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.

I have finished! (More or less – a few things to wrap up). Graduation from Beeson Divinity School took place yesterday. This was the first time for Beeson to hold its own graduation ceremony. Usually graduation takes places as part of the campus-wide ceremony with Samford University.

The document An Evangelical Manifesto has been released (I first blogged about it here). The website offers visitors a full version (20 pages), a summary version (6 pages), and a study guide (29 pages). At the website you can also read who the steering committee and initial signers were. You can also sign the document yourself.

I have read the document and am very pleased. I had feared it would be little more than a watered-down statement against the politics of the religious right. Instead it is a very careful document that does far more than talk about religion and politics. The bulk of the document contains a discussion about what it means to be an Evangelical, with the writers talking about what makes Evangelicals distinct from other believers and other religions. The document then contains a section about ways Evangelicals have failed to live up to Evangelical ideals, and it presents some ways we can address those failings. Finally, the document contains a section presenting a good, balanced approach to living as a Christian while being involved in politics.

I plan to post more on the document later but I want to give it one more run-through to pick up some pieces I might have missed. In the meantime, I highly recommend that you read it.

Also, Justin Taylor has posted a good summary of the document. Like all summaries, it can’t cover everything. Be sure you also read the manifesto itself.

Consider the words of Paul in 2 Timothy 2:24-26:

2 Timothy 2:24-26

24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. (ESV)

Amazing words from a man who faced as much opposition as a person could. There are a few things to draw from this passage.

First, know the truth of God. Implied in this passage is that we know God’s word. Paul is speaking to someone who is able to recognize wrong from right. Paul is instructing him about how he should act when responding to those who are recognized as doing and saying wrong things. Later in this letter, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Paul reveals that it is the Bible which gives us this kind of knowledge. Know the Bible, know what it says, and be convicted about the truth of God’s word. Later in this post I will mention a sermon by John Piper on this same subject but drawing from Romans 14:1-9. In those sermons Piper says Paul expects Christians to get an opinion, to get a conviction. Do not be satisfied with uncertainty and ambiguity. Know the truth so when you see evil and falsehood, you will know it for what it is.

Second, respond to falsehood. Paul tells us how to respond to falsehood because he expects us to speak up when wrong is being said or done. Do not be silent when you see minorities oppressed. Do not be silent when widows and orphans are mistreated. Do not be silent when people are taught that God condones any behavior that makes a person happy. The list could go on. When you see something wrong taking place, be ready, willing, and able to respond! There needs to be wisdom involved here, that we respond as those who are wise as serpents and gentle as doves, but in some way we must give a response.

Third, respond to falsehood with peace. Do not be quarrelsome. Do not be unkind. But be kind and respond in love to all people. This is a message everyone on the web needs to hear. It is so easy to be unkind and some of the most unkind people on the web are Christians who have come across someone that disagrees with them. I don’t have to cite examples – you know what I am talking about. Paul does not want to see this behavior. He does not excuse this behavior. As Christians we often feel justified in our ire. After all, we are dealing with the word of God! Shouldn’t that lead to righteous indignation? Well, it should lead to a response demonstrating love and kindness.

Fourth, Paul does not limit this instruction to those who have minor disagreements. He does not say that we should be peaceful just with those who disagree about the music during the worship service, but that Calvinists are free to be rude to non-Calvinists, etc. Note the context, particularly the following passage. Paul goes on to talk about those who preach outright heresy and speak only to entertain the desires of the people. It is with these people in mind that Paul says that we are to be kind to everyone. With all people and all kinds of disagreements – regardless of the issue or how large the disagreement is – you are to be a peacemaker. If you are to be kind to blasphemers, certainly you are to be kind to your brother.

God is not honored by your anger. God is not honored by your rude words. God is not honored when your actions display hate and violence, not love and peace. It is true that proclaiming the truth will often lead to opposition and division, that the word of God will even split families. Even knowing the consequences, we are called to proclaim the truth. But we cannot ignore the teaching of Scripture that we are always to proclaim the truth in love, showing kindness to those with whom we disagree. Do not like the quarrelers of the world.

