Another "Manifesto" arrived this week by a group seeking to define "Evangelical" and "Evangelicalism." Entitled: Evangelical Manifesto: A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment. It is the work of a "steering committee" led by Timothy George, Os Guiness, John Huffman, Rich Mouw, Jessie Miranda, David Neff, Richard Orhman, Larry Ross, and Dallas Willard. This group, it would be fair to say, represents the "center-left" or what we might call the "Christianity Today" branch of evangelicalism.
There are a number of signatories from all shades of evangelical thought and there is a online form to add your name to the list. The stated goals of this endeavor are:
The two-fold purpose of this declaration is first to address the confusions and corruptions that attend the term Evangelical in the United States and much of the Western world today, and second to clarify where we stand on issues that have caused consternation over Evangelicals in public life.
This "manifesto" is rather long and ponderous (20 pages) and as Alan Jacobs, Professor at Wheaton College notes, it is almost everything a manifesto should not be (this will probably not make his boss, President of Wheaton College, Duane Liftin, happy, since Liftin is one of the signatories). The writers attempt to define "Evangelicals" in the following manner.
Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth. (Evangelical comes from the Greek word for good news, or gospel.) Believing that the Gospel of Jesus is God’s good news for the whole world, we affirm with the Apostle Paul that we are ―not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation. Contrary to widespread misunderstanding today, we Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally.
To that end the manifesto presents a seven point statement of theological position. The points are a mild recitation of generally agreed upon doctrine, but phrased in the most non-specific terms possible. It is not the worst doctrinal statement I've ever read, but it is remarkable in that it there is not a single citation of Scripture quoted or referenced anywhere (here or in the entire document, except for the oblique reference to Rom 1:16). A glaring omission for a group that wants to be "defined theologically."
The statement on the authority of the Bible is the shortest of the seven; and, contrary to the normal order of a doctrinal statement, it is relegated to the fourth position. It is also notable for not including a reference to inerrancy; the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture being the foundational principle of what has defined evangelical theology for the last 150 years. It is also interesting in that there is no statement at any level regarding the sovereignty of God. Theologically, as the article in the Evangelical Dictionary of the Theology states, evangelicalism "begins with a stress on the sovereignty of God, the transcendent, personal, infinite Being who created and rules over heaven and earth" (p. 406). Regarding God as creator, as one reads carefully, it is clear that one of the goals of the manifesto writers is to put distance between themselves and Young Earth Creationists.
The fifth point, where one might expect a discussion of the importance of evangelism (another foundational principle of Evangelical Theology) there is nothing but a sort of call to social action and justice, "always reaching out as he did to those who are lost as well as to the poor, the sick, the hungry, the oppressed, the socially despised, and being faithful stewards of creation and our fellow-creatures." The only mention of evangelism is in the last point, and there it is reduced to a rather weak statement to, "share Christ with those who do not yet know him, inviting people to the ends of the earth and to the end of time to join us as his disciples and followers of his way."
Of course as one reads through the document it becomes clear that what the writers want is to put separation between themselves and two things: (1) Conservative politics for which evangelicalism has been more or less identified with for the last 25 years; and (2) Fundamentalism; although the writers are consternated by the fact that "theologically" they are unable to note any difference between Evangelicalism and what they call Fundamentalism. Clearly the differences between the Manifesto authors and Fundamental Evangelicalism is actually how the systems interact with society: politically, socially, and culturally. Unfortunately, the Manifesto states that this is not what they want to be defined by; but rather, theology. In logic this is called the "Horns of a Dilemma."
The writers take the inane tact of implying the Fundamentalist wing of Evangelicalism (remembering that in terms of theology there is no essential difference) manfiests the same type of errors of "fundamentalism" in other religions; by which only Islam can possibly come to mind in this day, and radical secularism. The writers state on page 9 that, "Christian Fundamentalism . . . often becomes a social movement with a Christian identity but severely diminished Christian content and manner." However, a few pages latter the same writers state that Evangelical "fundamentalism was thoroughly world-denying and politically disengaged from its outset" (p. 14). Well, which is it? A "social movement" or "disengaged"? What becomes clear is that the writers simply don't like the manner of engagement or goals of the Fundamentalist wing of Evangelicalism and so that type of "engagement" is disavowed while theirs is extolled.
The struggle to define Evangelicalism has been going on for some time now. I read a paper at the National meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society a few years ago talking about "Evangelical Boundaries" and the parallels of the current state of Evangelicalism and where British Evangelicalism found itself in the late 1880's particularly as it manifested itself in the "Down Grade Controversy" involving Charles H. Spurgeon. Spurgeon championed using the doctrinal statement of the Evangelical Union and a statement that he and others would later pen largely followed those lines. I would agree with the writers that Evangelicalism should be defined "theologically" but in their attempt to do so they ignored the foundational theological concepts that have historically defined the term.
This "manifesto" contains nothing new, memorable, or honestly even compelling. Fortunately, it has all the hallmarks of a document that will be largely ignored and soon largely forgotten. It has continued the current devaluation of the term "manifesto" to the point that one would guess the next major effort like this one will need to lock onto a new descriptive word. This "manifesto" does not go as far as the complete social liberalism of the new Evangelical Left, nor is it as theologically banal as the Emerging Church adherents who have imbibed of their philosophy; but it's not far behind.