Posted by Helen on: 05.07.2008 /
The website An Evangelical Manifesto just went live a few minutes ago. It’s been mentioned in the news over the last few days. Now the complete text and list of charter signatories are online. Both of which I was curious to see.
I’m interested by who’s absent from the charter signatories as well as who’s listed. I’m pleased to see Erwin Lutzer signed it (I went to his church for 12 years).
Edited to add: here’s a couple of minutes of audio comments by Os Guinness about the origin and purpose of the Manifesto
I haven’t read it all yet - it’s long - but from what I’ve seen and heard so far I think it’s a step in a positive direction.
I like this, near the beginning
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.
And this
the Evangelical message, “good news” by definition, is overwhelmingly positive, and always positive before it is negative. There is an enormous theological and cultural importance to “the power of No,” especially in a day when “Everything is permitted” and “It is forbidden to forbid.” Just as Jesus did, Evangelicals sometimes have to make strong judgments about what is false, unjust, and evil. But first and foremost we Evangelicals are for Someone and for something rather than against anyone or anything. The Gospel of Jesus is the Good News of welcome, forgiveness, grace, and liberation from law and legalism. It is a colossal Yes to life and human aspirations, and an emphatic No only to what contradicts our true destiny as human beings made in the image of God.
I appreciate that they clearly separate themselves from Fundamentalists.
The fundamentalist tendency is more recent, and even closer to Evangelicalism, so much so that in the eyes of many, the two overlap. We celebrate those in the past for their worthy desire to be true to the fundamentals of faith, but Fundamentalism has become an overlay on the Christian faith and developed into an essentially modern reaction to the modern world. As a reaction to the modern world, it tends to romanticize the past, some now-lost moment in time, and to radicalize the present, with styles of reaction that are personally and publicly militant to the point where they are sub-Christian. Christian Fundamentalism has its counterparts in many religions and even in secularism, and often becomes a social movement with a Christian identity but severely diminished Christian content and manner. Fundamentalism, for example, all too easily parts company with the Evangelical principle, as can Evangelicals themselves, when they fail to follow the great commandment that we love our neighbors as ourselves, let alone the radical demand of Jesus that his followers forgive without limit and love even their enemies.
I appreciate this, from the section We must reform our own behavior
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.
Here’s an excerpt I like from the section The Way of Jesus, not Constantine
As this global public square emerges, we see two equal and opposite errors to avoid: coercive secularism on one side, once typified by communism and now by the softer but strict French-style secularism; and religious extremism on the other side, typified by Islamist violence.
At the same time, we repudiate the two main positions into which many are now falling. On the one hand, we repudiate those who believe their way is the only way and the way for everyone, and are therefore prepared to coerce others. Whatever the faith or ideology in question communism, Islam, or even democracy, this position leads inevitably to conflict.
Undoubtedly, many people would place all Christians in this category, because of the Emperor Constantine and the state-sponsored oppression he inaugurated, leading to the dangerous alliance between church and state continued in European church-state relations down to the present.
We are not uncritical of unrestrained voluntarism and rampant individualism, but we utterly deplore the dangerous alliance between church and state, and the oppression that was its dark fruit. We Evangelicals trace our heritage, not to Constantine, but to the very different stance of Jesus of Nazareth. While some of us are pacifists and others are advocates of just war, we all believe that Jesus’ Good News of justice for the whole world was promoted, not by a conqueror’s power and sword, but by a suffering servant emptied of power and ready to die for the ends he came to achieve. Unlike some other religious believers, we do not see insults and attacks on our faith as ―offensive‖ and ―blasphemous‖ in a manner to be defended by law, but as part of the cost of our discipleship that we are to bear without complaint or victim-playing.
And from the final section
We urge those who share our dedication to the poor, the suffering, and the oppressed to join with us in working to bring care, peace, justice, and freedom to those millions of our fellow-humans who are now ignored, oppressed, enslaved, or treated as human waste and wasted humans by the established orders in the global world.
Comment by: Helen
1 05/7/08 11:03 AM | Comment Link |I’ve read through it now.
This was the statement which surprised me most:
I don’t recall seeing Jesus and the Bible put together that way before.
Here are some more parts I liked in addition to what I quoted in the post
Comment by: Natanael Disla
2 05/7/08 11:29 AM | Comment Link |Good quotes. I am about to read the whole document. It seems that it has well thought concerns about the state of Evangelicalism in America.
Comment by: Helen
3 05/7/08 11:39 AM | Comment Link |Thanks Natanael. Great idea to read it all for yourself.
Comment by: Helen
4 05/7/08 11:48 AM | Comment Link |I just added this to the post: a couple of minutes of audio comments by Os Guinness about the origin and purpose of the Manifesto
Comment by: Unorthodoxology
5 05/7/08 12:08 PM | Comment Link |In many ways, I find this manifesto extremely disturbing, not so much for its content but for what it aims to do.
