"It may be useful to remember that Christian faith is ultimately dependent upon what actually happened rather than upon the views of historians."
- I. Howard Marshall
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Some thoughts on the recent Evangelical Manifesto that so many are buzzing about right now . . .
Those who know me know I'm still quite keen on the "evangelical" label, not so much as a word itself but for what it still means and can continue to mean. I'm not ready to abandon it (like "fundamentalist," which was a justifiable abandonment, or what-have-you) simply because it has been loaded by the culture with the baggage of "fundamentalist" or because it has been carried as a flag by political-minded Christians keen on waging the so-called culture war. It's a good word, and it means something too important to give up. Evangel = gospel, and now, when more believers, pastors, and churches are dedicating themselves to gospel-driven renewal, is not the right time to ditch the word. It has the possibility to mean and communicate more now than it ever has, particularly if the Lord will grant us the revival many are praying for.
Os Guinness and others on the Manifesto's steering committee write in the Introduction:
For those who are Evangelicals, the deepest purpose of the Manifesto is a serious call to reform -- an urgent challenge to reaffirm Evangelical identity, to reform Evangelical behavior, to reposition Evangelicals in public life, and so rededicate ourselves to the high calling of being Evangelical followers of Jesus Christ.
Yes. Reform. Good.
What of the Manifesto itself?
For all of the drafters' insistence that it is not a reaction to media bias or political/moral culture wars -- Os Guinness tells USA Today, "Our problem is not mislabeling by the press or rebranding because we have a bad image" -- it is quite verbose on "the marketplace" and civic engagement.
The concerns as drafted are valid ones, good ones, and the exploration of them is incisive and important. These lines from the conclusion are laudable:
“Finally, we solemnly pledge that in a world of lies, hype, and spin, where truth is commonly dismissed and words suffer from severe inflation, we make this declaration in words that have been carefully chosen and weighed; words that, under God, we make our bond. People of the Good News, we desire not just to speak the Good News but to embody and be good news to our world and to our generation.â€
Generally speaking, it's a fine and dandy resource. Taking a look at the ongoing accumulation of signatories reveals quite a few important leaders think so too.
However, I do believe the Manifesto is too long to be useful. I mean that seriously. There's nothing wrong with signing this thing, as far as I can see, but what will it do? Anyone remember This We Believe? A bunch of important people signed that too.
Evangelicalism won't be reformed by a long document full of distinctions signed by a who's who, particularly if that who's who thinks signing this thing is one of the most meaningful things they can do.
What we need is a merging of the groundswell of discontent among evangelical laity hungry for the gospel and a commitment by pastors and teachers and writers to center on the gospel. So long as the culture of therapy and politics and popular entertainment maintains its hold on the shaping of the gospel in the life of evangelicalism, signing a manifesto means nothing.
---
Joe Carter, who is a signatory, shares his thoughts here.
Justin Taylor summarizes the document here.
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/4573.
Comments on "An Evangelical Manifesto":
2. Karl
- 05/09/2008 10:32 am CDT
To the extent Evan is talking about the fact that Christians living out their faith will be opposed, will meet with persecution and trials, will even be hated at times for taking a stand or appropriately speaking truths that need to be spoken, I agree.
But at the same time, I think having a Christian move in next door should be "good news" for anyone, because of the kind of person that a Christian should be. Rob Bell asks a provocative question: "if your church closed its doors tomorrow, how many people in your community who don't go to your church would protest the closure and demand that you reopen and get back to doing what you were doing?" [my paraphrase]
If the fruits of the spirit really mean anything; if the Christian life [not its doctrinal content but its on the ground, lived-out reality] really looks like what the New Testament describes the Christian life as looking like, that in itself is "good news" even for people who aren't Christians because their neighborhoods and communities will be full of good samaritans, of people doing the things Jesus described the sheep doing that the goats did not, of people overflowing not just with "Truth with a capital T" but also with love, joy, peace, patience, self-control, etc. That's good news.
3. Raindream
- 05/09/2008 11:54 am CDT
"a commitment by pastors and teachers and writers to center on the gospel"
I visited a church with my extended family a while back. A good church with reputable people, as far as I understand. But my seminary trained brother-in-law summarized the message saying it was the most Bible-free sermon he'd ever heard. This is a church that spells out the gospel with an invitation every week, so I'm sure they believe they are gospel-centered, but the pastor's sermons (at least, the 3-4 I've heard) are weak.
This is what needs reformation. Weak exposition, weak application, and weak practice in our churches. Men not being men. Congregations tolerating gossip and squabbling. 30-day sex challenges. Isolation. Politics.
Jared, you make a good point. The laity should press to hear the Now What? or So What? of this manifesto. My pastor signed it or agrees with it. So what? etc.
Leave a Comment:
I guess I can share the desire that the word 'evangelical' return to its simple factual meaning, and divorce it from all sorts of political connections. But any word, no matter what attempts are made to precisely define it, will likely be assigned all sorts of differing definitions in the minds of people who hear it.
More importantly, I don't find the concluding statement all that laudable. Yes, we are to be the 'People of the Good News'. Christ is the Good News. But I think it quickly muddies the water and goes astray when it says that we desire to embody and be 'good news to our world and our generation'.
Christ obviously was The Good News, and yet was crucified. So clearly The Good News is not good news to all people.
Christ himself confirms this when he states that the world will hate Him and His followers. And there are obviously certain very clear teachings of Christ that are not good news to lots of people today.
So if we truly embody Christ, will be actually be 'good news' to our world and generation? I don't think so. Furthermore, actively trying to be good news to the world is often the cause of straying from the true Good News.