Thoughts on “An Evangelical Manifesto”

It’s about time: a clear description of what evangelicals believe and where they stand on issues which roil the public square. Unveiled at the National Press Club four days ago, on May 7th, “An Evangelical Manifesto” defines evangelicalism over against its demons within, and stakes out a middle ground between liberal revisionism and conservative fundamentalism. There are some excellent passages in “An Evangelical Manifesto,” but it falls short of being a document worthy of a movement that counts John Woolman, Catherine Booth, and William Wilberforce among its forebears. It has also failed to attract the support - at least so far - of many both right and left of center within the evangelical movement.

Here are some examples of the Manifesto’s prose. Commentary is offered within brackets. “Evangelical” is capitalized because the Manifesto insists that it be (I disagree, but will not dwell on the point in this post).

Too many of the problems we face as Evangelicals in the United States are those of our own making. If we protest, our protest has to begin with ourselves. (p. 2)

[The public face of evangelicalism is often associated with people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Benny Hinn, T. D. Jakes, and John Hagee. The manifesto takes aim at the tactics and message of these individuals and others like them, but you have to be able to read between the lines to figure that out.]

[W]e are unashamed to be Evangelical . . . [We have] our own contribution to make, not only to the church, but to the wider world; and especially to the plight of many who are poor, vulnerable, or without a voice in their communities. (p. 3)

[One of the great strengths of the evangelical movement is that it has been and continues to be, particularly in those versions of it which practice the baptism of adults (Pentecostals, Baptists, Nazarenes, Seventh Day Adventists, and so on), the strongest aggregator of the poor in search of salvation the world has ever seen. However, the Manifesto is not really an expression of this vast phenomenon, but a statement made by mainly older line evangelicals who wish to steer the movement onto a course “shaped unashamedly by truth and history” (p. 10), with “history” defined in terms of the world-engaging evangelical tradition evoked by names such as “John Jay, John Witherspoon, John Woolman, and Frances Willard in America and William Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury in England” (p. 14), and “truth” defined in terms of an evangelical Calvinism lite with emphasis on forensic justification, atonement through the cross, lifelong conversion, the sovereignty of Christ over every sphere of life, the hope of Christ’s Second Coming, and the fulfillment of the Great Commission through evangelistic and philanthropic outreach (pp. 5-6).]

Contrary to widespread misunderstanding today, we Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and  not politically, socially, or culturally. (p. 4)

[This is the document’s main point. But the theological and confessional profile of evangelicalism is up for grabs, as the Manifesto itself makes clear.]

We call for an expansion of our concern beyond single-issue politics, such as abortion and marriage, and a fuller recognition of the comprehensive causes and concerns of the Gospel, and of all the human issues that must be engaged in public life. Although we cannot back away from our biblically rooted commitment to the sanctity of every human life, including those unborn, nor can we deny the holiness of marriage as instituted by God between one man and one woman, we must follow the model of Jesus, the Prince of Peace, engaging the global giants of conflict, racism, corruption, poverty, pandemic diseases, illiteracy, ignorance, and spiritual emptiness, by promoting reconciliation, encouraging ethical servant leadership, assisting the poor, caring for the sick, and educating the next generation. We believe it is our calling to be good stewards of all God has entrusted to our care so that it may be passed on to generations yet to be born. (pp. 13-14)

[The paragraph is typical, but strikes me as insipid. On one level, it can be read thusly: Hey, liberal media, we’re not as bad as you make us out to be! We oppose abortion and gay marriage, but we are otherwise politically correct.

On another level, the paragraph does little more than articulate the “World Vision” vision of the Gospel - Dean Hirsch, World Vision International’s president, is one of the document’s signatories. The Manifesto expresses the ethos of that great philanthropic organization well, but I wouldn’t expect James Dobson’s Focus on the Family to all of sudden roll over and say, “Gee, we should be as kind and gentle.”

So here I go with a wildly unpopular assertion: both the World Vision and the Focus on the Family approaches to enculturating the Gospel leave a great deal to be desired. The organizations address real issues of which Americans are already aware: our great prosperity which comports a set of global philanthropic responsibilities; and the breakdown of the family and the dissolution of a consensus on fundamental values. But neither achieves a synthesis, and all kinds of issues are simply left untouched as if they were so many third rails. The problem is clear: the Manifesto, imbued almost exclusively with World Vision’s philanthropic vision, succeeds in articulating the burden a typical evangelical feels only in part as she or he looks across the wasteland of American culture awash in the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in accordance with coordinates provided by Disney and Hollywood.

But according to the Manifesto, it shouldn’t be about what evangelicals feel or don’t feel in the first place. It should be about fidelity to “truth and history.” The Jesus invoked by the Manifesto also said this: “You must not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth: it is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword.”[1] Is it possible to rewrite the above paragraph in such a way that it does not stink of the usual bromides, but rather, throws fire on the earth, and sets it ablaze?

It’s not hard to do if one puts some thought into it. But it also requires political courage, of which there is none today. A few days ago, PBS aired a special on the political career of George Bush, Sr. His high point as a public servant in his own opinion was the time he, a Texas senator, voted in favor of President Johnson’s bill of civil rights against the violent express wishes of those who had just elected him. With death threats in the background, he returned to his district in Texas and walked straight into an auditorium filled with a thousand people who now hated him with every fiber of their being. He explained his position from the heart with ruth and wit, and because he did so without guile, he gained their respect, even their admiration. I can’t remember the last time I heard a politician speak that way. I really can’t.

