An Evangelical Manifesto

The big news coming out of the religious world this week is the release of An Evangelical Manifesto, signed by 70 Evangelical leaders (i.e., seminary professors, pastors, directors of parachurch organizations) in Washington D.C. yesterday. As I read the 20 page document this morning, I found myself saying "Amen" again and again. Unfortunately, in the end, this document left me feeling sad and a little frustrated.

As I speed-read this document (read some highlights below), I sensed that I was hearing the voices of brothers, not even distant cousins, but brothers (and the charter signers are, in fact, overwhelmingly male - the steering committee is all male) with whom I share the joy that comes from knowing that I am forgiven, accepted, and called to follow Jesus into new life, a life of witness and service, a life that makes a difference. I couldn't help but think, as I flew through the document, hungry for a new way forward, a new reformation in the Christian church, a new partnership with brothers & sisters across the conservative/liberal/progressive/reactionary/Democratic/Republican divides that are killing the Spirit among & within us, and distracting us from the work we have been called to do...I couldn't help but think, "I want to be in that number!" as these saints go marching out. I wanted to be able to sign on! Kelly Fryer, author of "Reclaiming the E Word: Waking Up to our Evangelical Identity."

But these brothers, undoubtedly, would not welcome my signature and may not even know what to do with it. Because, in spite of our common commitment to Jesus Christ and answering his call to new life, we have this issue - this SINGLE issue! - that keeps us apart: Tucked away in the middle of this document, the writers say, "[We cannot] deny the holiness of marriage as instituted by God between one man and one woman..."

Frankly, I just don't even know what to do with this.

It is ironic that some news reports are saying that at least some of the old-time Evangelical leaders (i.e., Jim Dobson, Janice Crouse, etc.) are refusing to sign on because the document will confuse people, making it seem as though abortion and gay marriage are no longer the two main issues for Evangelicals. Too much blather about the poor and the environment! Too much nonsense about making civil space for people of all faiths!

But I want to say, oldtimers, the writers of this document have been clear enough.

What is this all about? In the context of a document in which the writers filled page after page with a confession of sin - painstakingly detailing all of the ways in which the Evangelical movement and its leaders have been just plain wrong about things and failed in their practice of the faith - do they really believe their is no room for error among them on this issue?!?

We cannot deny...!?!

This sounds way too much like, there is no reason for us to even talk about it. We will not think about it. We refuse to even listen to what our brothers and sisters might have to say about it. And we will not be open to hearing what even Christ himself, through the power of the Holy Spirit, might have to teach us about it.

All these guys had to do was say something like, "although we believe in the holiness of marriage as instituted by God between one man and one woman...we also acknowledge the need for prayerful and loving conversation with our brothers and sisters who have a different perspective and we are committed to not letting THIS be the issue that divides us."

For goodness sakes, these writers pledge to "reach out to people of all other faiths with love, hope, and humility" (italics mine)!

It's like the devil himself has MADE UP this issue - has made, in other words, who you pledge your love and your faithfulness to an "issue" at all! - to keep Christians divided, to prevent us from (in the words of the writers) "engaging the global giants of conflict, racism, corruption, poverty, pandemic diseases, illiteracy, ignorance, and spiritual emptiness, by promoting reconciliation, encouraging ethical servant leadership, assisting the poor, caring for the sick, and educating the next generation," to keep us suspicious of and fighting with each other, to keep us from doing the work Jesus has called us to do.

I'm thankful today for the work this group has done and is doing. They have written a powerful document (read the whole thing here). And I hope it begins to change the religious and political landscape in this country.

But shame on them for allowing this ridiculous issue to distract and divide.

Of all people, they should know better.

----------------------------------------------------------

HERE ARE SOME HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE DOCUMENT:

A simple and, finally, de-politicized definition of what it means to be an Evangelical:

We ourselves are those who have come to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is ―the way, the truth, and the life," and that the great change required of those who follow him entails a radically new view of human life and a decisively different way of living, thinking, and acting.

