“An Evangelical Manifesto” was released on May 7th. Like every concerned Evangelical pastor I read it and then considered whether or not I should I sign it. There are a number of respectable people who have signed it but the question is, should I?
I guess I have some obvious questions:
* What will be gained by signing?
* Will my signature, or anyone’s, solve the problems addressed by this manifesto?
* What am I really affirming by my signature?
* What will I regret more in the future having or not having signed it?
To tell you how I came to my decision let me first tell you three good things about this manifesto.
First, I think the purpose is a noble one. “To address the confusions and corruptions that attend the term Evangelical in the United States and much of the Western world today and…clarify where we stand on issues that have caused consternation over Evangelicals in public life.”This is grand goal. The world needs to know where we stand and what our place in public life should be and I realize that in the procession of time words and labels change in meaning and association.
I pastor Fundamental Baptist Church and without question I affirm the fundamentals of the faith. But, in our day the terms fundamental and fundamentalist no longer mean what they used to. Some churches and organizations bearing the same moniker as us have sought to do with the term ‘fundamental’ what this manifesto seeks to do with ‘evangelical.” Because the meaning of terms evolve the original meaning has to be re-established. So there is an effort to declare what the label really means.
There is a danger in trying to re-establish a historic meaning. Every attempt to redefine or reconfirm the meaning is always tainted by the personal agenda of those who are saying, “This is what it means.” The problem is once that train leaves the station there is no return and then anyone can add their definition to the heap of opinions and private definitions.
Ultimately a word means what it means to the people who hear it. Can copious intellectual restatement change society’s perceptions? Perhaps a lot of media coverage, heavy promotion, and advertisement can momentarily change perception but only for those who read the press releases or see the media and then only momentarily.
The second good thing about this manifesto is its willingness to focus on those big issues that are currently plaguing the church. Here is one of a number of insightful thoughts:
“…we (Evangelicals) have replaced biblical truths with therapeutic techniques, worship with entertainment, discipleship with growth in human potential, church growth with business entrepreneurialism, concern for the church and for the local congregations with expressions of faith that are churchless and little better than a vapid spirituality, meeting real needs with pandering to felt needs, and mission principles with marketing precepts. In the process we have become known for commercial, diluted, and feel-good gospels of health, wealth, human potential, and religious happy talk, each of which is indistinguishable from the passing fashions of the surrounding world.”
This sounds like something out of Gary Gilley’s book “This Little Church Went to Market.” As I once heard Bailey Smith say, “We are teaching people how to go to hell with a positive attitude.”
Because of the very concerns addressed in this manifesto we are seeing a decline in the church’s effectiveness. In an article from the Christian Post dated May 13, 2008 titled “Shallow Preaching, Cultural Adaptability Behind Baptist Decline” Dr. Patterson says, “[T]he shallow state of preaching has exacerbated the lethargy of the church and left the lost with no real Word from God…The pastor ought to be the major source of theological understanding and the most able teacher of the Bible.”
So I agree with the purpose of this manifesto and with the point that in an attempt to be successful we have become materialistic sycophants who have neglected the truth in exchange for the hope of numerical success.
Thirdly I appreciate the various affirmations to the essentials of the gospel and the honesty about man’s corrupt nature. “We Evangelicals share the same “crooked timber” of our humanity, and the full catalog of our sins, failures, and hypocrisies.” We are all sinners in need of the Savior and even after salvation we are still housed in this weak vessel of flesh.
So much of what this manifesto says is good but as good as it is some obvious names aren’t signing.
Al Mohler said, “In the end, I must judge ‘An Evangelical Manifesto’ to be too expansive in terms of public relations and too thin in terms of theology.” Dr. Mohler’s position is not that this is an attempt to clarify what an Evangelical is but rather that it is an attempt to redefine the evangelical. In my less scholarly words I would say that it has too much diplomacy and not enough divinity.
Richard Land who is president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, expresses that one of his reasons for not signing this manifesto has to do with clarity.