I mentioned Piper earlier. Every weekday Desiring God Ministries posts half of a sermon from their archives of messages preached by Piper. Lately they have been working through Piper’s series on the book of Romans. One of those sermons came from Romans 14:1-9. Rather than link to the two halves from the radio program, I commend to you Piper’s original sermon, titled Each One Should Be Fully Convinced in His Own Mind. In the sermon Piper calls for Christians to get a conviction, to be committed to the truth of Scripture, to defend their beliefs, and yet to live at peace with those who disagree.

Over at the Touchstone Magazine blog an entry was posted about the evangelical manifesto. In the comments on the post a rather lengthy discussion started about the meaning of the word evangelical. Here is my off-the-cuff attempt to define the word as I see it.

An evangelical is a Christian – usually, but not always, Protestant – who believes in the authority of Scripture and generally holds to the teachings of historic Christianity, included definitions of the faith found in the ecumenical councils and clarified in the historic creeds.

I do not know the history behind the use of the word, but I think of evangelicals sort of like nice fundamentalists. We tend not to be quite so extreme as most Christian fundamentalists, though we would agree with the doctrinal position of many fundamentalists. The guiding principle is the Bible, and the unifying belief is that the Bible is authoritative for all of life. 

Evangelicals distinguish themselves from fundamentalists by being willing to dialog with believers who are not themselves evangelicals or fundamentalists. Many of us would be willing to worship with Catholic or Orthodox believers and while we disagree with much of their theology, we will not refrain from calling them our brothers and sisters in the faith. One of the practices of many fundamentalists is to oppose any who claim to be Christian and yet are not fundamentalists.

(A brief tangent: When we speak about Christian fundamentalists we are talking about something very different than Muslim or Hindu fundamentalists. Christian fundamentalism is an attempt to revive the faith by holding fast to a specific set of fundamental beliefs that are viewed as essential for all Christians; Muslim and Hindu fundamentalism are attempts to revive the faith by killing all who think in a different way.)

Evangelicalism is losing some of its force in recent years with many people who call themselves evangelical drifting away from a firm belief in the Bible. This is seen most clearly in the emerging church movement. Many of the people involved in that movement would call themselves evangelical and yet one of the trends “emerging” from them is the tendency to downplay or question the importance of the Bible in the Christian life.

Evangelicalism is also losing some if its force by being overly-politicized. This is happening from both the left and the right. Many people seem to make evangelical mean little more than political activism on behalf of a particular ideology. That is what makes the evangelical manifesto interesting, it looks like the document will be an attempt to call evangelicals back to what we were (Christians seeking to live faithfully according to the commands of Scripture) rather than being a group that focuses all of our energies on the political arena.

I’ve added a new page to the site sidebar. Since I will soon be graduating I am beginning to look for a full-time pastoral position. I have been serving as a part-time pastor since October 2006. I have quite a list of churches looking for pastors that I am digging through but when one is looking for a position, getting word out is very important so I will use this blog as one way to spread the word. If you know of a Baptist church looking for a full-time pastor, feel free to direct them to my resume.

Starting two weeks ago I have been preaching a series on the five solas:

• Sola Scriptura (By Scripture Alone)
• Solus Christus (By Christ Alone)
• Sola Gratia (By Grace Alone)
• Sola Fide (By Faith Alone)
• Soli Deo Gloria (Glory to God Alone)

This week’s message was on By Christ Alone and the text was
Acts 4:12. So far I haven’t written any manuscripts for these sermons so I will just bring up a few things from my sermon outline.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Lord bless you and keep you;
the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.

- Numbers 6:24-27

The move is complete. There were a few bumps getting my template moved over, but I think it is all in place. If you see this entry, then you are viewing Seek the Holy on the new web host.

I’ve found a new web host and am in the process of moving things there. Hopefully the move will be transparent. I’ll keep both of my hosts for a little while just in case the new one has problems. Finding a good web host can be a difficult thing to do.