We are members of many different churches and denominations, mainline as well as independent, and our Evangelical commitment provides a core of unity that holds together a wide range of diversity. This is highly significant for any movement in the network society of the information age, but Evangelicalism has always been diverse, flexible, adaptable, non-hierarchical, and taken many forms. This is true today more than ever, as witnessed by the variety and vibrancy of Evangelicals around the world. For to be Evangelical is first and foremost a way of being devoted to Jesus Christ, seeking to live in different ages and different cultures as he calls his followers to live.

A rejection of legalism and a celebration of grace:

There is an enormous theological and cultural importance to ―the power of No,‖ especially in a day when ―Everything is permitted‖ and ―It is forbidden to forbid.‖ Just as Jesus did, Evangelicals sometimes have to make strong judgments about what is false, unjust, and evil. But first and foremost we Evangelicals are for Someone and for something rather than against anyone or anything. The Gospel of Jesus is the Good News of welcome, forgiveness, grace, and liberation from law and legalism. It is a colossal Yes to life and human aspirations, and an emphatic No only to what contradicts our true destiny as human beings made in the image of God.

A call to love as an antidote to Fundamentalism:

Christian Fundamentalism has its counterparts in many religions and even in secularism, and often becomes a social movement with a Christian identity but severely diminished Christian content and manner. Fundamentalism, for example, all too easily parts company with the Evangelical principle, as can Evangelicals themselves, when they fail to follow the great commandment that we love our neighbors as ourselves, let alone the radical demand of Jesus that his followers forgive without limit and love even their enemies.

A confession of sin:

We affirm that to be Evangelical or to carry the name Evangelicals is not only to shape our faith and our lives according to the teaching and standards of the Way of Jesus, but to need to do so again and again. But if the Evangelical impulse is a radical, reforming, and innovative force, we acknowledge with sorrow a momentous irony today. We who time and again have stood for the renewal of tired forms, for the revival of dead churches, for the warming of cold hearts, for the reformation of corrupt practices and heretical beliefs, and for the reform of gross injustices in society, are ourselves in dire need of reformation and renewal today. Reformers, we ourselves need to be reformed. Protestants, we are the ones against whom protest must be made.

A call for an end to identifying with any particular party or political ideology:

Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality. In our scales, spiritual, moral, and social power are as important as political power, what is right outweighs what is popular, just as principle outweighs party, truth matters more than team-playing, and conscience more than power and survival.

A commitment to a "civil" (rather than either a naked or a sacred) public square:

...our commitment is to a civil public square — a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths too. Thus every right we assert for ourselves is at once a right we defend for others. A right for a Christian is a right for a Jew, and a right for a secularist, and a right for a Mormon, and right for a Muslim, and a right for a Scientologist, and right for all the believers in all the faiths across this wide land.

Comments

[duane in manitoba]

I read the Manifesto after reading your blog and, while I appreciate the good things you point out about it, the whole thing just makes me squirm. The first red flag for me was the reference to "the great change required of those who follow him". I admit to being theologicaly untrained but it seemes to me that the inevitable change that comes with encountering Jesus isn't a "requirement" to following but rather something that happens to us along the way. Somehow I feel like there's a switcheroo happening here between law and gospel that just colours everything they're talking about.
However, what really kept me from saying Amen to this Manifesto came when they outlined what Evangelical means, particularly the section that reads "We believe that Jesus' own teaching and his attitude toward the total truthfulness and the supreme authority of the Bible, God's inspired word, make the scriptures our final rule for faith and practice."
I think what they're saying is that to be "Evangelical" you have to stick to a literal understanding of the written word, which is just really just an excuse to not apply the love Jesus taught us in situations where doing so is just too big a challenge to our prejudices. I think the approach boils down to "I found a verse that says "fill in the blank" about that particular issue so there's no room for discussion because Scripture says so! I'm probably over-reacting but I think the approach you pointed to in your post "Raining Cats & Dogma" is way more Evangelical.(I'm going to quote you here because I love the way you said this!)

"principle #1 for mainliners is this: Jesus is Lord.

And that means: Nothing else can be.

