made by both the religious left and the religious right in recent decades, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth. … Christian beliefs are used as weapons for political interests.
Absolutely! I am sick of hearing that Christians are called to oppose Democrats. That’s simply silly. Christians are not called to resist the Democratic Party, liberals, or even Socialists. We are supposed to take moral stands against evil, yes. If that evil takes the form of a liberal policy (abortion, for example) then we’re supposed to be there. If it takes the form of some Right-oriented policy (Social Darwinism, choosing isolation over involvement in international crises, etc.), then it is no less evil.
Whichever side it comes from, a politicized faith is faithless, foolish, and disastrous for the church — and disastrous first and foremost for Christian reasons rather than constitutional reasons.
A person’s faith should define his or her political views, but politics should never be defining one’s faith. My views of social and economic justice are rooted out of the Bible. I base my views and my principles there. While I have read and know reasonably well the writings of various other economic greats — Keynes, Marx, Smith, Friedman, and Hayek to name a few — those afford only commentary on the truth as I see it. My faith defines my political views. I do not try to adapt my faith into accepting some other kind of economic theory just because it would be a lot more convenient.
I would strongly encourage all Christians to read the Evangelical Manifesto and take some time considering its points. I, by the way, have attached my name as a signer. (I used my real name, so it might be difficult to spot me.) There is much more there than I have addressed — including some brilliant points about religious displays in the public square.
I am impressed with this document, and I hope that it helps prompt some serious and earnest conversation among Evangelicals, and between Evangelicals and others.
May 18, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I appreciate your commentary here. I hope more people will read and consider what the Manifesto says.