Regardless of what its authors say, it is attempting to set itself up as an, if not, the authority on evangelicalism. Power through discourse. It is attempting to *define* the terms of discussion on evangelicalism. It seeks to divorce itself from fundamentalistic Christianity (fundamentalism was a distinct movement at a distinct time, not Jerry Falwell, et al), rather than admitting the historical fact that in America, these two strands are linked inextricably and come from the same source.
Neither does it speak significantly to the charismatic renewal in many evangelical church, thus, the structuring absence of the article disavows charismatic evangelical expressions as not evangelical.
While on the one hand admitting it is a modern development with Protestantism, it nonetheless attempts to identify itself with the earliest expressions of Christianity, which is a terrible argument, considering the Orthodox church and Jewish synagogues likely most closely resemble early Christianity.
This is a classic attempt to *own* a term, not create a dialogue about it. It’s title: a manifesto isn’t something that we discuss, it’s handed down from the powers that be.
And, then of course, there’s the comments section, which requires you to “fill out a form” with your title and affiliation. I’m a stay-at-home dad. I have no title. Does that make my opinions less relevant?
This is a power grab, in my opinion, from the academy to delegitimate other forms of worship and being faithful that the authors want to disassociate from traditional evangelicalism.
What makes the evangelical movement so great (even though I don’t agree with most of it), is that it is so amorphous, unwieldy and contradictory as to be unable to be defined.
Comment by: benjamin ady
6 05/7/08 12:20 PM | Comment Link |That’s intriguing. We basically had a trinity of “The Father, The Son, and The Holy Bible” in the Christianity I experienced. Along with that there was a certain … lack of ability/interest in actually *engaging with* the Bible. Almost an … idolatry of the Bible–a bowing down and worshipping but never really communicating with, somehow.
Comment by: Helen
7 05/7/08 12:44 PM | Comment Link |Thanks for your comments, Unorthodoxology. You raise several good points about the Manifesto. I expect those evangelicals who didn’t sign it share some of your concerns and that’s why they didn’t.
The scope of what they chose to cover is interesting. I think many non-Bible-believing-Evangelicals would like it better if it was simply a group of Bible-believing Evangelicals apologizing for behavior which has annoyed the rest of the world while poorly reflecting how the Bible indicates God’s people should behave. But I also expect a number of Bible-believing Evangelicals are pleased the authors took a stand on what ‘Evangelical’ means, theologically.
Comment by: Helen
8 05/7/08 12:47 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin, yes, I’ve experienced the Bible having that role but I don’t remember ever seeing a statement pairing it with Jesus as ‘the authority’ so explicitly before.
Comment by: Unorthodoxology
9 05/7/08 4:28 PM | Comment Link |True, I would suppose a group of “Bible-believing” evangelicals would be pleased for the clarity. (Though, I feel like I believe the Bible as well, just not in the same ways). And there is much in the statement to applaud. At the least, the mention the poor and oppressed, though I wish they had given this aspect of the faith greater influence.
I’m just not sure I agree about what they say “evangelical” means theologically. I know a number of evangelicals who would not remotely agree with their parameters. That’s why I would argue that they are attempting a kind of power-grab. To define any word like evangelical is to draw a line in the sand to say who is in and who is out.
And I just don’t think that’s what Jesus stood for. I think it’s an attempt to unravel the way evangelicalism has developed over the past 50 years, particularly in light of the charismatic and emerging church movements (neither of which I am affiliated with).
I don’t think these folks necessarily have anything to apologize for, per se. But I would have been more receptive to it had the authors not engaged in criticizing other ways of expressing Christian faith (liberal and fundamentalistic) and simply said, “this is how we understand our evangelical faith” not “this is what an evangelical is.”
The former allows for inclusivity. The latter doesn’t.
Comment by: Randy
10 05/7/08 5:03 PM | Comment Link |While I feel unorthodoxology’s pain (manifestos are so, well…authoritative and “final-wordish), I am still impressed with this document. In addition to the interesting quotes you pulled out for us, Helen, is this one which I thought was very interesting in light of my own fascination with the subject of conversion:
I particularly like the use of “lifelong conversion” rather than the long-held obsession with a “moment in time” conversion.
Comment by: Helen
11 05/7/08 5:57 PM | Comment Link |Unorthodoxology, I respect that you believe the Bible although not in quite the same way that the signatories do.
Yes, and that certainly is one of their goals, because they want to Evangelical to mean what they think it should mean and not what some other self-professed less conservative Evangelicals mean by it.
