I plan to spend a few more posts digging into An Evangelical Manifesto. One post will be devoted to what the Manifesto says about Evangelicals. Another post will talk about what the Manifesto says Evangelicals struggle with, and what we should do. A final post will contain my own thoughts about the Manifesto, whether or not I will sign it, and why or why not. I have some initial opinions (which will probably be discernible in this entry) but will reserve my final judgment until I work through these next few posts.

>First, I want to offer some thoughts about the Manifesto as a manifesto. Along the way I will offer general comments about the contents of the Manifesto. In scouring the web for reactions I noticed some comments like, “one thing the document is not is a manifesto” or even ”There is no need for a manifesto when we have God’s word” (in the comments of the linked page).

So how about it? Is this a manifesto, and is such a document appropriate for Christians?

Let’s start pedantically. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines manifesto as “a public declaration of policy and aims, esp. one issued before an election by a political party or candidate.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary says the word means “a written statement declaring publicly the intentions, motives, or views of its issuer”.

The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology tells me the word early on simply meant proclamation and came from an Italian word meaning an indication or public declaration. The Latin word means manifest, as in to make something manifest/apparent or, in this case, make public.

And for one final piece of pedantic peddling, The Oxford American Thesaurus of Current English offers the following synonyms: “proclamation, pronouncement, declaration, declaration of political policies, announcement, statement, publication, notification.”

Jacobs, who I earlier quoted as saying that this document is not a manifesto, unknowingly acknowledges that the Manifesto meets part of the Oxford definition when he says, “the Manifesto is a very American document, the product of an election year”.

There have been many manifestos throughout history. Some famous, some infamous, most obscure. Among them are the Communist Manifesto, the Humanist Manifesto, the amusing DADA Manifesto (I had never heard of this before Jacob’s WSJ article), and the bitter Hacker Manifesto.

Plain and simple, a manifesto is any public declaration of self-identity and/or self-intent. Groups might use a manifesto to declare who they are, why they are that way, and what they will do.

According to the writers of An Evangelical Manifesto, there are two purposes for the document: “to address the confusions and corruptions that attend the term Evangelical… and second to clarify where we stand on issues that have caused consternation over Evangelicals in public life.”

The bulk of the document addresses the first of these two purposes. The whole document is 20 pages, and of that seven pages deal exclusively with Evangelical identity. The four pages introducing the document also include elements of identity, and the remainder of the document addresses Evangelical behavior today and the fact that many Evangelicals have strayed from what it means to be an Evangelical. In other words, in one way or another this entire document deals with what the writers believe it means to be an Evangelical.

There are three main sections of the document which the writers call “three major mandates for Evangelicals.” First, “We must reaffirm our identity”. Second, “We must reform our own behavior.” And third, “We must rethink our place in public life.”

The second and third mandates are primarily reactionary. The writers have seen problems in the Evangelical world and address those problems by pointing them out and proposing what the proper behavior should be.

In some ways the Lausanne Covenant of 1974 is a stronger document. But it is not so much a statement of identity (it does not say “this is what we are”) but is a statement of intent, or an agreement on what we should and will be. This is why it is called a covenant and not a manifesto. Signers of the covenant were not so much saying, “Yes, we agree this is what we are,” as they were saying, “Yes, we agree that this is what we should be, and we covenant together to strive to become this.” In the Manifesto the writers are making a statement about what Evangelicalism is, how some Evangelicals have failed to live up to the name, and what we can do to be what we should be. In my opinion, documents like An Evangelical Manifesto and the Lausanne Covenant could go hand in hand. One document states what Evangelicalism is, the other document calls for people to then live in this way.

Pulling all of this together, I do conclude that An Evangelical Manifesto is a true manifesto, functioning as a public proclamation of identity and clarification.

Now, on the question as to whether Christians should have such documents. Recognizing that a manifesto is simply a public declaration of some kind, in this case a statement of identity, this manifesto is not different than any other statement a person might make. The person who posted the comment that “there is no need for a manifesto when we have God’s word” was himself offering a manifesto of sorts – he was issuing a public statement of identity. Namely, Christians are people who need nothing but the Bible to define who they are. His point might have a chance of being reasonable had he quoted the Bible rather than himself. But by using his own words he demonstrated that it is at times (and I would say frequently) appropriate for Christians to use their own words to present how they believe Christians should act and speak. Those words should be shaped by the Bible. They should include the Bible. But they can be a restatement and clarification of the Bible for modern times. Read me carefully – I do not say the message of the Bible changes and so must be reinterpreted for today. Rather, the world does change and people need help seeing how the unchanging truth of the Bible should be lived out in today’s world.

I believe that An Evangelical Manifesto presents the writer’s views on what it means to live out biblical Christianity in the 21st century. They certainly do not touch on every possible issue, but the matters they do address are defined in terms of biblical Christianity. They do not want to add to or take away from the Bible, but from the statement it becomes apparent that they believe Evangelicalism is the best way to live out biblical Christianity, so by defining and describing Evangelicalism they want to help people understand some ways the Bible applies to Christian life today.

So to summarize the two points of this entry: I believe that An Evangelical Manifesto functions as a true manifesto, and I believe that the writers did not in any way undermine the authority of Scripture by offering such a document but rather are seeking to present what it means to live out biblical Christianity.