Not the Bible. Not what the Church says. Not the Bible. Not what the Constitution says. Not the Bible. Not what the loudest, meanest voice in the congregation has to say. Did I say not the Bible? Not what your mom says. Not what that little voice in your head telling you you're not good because you're not thin enough, not smart enough, not straight enough, not rich enough, not popular enough, not whatever enough says. Not even what Pastor - I mean Governor - Huckabee says.

Jesus is Lord. And Jesus is still alive and kicking, speaking to us through the Biblical story; through each other; and through the voices of the Other, the strangers in our midst, especially those who live on the margins, the sick, the poor, the immigrant, the outcast, the reviled.

Our great joy - and responsibility - is to listen carefully and try to figure out, together, what it is we hear him saying. Humbly. Knowing all along that we might be wrong. Because Jesus always surprises us."

It seems to me that more than ever we need to share the Good News in all it's radical simplicity. - Duane

KELLY'S RESPONSE: I agree, Duane, that we do seem to still be coming at Scripture differently. But, o my gosh, at least these folks are taking it seriously!!! In spite of all my squirmy moments (and I had them, too), I really do WANT to love and trust and work with these guys. I mean, it's not just that they say change happens to you when you meet Jesus...they are living, breathing examples that change really DOES happen!!! I get where you're coming from though. I do.

[PS]

What was that about Jesus' own attitude toward the Bible that Duane quoted???? Wasn't the last half of the Bible written AFTER Jesus' death? And weren't there other gospels and letters which were also written which some men later decided were to be disregarded? Rhetorical questions, obviously.

[Doug in Chicago]

I'm afraid I don't share your enthusiasm for the EM, Kelly. Of course, it says some good things but I found much of it frustratingly vague. The writers set up a lot of straw men to knock down, including Fundamentalists, liberals, and so-called "radical atheists". All three groups are caricatured, with little specificity. Liberals, for examples, “are characterized by such weaknesses as an exaggerated estimate of human capacities, a shallow view of evil, an inadequate view of truth, and a deficient view of God.” (p. 8) Exaggerated, shallow, inadequate, deficient? What does any of that mean? Examples? And then at the end they ask journalists to stop resorting to stereotypes!

I certainly share your frustration at the arbitrary “we cannot deny”. It doesn’t fit the rest of the statement and seems like an attempt to protect a flank by suddenly getting specific on something. But notice that they do so to “expand” beyond single-issue politics. (p. 11) Does that mean they want to become dogmatic on more issues than just “abortion and marriage”? Are they really calling for a change in the way Evangelicals approach political issues or not? Again, their call for a “civil public square” still leaves me wondering what they are really saying. Their definition on p. 17 sounds to me like what is guaranteed in the US Constitution. So what are they really asking for? What, for example, would they say about attempts to take over school boards to change science curricula or determine the content of sex education? They lament the culture wars but I don’t see how what EM says really steers us in a new direction.

I think the real motivation for this document is the awareness of the writers that the meaning and identity of Evangelicalism is slipping away—as is true for all the modern categories into which Christianity has divided itself. They spend most of the document trying to define Evangelical and at the end you are more aware of what (the writers’ think) it isn’t than what it is. For better or for worse, this has only reinforced my stereotype of Evangelicals (and I was one for several of my younger years) like EM’s authors, which is a Fundamentalist who got a graduate degree (e.g. Wheaton College followed by Princeton or Fuller seminaries). The vocabulary and in-house references tell you this isn’t written for the average folk in anyone’s pews—they’re basically talking to themselves.

The politicization of Evangelicalism grew out of frustration with the old-style evangelism of the altar call and tent revival—which had been its core identity. Billy Graham was its epitome but revered as he may be, he’s now considered a dinosaur. So what does an Evangelical look like today? Frank Graham? James Dobson? Joel Osteen? Benny Hinn? Jeremiah Wright? Mike Huckabee? Bill Hybels? Robert Schuller? Brian McLaren? As a successor to Billy I might vote for Joel Osteen but I doubt the authors of EM would be very happy with that choice. The fact, however, that all these could be included in the Evangelical tent points to the confusion EM is trying to address. I just don’t think they resolved it, primarily because I don’t think it can be.

KELLY'S RESPONSE: Good analysis, Doug. Thanks for sharing it here.