A recent group of evangelical scholars and pastors has pulled together a new definition of what it means to be an evangelical, both in terms of belief and practice. You can read the statement here. There is a study guide available for it as well that aims at taking those who already consider themselves evangelicals deeper into a prayerful understanding of the manifesto.
Here are some further articles about the manifesto, which is getting considerable press, from a variety of perspectives:
- USA Today: “Manifesto aims to make ‘evangelical’ less political”
- CNN: “‘An Evangelical Manifesto’ criticizes politics of faith”
- Fox News: “Christian Clerics circulate ‘Evangelical Manifesto’ Urging Faithful to Avoid Single Issue Politics”
- NPR: “‘Evangelical Manifesto’ Aims to Depoliticize Religion” (including an interview with Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Seminary)
- The Associated Press: “Evangelical leaders urge a new approach to public debate that keeps faith, politics separate”
- AU (Americans United for the Separation of Church and State): “Murky Manifesto: Evangelical Statement Repudiates Theocracy – Sort Of”
- American Family Association (AFA): “Whose ‘Evangelical Manifesto’?”
- World Magazine: “‘Evangelical Manifesto’ calls for reform”
- God’s Politics/Sojourners
- Religion Today: “‘Evangelical Manifesto’ Targets Stereotypes”
I’m not sure what to think of it myself. I need a bit more time to digest the material.
For me, it’s a sign of the pervasive identity crisis within American evangelicalism that tends to build itself around the wrong sorts of things, like the conservative and liberal political divides.
Discover more from Matthew Erickson
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Matthew Erickson 
i’m enjoying reading the various opinions here and there around the web.
one of the things i like is that the authors have chosen not to list creationism and inerrancy as 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. still, some people hold to these positions; so be it. there’s simply too much of a tendency to add items to the ever-increasing laundry list of ideas and doctrines to which we have to pledge allegiance before we’re allowed into the room marked “Christian.”
i don’t agree with this statement: We Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally. Jesus’ message uses “action” verbs: teach them to DO as I have commanded you, LOVE God and LOVE your neighbor, by this will all men know … if you LOVE one another. any theology that defines us must have feet.
i did, however, like these words: We are also troubled by the fact that the advance of globalization and the emergence of a global public square finds no matching vision of how we are to live freely, justly, and peacefully with our deepest differences on the global stage. somehow, we’ve got to figure out how we’re going to peacefully share the same bathroom over the next few decades in our ever-shrinking world.
one interesting thing: maybe i missed it, but there doesn’t seem to be a great emphasis on evangelism in this Evangelical Manifesto. do you think that was intentional?
more than anything, i find myself motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece – that it isn’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 that once served it well.
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
i’m enjoying reading the various opinions here and there around the web.
one of the things i like is that the authors have chosen not to list creationism and inerrancy as 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. still, some people hold to these positions; so be it. there’s simply too much of a tendency to add items to the ever-increasing laundry list of ideas and doctrines to which we have to pledge allegiance before we’re allowed into the room marked “Christian.”
i don’t agree with this statement: We Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally. Jesus’ message uses “action” verbs: teach them to DO as I have commanded you, LOVE God and LOVE your neighbor, by this will all men know … if you LOVE one another. any theology that defines us must have feet.
i did, however, like these words: We are also troubled by the fact that the advance of globalization and the emergence of a global public square finds no matching vision of how we are to live freely, justly, and peacefully with our deepest differences on the global stage. somehow, we’ve got to figure out how we’re going to peacefully share the same bathroom over the next few decades in our ever-shrinking world.
one interesting thing: maybe i missed it, but there doesn’t seem to be a great emphasis on evangelism in this Evangelical Manifesto. do you think that was intentional?
more than anything, i find myself motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece – that it isn’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 that once served it well.
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
Mike,
Thank you for your comments on the Evangelical Manifesto. I agree with your assessment that it’s a very positive document, which is a positive step for us as evangelicals. It is so much easier to be negative in the statements of identity like this.
Your question about whether the manifesto is correct in focusing on theological, as opposed to political, social, or cultural, identification is a good one, but may be hard to change. A theological identity is intrinsically making statements about actions that infiltrate the political, social and cultural realms.
That being said, I think the direction of what they are saying – that we are not affiliating with certain political, social, or cultural movements – is a huge step forward for evangelicalism. They are trying to clarify against such movements as the Moral Majority or Religious Right, which linked theologically conservative Christianity with politically conservative movements.
Thanks for visiting my blog.
Mike,
Thank you for your comments on the Evangelical Manifesto. I agree with your assessment that it’s a very positive document, which is a positive step for us as evangelicals. It is so much easier to be negative in the statements of identity like this.
Your question about whether the manifesto is correct in focusing on theological, as opposed to political, social, or cultural, identification is a good one, but may be hard to change. A theological identity is intrinsically making statements about actions that infiltrate the political, social and cultural realms.
That being said, I think the direction of what they are saying – that we are not affiliating with certain political, social, or cultural movements – is a huge step forward for evangelicalism. They are trying to clarify against such movements as the Moral Majority or Religious Right, which linked theologically conservative Christianity with politically conservative movements.
Thanks for visiting my blog.
A theological identity is intrinsically making statements about actions that infiltrate the political, social and cultural realms.
agreed – most things today i see as continuums between two ideas and not just either/or propositions. my point – and i’m sure you understand it – is that we’ve let doctrine be a great divider in recent years, and if i read the EM as saying we’re going to be defined solely by a set of doctrines, that makes me nervous.
good post.
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
A theological identity is intrinsically making statements about actions that infiltrate the political, social and cultural realms.
agreed – most things today i see as continuums between two ideas and not just either/or propositions. my point – and i’m sure you understand it – is that we’ve let doctrine be a great divider in recent years, and if i read the EM as saying we’re going to be defined solely by a set of doctrines, that makes me nervous.
good post.
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com