The Manifesto
10 05 2008I was emailed a link to this (thanks Brian) earlier in the week and skimmed the highlights of the Evangelical Manifesto. My gut reaction was that I wished they hadn’t used the word Evangelical. I understand that the word Christian is so misused that it is almost pointless to use that title for followers of Christ, but the word Evangelical isn’t much better. Also, I just can’t join the Hybels camp and call myself a Christ-follower. It just seems too long and too trendy.
My second reaction was “Why?” I don’t question the need to clarify what we believe and understand to be they way, but aren’t there already a bunch of creeds and confessions out there that do that? I wonder if we need another. I certainly applaud the effort and would probably agree with what it declares. I probably won’t bother to sign it though. It doesn’t really mean that much to me to align myself with it. I know who I am and what I believe and I am pretty sure of those around me. So I don’t know if I will go beyond skimming it.
Two parting thoughts though.
1. Why weren’t there any emergent people included?
2. Why not create a new word that helps understand who we are that isn’t so loaded with meaning already?
Maybe in 80 years we’ll see An Emergent Manifesto.
I have avoided secular feedback on this and some of the feedback I haven’t avoided seems mixed. Personally, coming from an “evangelical” background, the “why” was pretty clear to me. I liked the definitions of what the public square should and shouldn’t be and calling out the slide into pawnship of one political party or another.
“Evangelical” was necessary because that term is the contact point with the culture at large. It is a perfectly good (and biblical) word that was perverted because some who latched onto it didn’t carry it well. Kinda like the word “gay.” Or “conspire.”
You should see a therapist about your Hybels/Willow issues. It ain’t healthy.
Thanks for the comments. I am currently seeking a therapist, hopefully one who can dispense meds. I think I have anti-establishment issues.
Hey, Paul. I hear what you’re saying about terminology. Yet, to come up with still another label (cf. Red-letter Christian, etc.) doesn’t seem to be the cure for what ails us. They define the term “Evangelical” with respect to its historical origins and modern circumstances, and they aim to rehabilitate it from its pejorative connotation in the media and elsewhere. I can live with that.
To me, the most important thing about this manifesto is the part about religion in public life. It rejects both the reclusive attitude of earlier conservatives and the Falwellian-Dobsonian-D.JamesKennedian Religious Right. The latter seeks to “reclaim” a Christian Nation from the top down rather than the bottom up and makes little room for those of other faiths or no faith at all. The Manifesto, by comparison, charts a wise path into the (necessarily pluralistic) public sphere without trying to answer every the question.
Here’s some press coverage by an often incisive secularist:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2008/05/the_evangelical_manifesto.html
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2008/05/the_evangelical_intellectuals.html