A group of self-defined Evangelicals released a manifesto on a website this last Wednesday, May 7, 2008. The Evangelical Manifesto seeks to rescue the Evangelical identity especially in light of recent social and political changes and especially in light of the United States presidential election. I think the authors did a decent job of defining their identity as centered on the “Good News.” They are careful to declare that right belief must connect with right behavior. They clearly state that Evangelicalism is not associated with a particular leader or political group. The authors are careful to distinguish between Liberalism and Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism.
I think that for the most part that the Manifesto provides a good definition of an Evangelical, but I’m not completely comfortable with everything. The Manifesto is blatantly for American Evangelicals. I also think the Manifesto is so broad that it really doesn’t help define much of anything. I think the distinction between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism and Liberalism is passé because the Fundamentalism of fifty years ago when Evangelicalism was birthed is today much different and more fragmented (and sometimes hard to identify as historic Fundamentalism). In fact, the Manifesto seems to imply that Fundamentalists were a spin-off group from the Evangelicals when in fact the Evangelicals were Fundamentalists. Liberals also are a much different group. Just look at a some brands of the emerging church. Despite this, the Manifesto is a good attempt to redefine a movement that defies definition. Since I think the Manifesto primarily targets the media, I guess it serves its purpose as a general declaration that Evangelicalism is not a political movement but rather a spiritual movement with civil obligations. Although in my opinion, the active declaration of the bloody sacrifice of the God-Man Jesus as a substitute for sinners under God’s curse and his supernatural, physical resurrection will never be acceptable to the world at large.
A brief roundup of the response to the Evangelical Manifesto (by Between Two Worlds blog)
A detailed summary of the Evangelical Manifesto (by Between Two Worlds blog)
Bock on the Evangelical Manifesto (Bock is a signatory of the Manifesto)
Mouw on the Evangelical Manifesto (Mouw is president of Fuller Theological Seminary which was the birthplace of modern Evangelicalism)
Os Guinness at Christianity Today on the Evangelical Manifesto (Christianity Today is the main Evangelical journal which was founded to become the Evangelical Christian Century)
Very interesting!
I have been growing into an “Emergent Watcher” of sorts… It has been interesting to see what different forms of thought are coming out of the Evangelical world.
The thought occurs to me that Evangelicalism in its “purest” forms is decidedly “fundamentalist” (not in the pejorative sense, in the sense of adhearing to basic fundamentals) and otherwise agnostic or not focussed on the “smaller details”. Lip service may be given to some of the Early Reformers (or on occasions Augustine of Hippo), but effort is made to not be too partisan about being a “Calvinist” or “Lutheran” or whichever… Even at the cost of leaving things more “up in the air” to focus on the fundamentals.
So a question that pops in my mind – given how Evangelicalism is mostly a loose confederation of believers, not tightly organized by denomination, or conferences… well at what point does a statement become so specific (or a movement gain such currency that you are either “on board” or not) that it starts to become the formation of a denomination or a sectarian sub group?
[...] Terry Laudett notes the recent release of the “Evangelical Manifesto.” An interesting discussion is in process at Generous Orthodoxy Think Tank and see the links at Worddriven. [...]
[...] 13, 2008 by Todd Wood Dan B. writes a little more positively and favorably than [...]
Dan,
I found you! Hope all is well for you and your fiancee (now wife?).
I have doubts about how well received the Manifesto will be and what impact it will make in terms of defining what it means to be an Evangelical. Mohler has voiced some complaints about the fact that the statement is silent on the exclusivity of Christ and that it appears to rebuke those with a young earth position [I agree with him on the former point but I think he reads it wrongly on this latter point].
It seems to me that the reason the statement has been met with such resistance is that those who identify themselves as “Evangelical,” tend to approach a definition from different perspectives. Should it be defined historically or contemporaneously? Should it be defined by belief or by practice? Should it be defined by broad consensus or by the irreducible minimum? It is hard to define any movement since every movement is comprised of dozens of “nuanced positions.” So, I am somewhat skeptical about the profitability of the Manifesto in terms of defining Evangelicalism.
I’m defining “Evangelical” in a historic sense. Here’s my analysis of what happened. Before the 1950s, the evangelical and fundamentalist were one and the same. Certain evangelical-fundamentalist leaders decided that their contemporary fundamentalism (1950s era) needed “reforming” and in the process of reforming fundamentalism they realized their contemporary fundamentalism wasn’t worth saving. These fundamentalist reformers eventually became know as New Evangelicals. The true New Evangelicals only lasted a couple of decades before becoming absorbed in a broader evangelical world. I guess my point is that the terms Evangelical and Fundamentalist are extremely slippery. Certain self-identified fundamentalists would define themselves according to a more historical tradition going back to Machen and the modernists. Generally though most people (including a lot of self-identified fundamentalists) define themselves in a contemporaneous sense and identify fundamentalism with dispensationalism, conservative music, KJV/TR only, Baptist, and independent of a denomination. These issues do not at all define historical fundamentalism and hence historic fundamentalism in my opinion rarely is found by those wielding the label fundamentalist and for the most part this historic fundamentalism has been absorbed into the broader evangelical world.
I think that movements are hard to define especially when the movement has no central leader and when the movement is passed from generation to generation. I think evangelicalism should be defined historically and theologically. I wish that staunchly holding to a label could disappear because unfortunately labels change over time with associations and usage. Labels do help to give a general idea in a nutshell what someone might believe, but in the end God doesn’t care so much what you call yourself as He does what you believe and practice. I think the Manifesto best serves to let the world at large and its own members know that evangelicalism is not a political cause but rather a spiritual cause. I think the Manifesto is weak in that it rehashes old labels that in the end causes more confusion.
capriole says : I absolutely agree with this !