E-mail
Print
RSS
G-bookmarks
Live
TechnoratiOn May 7, a much-anticipated document, An Evangelical Manifesto, was officially revealed to the public. The organizers’ press release declared the Manifesto to be a “three-year effort … to reclaim the definition of what it means to be an Evangelical — a term that, in recent years, has often been used politically, culturally, socially — and even as a marketing demographic.”
The Manifesto’s “Steering Committee” included among others: Timothy George, dean, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University; Os Guinness, co-founder, The Trinity Forum ; Richard Mouw, president, Fuller Theological Seminary and David Neff, vice president and editor in chief, Christianity Today.
I saw the Manifesto for the first time that same Wednesday afternoon when I stepped off a plane in Washington, D.C. I have done my best to read it carefully in the days that have followed.
Subtitled “A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment,” the Manifesto declares that “the deepest purpose of the Manifesto is a serious call to reform — an urgent challenge to reaffirm Evangelical identity, to reform Evangelical behavior, to reposition Evangelicals in public life, and so rededicate ourselves to the high calling of being Evangelical followers of Jesus Christ.”
All of these purposes are laudable goals. Let me say at the outset that I am in full agreement with at least 90 percent of what An Evangelical Manifesto has to say. I certainly agree that Evangelicals “should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally.”
So why am I not going to sign An Evangelical Manifesto? As usual, the devil is in the details. As I grow more mature in years I am more and more aware of just how wise Billy Graham’s policy is of never signing statements you haven’t written yourself.
Hopefully, one is clear and concise when stating one’s own beliefs. We have all heard the old saying that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Once you commence authorship by committee, the verbal horse soon morphs into the written form of a camel.
What are my problems with the statement? Let us begin with a basic, foundational theological question. The Manifesto affirms that “Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth.” That is surely true, but it is also hopefully true of all the many followers of Jesus who would never call themselves, or desire to be called, Evangelicals.
The Manifesto then enunciates several beliefs that Evangelicals “have prized above all” and that they “consider to be at the heart of the message of Jesus and therefore foundational for us.” The Manifesto then asserts that “the only ground for our acceptance by God is what Jesus Christ did on the cross and what he is now doing through his risen life, whereby he exposed and reversed the course of human sin and violence, bore the penalty for our sins, credited us with his righteousness, redeemed us from the power of evil, reconciled us to God, and empowers us with his life ‘from above.’”
When I read that statement I say, “Amen.” Then I ask myself, “Why ‘foundational for us’ instead of ending with ‘foundational’? And why ‘our acceptance’ rather than ‘the only ground for acceptance by God’?” Continue »
igh »
Agree: 
Disagree: 