We cannot back away from our biblically rooted commitment to the sanctity of every human life, including those unborn. We cannot deny the holiness of marriage instituted by God as a covenant between one man and one woman. But our concern goes far beyond those single issues. We believe it is America’s place in the world to be a safe haven for the wretched of the earth overcome by the global giants of conflict, racism, corruption, poverty, pandemic diseases, illiteracy, ignorance, and spiritual emptiness, and we call for an open immigration policy in accord with that understanding. This is what we have been in the past; it is what we will be in the future, or we will lose all hope of God’s mercy upon us.

Furthermore, in accordance with biblical teaching, we believe it is not the responsibility of individuals alone, but of the government, “to defend the cause of the poor, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor” (Psalm 72:4). We call for a complete overhaul of federal, state, and local policies to reflect those priorities.

We consider the fact that over 2 million of our fellow citizens are incarcerated a scandal of the deepest proportions, and we give our support to no political party or candidate unless they address the issue root and branch with honesty and insistence.

We believe that the seven freedoms - the rule of law; limits on the power of the state; respect for women; respect for children; respect for minorities; freedom of religion; and free speech - are promises engraved in the hearts of all people, and we call for a foreign policy that focuses on supporting and encouraging those freedoms throughout the world insofar as we prove able to model those freedoms in our midst - not only among nations with governments hostile to our own, but  among nations whose governments are our erstwhile friends. 

We believe it is our calling to be good stewards of all God has entrusted to our care so that it may be passed on to generations yet to be born. Like Isaiah of old, we believe we and our children are meant to become “oaks of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, showing forth his glory,” who “will repair the ruined cities, the devastations of many generations” (Isaiah 61:4). The devastation in the plain sight of all is not only physical, but communal, moral, and spiritual. That is the point of departure. The task before us is its reversal.

Our commitment as evangelicals to the common weal is firm. Let no one imagine it less than theirs.

Just think. If World Vision and Focus on the Family came out in support of that kind of statement, donations would be cut in half in a matter of weeks. On the other hand, they might be saved from insipidness.

As Warren Smith put it, the Manifesto is a missed opportunity, one more sign that evangelicalism is a house divided against itself. “The signatures of Jim Wallis, Rick Warren, Billy Graham, and Jim Dobson on the same carefully crafted document. Now that would be truly historic,” noted Smith. But that isn’t what we have. 

---

[1]  The background for this paragraph: Matthew 10:34-36, and especially Luke 12:49-53.

Comments

[David Ker]

Is this any more than an intramural shouting match? I'm wondering if this will have any constructive result. I never knew I was an evangelical until someone told me. I always thought I was a Christian. Evangelicals don't exist in Mozambique. You are either "protestante," "católico" or "pentecostal."

[JohnFH]

Hopefully, it will not be just shouting, but the beginning of a civil discussion.

[Bob MacDonald]

John - thanks again for some nice reflection. There is some real meat in your italicized quote - too bad they note their exceptions in advance.

[ben]

I highly recommend NT Wright's 'Surprised by Hope.' He grounds his mission for the church in the theological reality of the resurrection and the hope of the new creation. Imagine that, mission grounded in biblical theology! It seems to me a healthy balance that was not fully achieved in the manifesto (though I'm only going by your post). Thanks for your thoughts.

[JohnFH]

Thanks for the recommendation, Ben.

It seems to me that the hope of resurrection and of the creation of a new heaven and a new earth are this-worldly hopes which expect the future to be all about "the healing of the nations" (Rev 22:2), and also, the salvation of all Israel with the appearance of a "Deliverer out of Zion" (Rom 11:26). It is impossible to fit all the scraps of eschatological hope found in the Bible into one coherent puzzle, but it is possible to return to an eschatology that imagines the future to involve the transformation of history, not its suppression.

[mike thorn]

A great supporter of World Vision is AIDtoCHILDREN.com.

AIDtoCHILDREN.com is a dual-purpose site for building an English vocabulary and raising money for under privileged children in the most impoverished places around the world.

Check it out at http://www.aidtochildren.com

[JohnFH]

Thanks, Mike, for the link. It is worth checking out.

[Cristian Ratza]

John - you may want to check out the perspective of Alan Jacobs in the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121029045957979237.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Or even Al Mohler at almohler.com

Blessings,
Chris

[JohnFH]

Chris,

thanks for the links. "Even" Al Mohler? That's funny. Mohler is a big player and what stance he chooses to take on things like this matters very much.

[Chris]

John - I said "even" Al Mohler, not because he is not an important player, but rather because he is probably too far right for this website, so you guys may not care very much about what he says...? In any case - I did find his take useful. I definitely agree with Jacobs that this was not much of a "manifesto."

[JohnFH]

Jacobs is right, as you say, Chris.

Speaking for myself, I do care what Al Mohler says, and was hoping for a document with his signature on it, that of Rick Warren, that of Jim Dobson, and that of Kirbyjon Caldwell. That would have been historic, especially if it managed to say something beyond the usual bromides.