A group of evangelical scholars has issued "An Evangelical Manifesto" in an attempt to redefine and restore a good name to the evangelical movement within Christianity.
There is much to commend in their statement. Most of it would have been of much more value had it been said years ago -- no, decades ago. It is much too little and way too late.
This statement comes at a moment when evangelical Christianity has lost all credibility because it is so closely identified with the American political right. More than any other group in America, the world knows that evangelicals are the political base for an administration that has disrupted the peace and tranquility of the entire world by fighting wars under false pretenses, undermining human rights, and condoning the use of torture.
Now that the political influence of evangelicals is declining, you'll find numerous admonitions that evangelicalism must be defined theologically and not politically. Now that the media megaphone is slipping away from evangelicals, you'll find many lamentations about the lack of civility in America's "culture wars." What you won't find is any clear apology for the role that evangelicals have played and are still playing as cheerleaders for a worldwide "clash of civilizations." In fact, the document itself singles out the religious extremism of "Islamist violence" for censure while ignoring the many examples of "Christian violence" bombing abortion clinics and federal buildings.
You'll find several admissions of human sinfulness and fallibility and many appeals for repentance and reform, but not a single confession regarding the failure of American evangelicals to address this nation's militarism, human rights violations, and abuse of prisoners.
Until evangelicals muster up the courage to address their own most egregious sins and shortcomings, the message they want to share about the good news of the gospel will fall on deaf ears.
Evangelicals have lost all credibility. Their manifesto is a timid step in the right direction, but an elephant is still in the room and they are still ignoring it.
Posts
It is a painful desire, yet
1 hour ago
6 comments:
In what ways would you, as a mainstream baptist, disagree with the Manifesto group according to this confessional summary?
They define “Evangelicals” theologically and confessionally, as those “Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth.” They list the following seven emphases of evangelical belief:
1. Jesus, fully divine and fully human, as the only full and complete revelation of God and therefore the only Savior.
2. The death of Jesus on the cross, in which he took the penalty for our sins and reconciled us to God.
3. Salvation as God’s gift grasped through faith. We contribute nothing to our salvation.
4. New life in the Holy Spirit, who brings us spiritual rebirth and power to live as Jesus did, reaching out to the poor, sick, and oppressed.
5. The Bible as God’s Word written, fully trustworthy as our final guide to faith and practice.
6. The future personal return of Jesus to establish the reign of God.
7. The importance of sharing these beliefs so that others may experience God’s salvation and may walk in Jesus’ way.
I'm not an Evangelical, so I don't really have a dog in the fight here. But your comments seem a little disingenuous.
For instance, did Evangelicals ever have a "good name" or "credibility" with you, either as you perceive them theologically or politically?
Do you not take them at their word that they are not seeking 1)approval or popular esteem, nor to 2) equate their Evangelicalism as such with partisan ideology? If not, why? (i.e., How do you think this group of Evangelicals is seeking to 'restore a good name' in a political sense?)
Do you not think Evangelicals actually disagree about what constitutes just war, human rights, or torture? C'mon. Don't be so naive. Of course they disagree about these things. Evangelicals do not represent a unified perspective on these political issues which, after all, do not determine an Evangelical theological identity.
Do you not realize that what Evangelicals themselves consider sins are quite different from what you consider a sin? They do indeed have the courage to address and confess these things. They are not so much ignoring any elephants, as you are simply disagreeing with them about what constitutes an elephant.
Those with ears, let them hear.
I think the Manifesto and Evangelicalism are problematic, but certainly not for the reasons you suggest (viz, deep down Evangelicals are essentially only a political group of militarists, and they have now lost political credibility with non-militarists --as though they ever had it).
Militarists are guilty in their own right, and don't deserve a scapegoat.
i confess that i had some hesitations and misgivings before reading the document, but was actually quite impressed and invigorated after taking in the whole of what it addressed.
i am glad they chose not to say that creationism and inerrancy were 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. kind of stupid when you think about it ... not that thinking is a pre-requisite of course in any of these endeavors.
more than anything, i was motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece - that it wasn'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 ever since it embraced the neo-con's Jesus bobble-head doll.
perhaps one unintended benefit of the proposal is a clear opportunity to take this EM (Evangelical Manifesto) and align it with the other EM (Emergent Manifesto) and finally have all our EM & EMs in a row without demonizing the other side.
one can only hope...
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
Baus,
Here's a link to my website:
Mainstream Baptists. It could serve to enlighten you as to how similar my thought is to pre-political evangelicalism.
MR is correct that the EM does not insist on creationism and inerrancy, and that they are not Biblical views.
Now, taking BW's somewhat misleading summary of the key beliefs of the EM, it is worth noting that the following are not Biblical views either, though they are in EM.
The notion that Jesus was fully human and fully divine was a 2nd century bit of Greco-Roman philosophizing, not a Biblical view.
The substitutionary theory of the execution of Jesus is foreign to Jesus' teachings and ministry; it was a later import into Christianity, and one that turns on a despicable view of God. It is also incompatible with the forgiving YHWH of much of the Jewish Scriptures.
The view of an impotent God (not yet reigning in the world) is foreign to the Biblical perspective too.
Finally, the notion that the Bible is fully trustworthy, although not as bad as the stupidity of inerrancy, is still demonstrably false. Further it is not a Biblical teaching. There are a few passages that indicate that the Jewish Scriptures are suitable for study and belief. But for obvious reasons there is nothing in the Bible, which was not settled as to its contents until at least the 4th century, which indicates that that 4th century collection of texts making up the Bible is fully trustworthy. The fact that the gospels in that Bible offer different and conflicting accounts of Jesus is enough to cinch the point.
The EM, as I see it is not recapturing the essentials of Biblical religion. It is a reversion to an early Constantinian view of Christianity--Nicea, et. al.
So, the problems of evangelicals are not restricted to backing political jackasses and elephants.
I really appreciate the way that you've drawn attention to the Manifesto in a way that highlights the 1980's rhetoric of a "culture war" that seems to have borne fruit in the present "war on terror" and calls for more pointed contrition concerning Christian complicity to violence (and, I might add, not just in reference to the present but also the historic atrocities of colonialism and the slave trade).
I think the connection Mike Rucker makes between the Evangelical Manifesto and the Emergent Manifesto of Hope is really important - in fact, that is exactly what some of us have been working to create in the EnVision conference that will take place in June.
I'm not sure producing documents is the best way to go about generating a life-affirming transformation (though I certainly have contributed to a few), but if we do so in a way that inhibits demonization of the other rather than promotes it, that's a good place for theologians to start.
Post a Comment