As usual… the “main stream” media gets it wrong. They’ve chosen to take a political angle in reporting the recent release of An Evangelical Manifesto.
Joe Carter writes at Evangelical Outpost:
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.
Who should read it?
*You* should. *Everyone* should.
If you consider yourself “evangelical” you will definitely want to.
If you used to consider yourself “evangelical” you will probably find this document a bit of an invitation back.
If you aren’t evangelical (theological liberal, non-religious, fundamentalist, atheist, sikh, pastafarian, etc) you’ll *still* want to read this document. At least to some degree, you’ve probably fallen under the media’s spell and have a whole host of issues with “evangelical” straw men and this document, while not authoritative (evangelicals have no pope and are notoriously dis-organized religion at its best - or worst), might prove useful, either to enlighten or to help you reload. 
Sadly, most who see the term “evangelical” as a political term, rather than a theological term, will likely not be swayed by the document because they are too invested in it meaning the former,,, including those “evangelicals” who are most politically invested. We all know who they are and their signatures are missing from the document… make of it what you will.
So… no matter your political or religious persuasion, I suggest that you read it yourself. Don’t rely on others to tell you what it is and isn’t… this blog included! It is a 20 page PDF file and there is also a 6 page executive summary.
What Are People Saying?
Here’s a good sampling of blog posts from people who have signed the manifesto and some others. I believe that each of them has certain issues of disagreement, but find there is so much to agree with that they signed on. Each one of these signatories happily points out that this document is AN Evangelical Manifesto and not THE Evangelical Manifesto.
Mark D. Roberts - An Evangelical Manifesto: Why I Signed (Part 1)
Joe Carter - Thoughts on the Evangelical Manifesto
Josh Gelatt - Why I Signed the Evangelical Manifesto
Justin Taylor - An Evangelical Manifesto: A Summary
Darrell Bock - The Point of the Manifesto Put Simply
Dr. Bock will be in Taiwan this summer (July 7-12) as one of the main speakers for the Taiwan Missionary Fellowship Summer Conference. I look forward to discussing An Evangelical Manifesto with him at that time.
Final Comments
The document and its signatories are already being attacked by those who say it is too watered down… others say it is an attempt to supercede the Bible… other say it is a “power-grab”… others say that evangelicals are political no matter what…
meh…
I, too, could nitpick… But I like the document… I like its purpose… I like its clarity… I like its spirit… It promotes unity and yet allows for disagreement… I find some parts a little “so-so” but other parts are some of the most brilliant words that I’ve ever read about authentic Christianity.
Maybe in America people still find it valuable to argue over doctrinal issues that are of absolutely no consequence to people who don’t know of God’s love and grace… but here in Taiwan, the missionaries (for sure) and the churches (in general) find that we have far more in common with one another than we have in disagreement and it makes much more sense to stand as one than to criticize at every turn.
I’ve purposely not quoted from An Evangelical Manifesto because I’d really rather see people go read it for themselves and come to their own conclusions… reading the thoughts of the signatories linked above will help us understand the document as well - much like reading Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Washington, et al. will help us understand the US Constitution. It is always possible to quote anything out of context… so I’m going to leave the reading and quoting in your hands.
UPDATE: Mark D. Roberts has posted An Evangelical Manifesto: Why I Signed (Part 2)
3 responses so far ↓
1 Rod Seib // May 10, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Prompted by your post, I read The Evangelical Manifesto last night. I agree, it is a worthwhile read and would recommend it to others. The language is quite moving and inspiring in places. It is at the same time limited in it’s scope (although one shouldn’t expect too much from a document that is only 20 pages in length). I appreciated the effort to avoid the labels (and mistakes) of liberal revisionism on one hand, and conservative fundamentalism on the other, though I think they addressed the former in more detail than the latter.
Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
Rod Seib’s last blog post..News Story Makes Me Laugh - And Cry.
2 mike rucker // May 11, 2008 at 12:49 am
good thoughts. i’m enjoying reading the various opinions here and there around the web. i had some hesitations and misgivings before reading the document, but i’m actually quite impressed and invigorated after taking in the whole of what it addresses.
one of the things i like is that the authors have chosen not to list creationism and inerrancy as non-negotiables. for the first, there’s very little biblical justification anymore behind whatever the latest flavor of anti-natural-selection dessert is being served up; for the latter, somehow we can admit that we can’t prove the existence of God, but goshdarnit we have a golden egg this unprovable God laid right here. still, some people hold to these positions; so be it. there’s simply too much of a tendency to add items to the ever-increasing laundry list of ideas and doctrines to which we have to pledge allegiance before we’re allowed into the room marked “Christian.”
nothing’s going to please everybody, and there are a few things i object to. for instance, i don’t agree with this statement: We Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally. Jesus’ message uses “action” verbs: teach them to DO as I have commanded you, LOVE God and LOVE your neighbor, by this will all men know … if you LOVE one another. any theology that defines us must have feet.
i did, however, like these words: We are also troubled by the fact that the advance of globalization and the emergence of a global public square finds no matching vision of how we are to live freely, justly, and peacefully with our deepest differences on the global stage. somehow, we’ve got to figure out how we’re going to peacefully share the same bathroom over the next few decades in our ever-shrinking world.
one interesting thing: maybe i missed it, but there doesn’t seem to be a great emphasis on evangelism in this Evangelical Manifesto. do you think that was intentional? i didn’t see a single chick tract referenced in the bibliography…
more than anything, i find myself motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece - that it isn’t yet another “here’s everything we’re against” rant but an effort to make the gospel again a message of good news. imagine that - the gospel being good news. American Christianity has lost this defining characteristic that once served it well.
perhaps one unintended benefit of the proposal is a clear opportunity to take this EM (Evangelical Manifesto) and align it with the other EM (Emergent Manifesto) and finally have all our EM & EMs in a row without demonizing the other side.
one can only hope…
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
3 sqjtaipei // May 14, 2008 at 3:25 am
@Mike -
Thanks for leaving a comment on this post. I actually noticed you left some comments on at least one of the posts I linked to and liked your comments there, too.
I wondered about the evangelism aspect as well. I’m curious if it meant that evangelism is so obvious that it need not be mentioned… or perhaps that defining “evangelism” would have distracted from the actual document… for some it is chick tracts… for others it is overseas mission work… for some it is hangin’ with friends at the local sports bar… and trying to cover *all* those bases just takes too many words… maybe? I don’t know…
I seem to share all of your likes and dislikes about the document so I guess I don’t have much more to comment on about your comment.
sqjtaipei’s last blog post..Youth Mission Trips
Leave a Comment