H/T to Craig for this: a group of prominent Evangelical leaders in the US have released this statement, entitled 'An Evangelical Manifesto'. It is not brief - 7,000+ words - but, by golly, it is fascinating. It is an attempt to grab back Evangelical identity from its political uses in the US, and to distinguish Evangelicalism from fundamentalism. Here's a bit to chew on:
...the Evangelical message, "good news" by definition, is overwhelmingly positive, and always positive before it is negative. 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.
There's much more, too. It needs thinking about and digesting.
Notable names amongst the signatories include Miroslav Volf, Kevin Vanhoozer, Darrell Bock, Leighton Ford, Walter Kaiser and Alvin Plantinga.
19 comments:
So very like Benedict XVI's message.
Good stuff here. I read through some of it. Interesting that it doesn't mention baptism. Oh well.
Peace,
e.
All those "Yeses" and Noes" sound very Barthian, don't you think?
Erik - your point is?
David - your point is?
I guess my question is, I wonder who had a hand in that part of the Manifesto? I must confess that I don't yet know all of the individuals who have signed this manifesto, or who their respective influences are. I just found the whole "Yes" and "No" thing very distinctive.
It is a feature of German-speaking theological discourse of the mid-century in general, and I think it is just an idiom that has found its way into English speaking theology. It need not indicate anything more than use of a stylistic device. Os Guiness is the main drafter of the manifesto I understand.
All in all, there was very little I could disagree with.
What was disappointing was that the manfesto from a group proclaiming:
"Fourth, we believe that Jesus’ own teaching and his attitude toward the total truthfulness and supreme authority of the Bible, God’s inspired word, make the Scriptures our final rule for faith and practice."
Very rarely directly quotes from the Bible, and doesn't provide footnotes to support their positions.
This manifesto perpetuates the gnostic, anti-sacramental gospel. It's grand master is Descartes. I like bits of it, of course. But, it reduces most of theology to information.
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.
they chose not to say that creationism and inerrancy were non-negotiables - i liked that. 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 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.
and, maybe i missed it, but there didn't seem to be great emphasis on evangelism in this Evangelical Manifesto. was that intentional? i didn't see a single chick tract referenced in the bibliography...
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
Ah, Erik! I see you have lost none of your penchant for labels!
I like it that it doesn't mention 'creationism' do we also like it that it doesn't set our faith on the ground of God's creation as he sets his 'manifesto'; that is, the Bible?
No. . .well, ho hum, another human attempt to substitute for the word of God and appeal to the world in its terms, instead of Gods.
But, that said, I don't see the point. Who is the M supposed to influence? World media? They won't care. It certainly will have not effect on the next taxi driver I ask "so, do you think we descended from monkeys?".
:-) I thought it was a penchant for truth. Silly me.
Hope you're doing well.
"so, do you think we descended from monkeys?"
evolution and natural selection does not say we descended from monkeys. it's exactly this type of disregard for accuracy in what is being offered as sweeping facts that keeps us stuck in our inability to move the discussion to more intelligent levels.
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
Mike, I am aware of standard evolutionary doctrine on this point. However, if discussing with a taxi driver, my conversational tactic is to arouse a response that will enable me to steer a conversation to Christ. This is a pretty reliable opener.
If I was writing a paper on the matter I would adopt a diffent course.
Incidently natural selection is a conservative, not an innovative process: it selects and eliminates from the gene pool, but does not expand it. It was first discussed in any detail, to my knowledge, by Edward Blyth, who influenced Darwin. More on Blyth here: creationontheweb.com/content/view/493/
There is further interesting and critical discussion of the document over here.
The American-centrism of the opening is a little startling.
If we're looking for things that are missing, where is the Trinity? Only only passing mention of the Spirit and none of the Father as Father.
But then, for a manifesto, it's too long already.
Nonetheless, it makes many important points about public discourse and the importance of avoiding a Christianity that is defined by (and almost limited to) opposition to abortion and gay marriage.
I also thought this response from J. K. A. Smith made some good points.
i didn't. I thought is was haughty and petty. And Smith in the end kind of wants to disavow evangelical as a label anyhow, so why does he care?
and, Critias, I especially like that it doesn't attach evangelicalism to creationism. What a relief.
i didn't. I thought is was haughty and petty. And Smith in the end kind of wants to disavow evangelical as a label anyhow, so why does he care.
Surely non-E's can care about how the term is used? I care how 'catholic' is used, for instance.
And this was not an insightful point?
It is interesting to note what's not named in here though: e.g., militarism? capitalism? nationalism?
Yes he's haughty. But he makes some good points. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Post a Comment