I completely agree. But I don’t tihnk they wanted to be exclusive. I think they were deliberately drawing a line in the sand in order to exclude anything others consider Evangelical which they believe to be heretical.
Randy, yes, it’s good that they said ‘lifelong conversion’.
But they still believe the crucial thing is ‘crossing the line’ from unsaved to saved. That’s why they end each sermon/lecture with “if you’ve never received Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you can do that right now”.
Comment by: Unorthodoxology
12 05/7/08 8:54 PM | Comment Link |I feel like we’re kind of saying the same thing, Helen.
I would submit that to draw a line in the sand is to run counter to the radically compassionate and inclusive teachings and life of Jesus.
This is very interesting, though, linguistically. This group is trying to create a new discourse around the word evangelical, and it will be interesting to see how successful they become. This group is essentially attempting to revise the history of evangelicals to exclude people they consider too conservative or liberal by saying this is not true evangelicalism.
But they factually cannot divorce fundamentalistic evangelicalism from this tradition any more than you can divorce liberal, social evangelicalism (abolitionism & suffrage) from the tradition. They are all under this label, for better or worse.
I understand they may be frustrated with the way people use this word. And that the right wingers tend to get the most press. But this is a struggle for the soul of (I still say, conservative) evangelicalism which goes back to the 40s and 50s when folks like Billy Graham tried to soften the rhetoric of the fundamentalists from the early 20s and 30s.
Curious to get other folks thought on this, though:
Would it be accurate to interpret this as an attempted at a kind of soft excommunication of hardcore fundamentalistic evangelicals and liberal, social-justice oriented evangelicals?
Comment by: Unorthodoxology
13 05/7/08 9:16 PM | Comment Link |Maybe not. Just noted Ron Sider and Jim Wallis as signers. So, I’m apparently off the mark on the last question. Not the first time.
Comment by: benjamin ady
14 05/7/08 10:54 PM | Comment Link |This caught my eye from the intro page. We see here that … strange American Christianity thing going on–a sort of … cultural religiosity. They should have called it “An American Evangelical Manifesto” rather than “The Evangelical Manifesto”. I’m going to choose to mentally call it that. It becomes more interesting to me with the former name.
Comment by: benjamin ady
15 05/7/08 11:03 PM | Comment Link |D,
Jim Wallis having signed it may or may not counteract Kay Arthur having signed it. To me it says something interesting about the document that both of these two signed it–something pointing toward the possibility that the document fails, ultimately, to say much of anything.
Meanwhile, conspicuously missing from the signatories:
Brian D. Mclaren
and
Jim Henderson =)
Comment by: benjamin ady
16 05/7/08 11:10 PM | Comment Link |There’s the American thing again. But their assertion flies in the face of what Christine Wicker found. So … did they not read her book? Or do they with their …nebulous document (by ‘nebulous’ here I mean ‘not managing to clearly say *anything’) just choose to boldly deny her well researched findings? It’s very American, actually, to just claim, based on no evidence, that “We are one of the world’s largest and fastest growing blah blah blah”
Comment by: benjamin ady
17 05/7/08 11:13 PM | Comment Link |Love this too. I would separate this group into two very different types of words–a list of words that are more clearly defined/easier to pin down, and a list of words that are more nebulously defined/harder to pin down. I think they are attempting to move “evangelical” from the latter list to the former. And mostly failing =)
Comment by: benjamin ady
18 05/7/08 11:21 PM | Comment Link |Was there, as they claim, a trinitarian consensus in the early church? I would have guessed that came relatively late?
I think the unitarians would reasonably claim chronological precedence.
Comment by: Helen
19 05/8/08 5:28 AM | Comment Link |Unorthodoxology wrote:
Yes, I think so.
I agree. But conservative evangelicals have been doing that for years so I’m not surprised to see it in this Manifesto.
Again, this is not a new tactic.
I think they have oversimplified the history - but again that’s nothing new. I’m departing from orthodoxy here but I suspect the book of Acts is a very oversimplified version of ‘how the church began’.
I think they are.
I’d qualify it with ‘conservative’ too. Using that in a theological sense because, happily, this manifesto is an attempt to dissassociate from an automatic tie with conservative politics.
Unorthodoxology, yes, I do think it’s an attempt to disassociate with people they consider too liberal or too fundamentalist theologically.
I don’t know much about Ron Sider; I was a bit surprised to see Jim Wallis there but evidently he’s enthusiastic about the document. Politically I can understand he’s very much in line with what it says. Theologically perhaps he hasn’t taken any stands which make him a controversial figure to conservative evangelicals. Anyway one of the commenters on the manifesto site is disgusted with Jim Wallis’ inclusion and is judging it based on that (which seems silly to me - judge it based on its content, not on who signed it!)
While I don’t think who signs it should dictate its quality, I am interested in who is absent from the signatories.
