An Evangelical Manifesto (see previous post) is broken down into three "mandates" in order to recover the recover the true essence and definition of the term "Evangelical" in the public square. I wrote a more analytical piece here about the entire document, but I thought that I would use this blog space as a notepad of sorts. I'm just going to outline the manifesto, typing out some of my thoughts as I go and then post them here for all to read and criticize.
Today's post will include a few introductory remarks and my outline/thoughts on Mandate #1.
-A beautiful nod to the reality of global Christianity: “We gratefully appreciate that our spiritual and historical roots lie outside this country, that 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 Latin America, Africa, and Asia. We are therefore a small part of a far greater worldwide movement…” (p. 2)
-This is the evangelical’s version of John Wesley’s famous sermon “The Character of a Methodist.” Just who are these pesky evangelicals?”
-Despite the baggage the term “evangelical” has picked up the last few decades, this manifesto is a declaration that the term, if properly understood, still conveys “all-important” truth.
Mandate # 1: We Must Reaffirm Our Identity—Evangelicals are people who define themselves entirely according to the “good news” (Evangelical comes from the Greek word for “gospel”). This is a very unifying, lowest common denominator approach to a very difficult historical question. But if the goal is consensus and unity, it might be the best way to go. (And as we will see later, the particularities of “Evangelicalism” are equally stated).
- There’s a statement in here that irks me a bit: “Contrary to widespread misunderstanding today, we Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally.”
-While I agree with the thrust of the statement (i.e. evangelicals are not middle class white people who vote republican), I have to question the understanding of the task of theology being presented. Christian theology is always political, as much as it is social and cultural as well. Theology doesn’t stay in its own place; it bleeds into all other aspects of our life, and forms us both privately and publically. This is affirmed in IV below, which is why I don’t understand this sentence to begin with.
-The identity piece is decidedly Christocentric—something that should make us all say “Amen.”
Foundational Beliefs:
I. Jesus is fully God, fully Man. There is no other name by which we are saved.
II. It is only by grace through faith and the work of Jesus’ death and resurrection that we are reconciled to God and empowered for life.
III. Lifelong discipleship and radical character change is the only way of life for the Spirit empowered believer.
IV. Scriptures are the final rule for faith and practice.
V. Being a disciple of Jesus means making him Lord of every area of your life, public and private. (Including reaching out to the “least of these”).
VI. Hope for the personal return of Jesus not only keeps us looking up, but looking out. We should work as much as we wait.
VII. The last point is a basic wrap of worship, discipleship, fellowship, evangelism, and ministry. Defining Features:
1. To be Evangelical is to hold a belief that is also a devotion— This statement is very Pietist with a shout out to the Radical Reformers (Anabaptists). “Being Evangelical is always more than a creedal statement, an institutional affiliation, or a matter of membership in a movement. We have no supreme leader, and neither creeds nor tradition are ultimately decisive for us. Jesus Christ and his written word, the Holy Scriptures, are our supreme authority…” (p. 7)
2. Evangelical belief and devotion is expressed as much in our worship and in our deeds as in our creeds— In other words, we don’t just believe propositional statements and sing about them, we are committed to social justice as well.
3. Evangelicals are followers of Jesus in a way that is not limited to certain churches or contained by a definable movement— Basically, this list of beliefs and features are not to be taken as exhaustive. If you are devoted to Jesus’ lordship, you can claim the term.
4. Evangelicalism must be defined theologically and not politically; confessionally and not culturally— Again, I think this operates out of a truncated vision of the nature of theology in the first place. There is a sweet quote though about obeying Christ’s lordship above any other powers and allegiances.
5. The Evangelical message, “good news” by definition, is overwhelmingly positive and always positive before it is negative— It will be interesting to see if some Reformed (and others), who believe one needs to personally understand their offense to God before salvation, will be able to sign this in good conscience. The bottom line here is that for too long Evangelicals have been defined by what they are against. This group is flipping that and saying what they are for…the good news.
6. Evangelicalism is not liberal revisionism or conservative fundamentalism— Liberals are too worldly, and fundies are too tied to modern militancy.
7. Evangelicalism is distinctive for the way it looks equally to both the past and the future— Evangelicalism has been at the heart of Christianity since the time of Jesus, but there is always a need for contextualization and reform. The Evangelical does not latch onto change for change sake, but rather, looks back before going forward.
- There is a bit here at the end that tries to be a little more sensitive to the historical use of the term “Evangelical,” but it will still come off as a-historical to scholars and students of the movement. But what do I know, Mark Noll signed it didn’t he? (For instance, the authors insist that while the term “protestant” has lost its original meaning and is limited in its scope, “evangelical” still endures, and existed in some ways before the Reformation. Huh?)