“…given the central thrust of the Manifesto, I was quite startled to read that “In our scales, spiritual, moral, and social power are as important as political power….” I must disagree, and wholeheartedly so. I can’t believe that this is what the Manifesto’s authors intended to say, but it is what they said. Spiritual power is, and always will be, more important than political power, however noble its motives and causes. There is an additional statement in this section of the Manifesto that cries out for clarification. In the midst of an eloquent plea for freedom of conscience and religious liberty, the Manifesto declares that “we have no desire to coerce anyone or to impose on anyone beliefs and behavior that we have not persuaded them to adopt freely….”In documents of this kind, proponents have a particular responsibility not to be misunderstood. At best, this statement betrays a startling lack of clarity and specificity.”
These two quotes encapsulate my viewpoint. The manifesto is a bit abstract in its theological statements while at the same time saying that we should be more theological. That is contradictory.
In some cases the manifesto is only one or two words short of complete. Just a few words more would have made all the difference in the world. Dr. Land points out that the manifesto quotes “the way the truth and the life” but does not include the rest of the verse “no man cometh to the father but by me.” Also, there are other places where the exclusivity of Christ could have been affirmed but was side stepped by the omission of just a few words.
Some might say that this document is only 20 pages long and the limited space doesn’t allow for the clarification everything. Who said that the document couldn’t go to 21 pages? Also, I would argue that if the authors had space to include a rebuke to Evangelicals for not being more ecologically active or being negligent of the arts then they had the space to include the words necessary for clarification on the theological issues. Aren’t we supposed to be, in the words of the manifesto, “defined theologically, not politically, socially, or culturally?”
I do believe that much if not all of the critical analysis of the Evangelical movement is accurate. Many of the arguments in this manifesto have already been expressed in John MacArthur’s The Truth War but unlike this document MacArthur advocates a sound, clear, theological position that is unquestionable.
Also, the author’s concern over public embarrassment by what the document calls “useful idiots” is so strong it seems to lobby for Christian abstinence from the political scene. Os Guiness, one of the authors of this manifesto, says that this is not the intention and I have no reason to doubt him. But, what is written is written.
Should I sign it?
My answer is “no.” In spite of the volume of good there is still a clear thread of weakness and uncertainty and once I have signed it, I have signed it. I have a high regard for some of the signers and I know that they are much closer to the Lord than I am. In spite of my intellectual inferiority to these men something in my spirit says, “no.” Upon reading the document my “blink” thought was “crafty.” Theological treatises should not be crafty. They should be free of ambiguity, analytical, concise, and doctrinal.
We must remember. In this theologically and philosophically confused world we cannot afford to make an uncertain sound. Our doctrine must be biblical and clear. This document, as with so much of man’s writing, is filled with holes. Furthermore it is not documents that change perception it is actions. We must give effort to being what we are supposed to be. I am for unity so long as it doesn’t require a betrayal of truth. “But if we don’t compromise how can we get together?” Whoever said we were supposed to get together. The greatest value is not unity it is love, and it is not love of man it is love for Jesus, and Jesus said, “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation of him also shall the son of man be ashamed…”
In an interview with Dr. Mohler Os Guiness used the example of the Pennsylvania school district that sought to pass legislation to teach intelligent design in the science classes of the public school. Mr. Guiness said the discussion was religious people debating with scientist and the religious people were ill informed and therefore they brought bad publicity to the cause. I detect an element of arrogancy, if not self righteousness, in this.
The manifesto itself makes this misstatement, “some among us have betrayed the strong Christian tradition of a high view of science, epitomized in the very matrix of ideas that gave birth to modern science, and made themselves vulnerable to caricatures of the false hostility between sceince and faith.” Is this true? Has Christianity always had a high view of science? I would say yes if you are talking about true proven hypothesis but that is certainly not the case with the so called science of evolution. Although the bible is not a book of science whenever it speaks about science it is absolutely true.
Christianity has respected science so long as it does not go in opposition to the Christian faith. Back in the early 20th century E.Y. Mullins wrote, “We are not, as Christians, to usurp the task of science. Let science work out its own problems. We must show that religion has equal rights because it is based upon spiritual realities. We must not permit religion to be crowded into some corner constructed by alien hands.” The view of science by Christianity has always maintained that science is subservient to scripture.
Yes I agree with the purpose, the point, and general proclamations of truth in this manifesto but I can also see that when read with eyes of a liberal perspective this document would be just as agreeable to them as it is to me–and I have a problem with that. Certainly we want to reach out to all other faiths but with the single purpose of showing them the love of Jesus and the truth of God’s glorious grace.We are not looking for the agreement of the left or right but for the favor of God.
