1 Comment

Whose ‘Evangelical Manifesto’?


We’re living in an interesting season here in the US; not only politically, (both parties and their constituents seem divided..neither one appears too ‘happy’ today) but interesting as far as Evangelicals are concerned also: they also are divided on many issues and the gulf is widening more every day.  Only recently, Randy Maugans of the Threshing Floor posted on Two Camps of Evangelicalism Emerging On the Issue of Zionism.  His post was in response to the statement by many prominent evangelical leaders which is being run in newspapers all over the country: Here. Randy appears to believe this statement was needed in light of so many Evangelicals who have left sound doctrine concerning  preaching the Gospel to all people. I agree.

Tonight I read of further division…one in which it appears there is a fight within the ranks for power within the Evangelical camp. Its interesting…

From OneNewsNow;

If all goes according to plan, on or about May 7, a group of evangelical leaders — including the Rev. Rick Warren (of Saddleback Church and “Purpose Driven Life” fame) and Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals — will publish a document to be called “An Evangelical Manifesto: The Washington Declaration of Identity and Public Commitment.”

Though the document has been circulating around the Internet for a month, it has been “embargoed.” For purposes of our discussion here, I will honor the embargo and not delve here into the contents except to say this: it contains, like other documents of this kind, both virtues and flaws. It’s better than most, worse than some. But the contents are not my main concern here: In the end, I fear that the contents, however worthy, will be overshadowed by the process of its writing and gathering signatories for it.

Os Guinness, one of the “Manifesto’s” primary authors, told me that a “representative group” has been asked to sign it, and that “scores of people have given input.” In defense of his assertion, I will say that in my investigating, I have determined that, in addition to Warren and Anderson, theologians Timothy George and Richard Mouw have been a part of the drafting process. Jesse Miranda, Richard Ohman, and John Huffman also reportedly had a hand. The involvement of long-time Billy Graham PR guru Larry Ross suggests that Graham might end up a signatory. (Ross would not confirm or deny that.) Best-selling author Dallas Willard and Christianity Today’s David Neff were also involved.

Guinness claims the document is not political in the sense that it says “Christians are not to be defined culturally or politically” and that it is first and foremost a “charitable call to reform.” Nonetheless, the timing of the document’s release, during the “home stretch” of the presidential election season and during a week when many states will be holding primaries, makes the claim disingenuous.

So let’s be plain: Despite Os Guinness’s protestations, this is — unavoidably — a political document. Also, it’s important to be plain about another unfortunate reality: There is an unseemly power struggle going on in the evangelical world these days. It is a struggle for leadership and dominance, for the right to be the unofficial spokesperson for evangelicals. The “religious left” has put forth men such as Jim Wallis. Rick Warren has had everyone from Bono to Barack Obama in his pulpit to help him assert his claim. The Emergent Church is putting forth Tony Jones and Brian McLaren, among others. And, of course, there are the “traditional” leaders of the so-called “religious right,” including Gary Bauer, Tony Perkins, Chuck Colson, and James Dobson.

This unfortunate and unseemly power struggle should not be ignored in evaluating this “Manifesto.” The list of people who have not been asked to sign it, or who have chosen not to, is as revealing as the list of those who have, or will. Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins both told me they had not seen the “Manifesto.” Tom Minnery, executive vice president of Focus on the Family and the organization’s “point person” on public policy issues said neither he nor James Dobson has signed the document.

Other conservative evangelical leaders who often speak out on political issues have been kept out of the process. That list includes Rick Scarborough of Vision America, and former White House speechwriter and Beverly LaHaye Institute senior fellow Janice Crouse.

Also shunned, at least so far: the Southern Baptist Convention’s Richard Land, Ohio-based Phil Burress of Citizens For Community Values, Faith2Action’s Janet Folger, homeschool guru Michael Farris, and Concerned Women for America president Wendy Wright.

There is also a growing list of evangelical heavyweights who have been asked to sign but have (so far) refused — due either to flaws in the document or, as one prominent evangelical leader told me, to the “exclusivity” of the list of signatories.

So a reasonable question remains: What is the true purpose of this document? If it really is, as Os Guinness maintains, a “charitable call to reform,” why not let voices from the “conservative” or so-called “pro-family” wing of the evangelical movement have input? The worst that could happen is this: the drafters could ward off a nagging concern that they are backroom schemers, attempting to assert an exclusive claim to leadership over a sometimes (regretfully) fractious, though still powerful, evangelical movement. And what is the best thing that could happen? The signatures of Jim Wallis, Rick Warren, Billy Graham, and Jim Dobson on the same carefully crafted document. Now that would be truly historic.

It seems to me that this is a goal worth striving for — unless, of course, the assertion of power and control, and not a “charitable call to reform,” is what this document is really all about.

One comment on “Whose ‘Evangelical Manifesto’?

  1. i’m enjoying reading the various opinions here and there around w’s internets… i had some hesitations and misgivings before reading the document, but am actually quite impressed and invigorated after taking in the whole of what it addresses.

    unlike you, i am somewhat encouraged by those who have not signed the document, and consider it a plus and not a minus. i guess that just reveals the different preconceived ideas we bring to the document, eh?…

    one of the things i like about the document is that the authors have chosen not to say that creationism and inerrancy are 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. 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.”

    there are a few things i question, but nothing is going to please everyone, i suppose. for instance, i’m not sure i agree with this statement: We Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally. Jesus’ message uses “action” verbs (physician heal thyself – inside joke): 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? i didn’t see a single chick tract referenced in the bibliography…

    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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Rooted and Grounded In Christ

Teaching Sound Doctrine & Glorifying Christ

leadme.org

Lead me O Lord

I Was a Teenage Dispensationalist

It's the end (of the end) of the world as we know it...

%d bloggers like this: