An Evangelical Manifesto
Manifestos have been popping up on varying modern movements for dozens of years now. Even Humanists created one in 1933. Now, Evangelicals have one, too.
An Evangelical Manifesto, established by a committee led by Samford University (not to be mistaken for Stanford University in California) theology professor Timothy George, was released to the public yesterday. It was created to “take back the term ‘evangelical’ from politics and return it to its theological roots,’” according to USA Today.
So far, there are over 80 signers, including Princeton professor Sam Moffett, and Sojournors magazine founder Jim Wallis. (There is also a mysterious signer known as “Greg,” a “Minister” at a “Baptist church.” For what reason would he choose not to fully identify himself?)
But where are the bigwig Evangelicals—activists like James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and Chuck Colson, or media pundits like Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, or Rush Limbaugh?
Well, it looks like a few of them aren’t satisfied enough with it:
The Southern Baptist Convention’s policy chief, Dr. Richard Land, says he wasn’t asked to sign.
Focus on the Family’s Doctor James Dobson says he was asked, but his board of directors advised against it “due to myriad concerns,” including the lack of African-American involvement.
Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America worries the manifesto will confuse Christian voters about the issues that are most important: opposition to abortion and gay marriage.
It’s nice to see that Shaw thinks its more important for Christians to focus on negative, hurtful rhetoric than postively assert one’s beliefs and hopes for the future. Perhaps that’s the reason why such a manifesto is needed.
Subscribe to Feed
i think you’re exactly right: the reason anyone felt a need to write this manifesto was because of the bad apples who have seemed to spoil the whole bunch. i’m enjoying reading the various opinions here and there around the web - both pro and con. 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.
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.
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com