I read yesterday that none of Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones were asked to sign it. I can understand that since they’re considered theologically controversial by conservative evangelicals (I’m guessing a bit about Tony by association with Emergent Village - I know more about the others being controversial). If a commenter is upset by Jim Wallis’ signature, I would imagine lots of conservative evangelicals would be upset by any theological document signed by any of those three. I think they’d feel, like Benjamin alluded to, that it must say nothing of substance theologically, or be heretical, if they could sign it.
Benjamin, as for Jim Wallis and Kay Arthur signing it, I think Jim Wallis is the outlier based on what I know about the other signatories. And I think he’s probably on there because he’s easy-going on theology and the rest are sure about what the True Faith is. And it looks good to have at least one evangelical on there thought of as politically ‘left’. Then it looks more like a coalition. Although it clearly is not a theological coalition.
What fascinates me is the absence of Bill Hybels and Rick Warren. They are some of the most well-know conservative evangelical leaders in the US (yes I agree it should be an American Evangelical Manifesto!). It’s hard to imagine they weren’t asked to be signatories. If they weren’t I wonder why not. And if they were and chose not to sign I’d love to know why.
Comment by: Helen
20 05/8/08 5:36 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin, yes, that first line about ‘one of the world’s largest and fastest growing movements’ jumped out at me too in view of Christine’s book. Either they haven’t read it or disagree with it, I suppose. Either way it helpfully substantiates that evangelicals do say this - Christine wasn’t making that up!
Comment by: Helen
21 05/8/08 6:16 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin wrote:
The unitarians - do you mean the Jews? :) Yes, they definitely came first!
As I mentioned in another response I’m skeptical of many conservative evangelical views of church history. I think they’re overly simplistic. They generally claim a unified faith the same as theirs arose very early on was held by the true church from then until today.
Comment by: Helen
22 05/8/08 6:40 AM | Comment Link |I just found out Rick Warren had input into the manifesto but was unable to be a charter signatory because he was out of the country.
I still want to know why Bill Hybels isn’t a charter signatory.
Comment by: Helen
23 05/8/08 7:40 AM | Comment Link |By the way there are already several comments posted on the manifesto site.
Comment by: Unorthodoxology
24 05/8/08 12:51 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin,
I laughed out loud when I read this:
“Jim Wallis having signed it may or may not counteract Kay Arthur having signed it. To me it says something interesting about the document that both of these two signed it–something pointing toward the possibility that the document fails, ultimately, to say much of anything.”
I wonder if Jim Wallis is signing this as an attempt to get more folks into his leftist Christian movement.
While I agree with Helen that it is a typical technique to try and redefine a word for one’s own purpose, I think this is fairly uncommon for evangelicals. Mostly, evangelical groups have been opt-in groups for fellow evangelicals, not groups that purposefully draw lines among evangelicals. In a way, this is a fracturing of the word evangelical.
Certainly, evangelicals have draw lines between themselves and the world. But I think it is somewhat uncommon for them to take people who consider themselves evangelicals and unilaterally cut them out of the fold.
Take the NAE or the NRB. They formed together and left it up to others whether they wanted to join. Even the NAE accepted charismatic groups. While there were certain standards theologically, the emphasis was on trying to build up those of like minds and find ways of building bridges among diverse evangelicals, rather than purposefully burning bridges.
I think that is one of the reasons I find this striking. HIstorically, evangelicals, while there has certainly been infighting over theology, have sided with each other when the chips are down. And they’ve haven’t tried to stop the word from being defined broadly and adopted by many.
But with national prominence and power, comes the desire for consolidation of power.
Thanks for turning me on to this document, though. It’s been a really fun discussion. And a reminder, I suppose, that I’m not evangelical. ;)
Comment by: Helen
25 05/8/08 1:51 PM | Comment Link |Unorthodoxology, I appreciate all your contributions to this conversation.
With all due respect, my (20 years) experience with conservative evangelicals doesn’t line up with what you said.
Generally they use the word ‘Christian’ rather than ‘evangelical’; having said that, they spend a lot of time and attention defining who is a Christian and who isn’t. What doctrine is truly Christian and what is heresy.
Maybe I’m wrong but I would be very surprised if the NAE and NRB let any groups/individuals join whose theology is errant according to the NAE or NRB. Charismatic theology agrees with conservative evangelical theology; I would think that’s why they were allowed to join. Not because it was an opt-in system. I’ve never heard of any conservative evangelical group that says “If you say you’re Christian that’s good enough for us!”
And if they think that about ‘Christian’, by implication they also think that about ‘evangelical’ since there’s no such thing as an evangelical who is not a Christian.
I haven’t seen this siding with each other when the chips are down. I’ve seen conservative evangelicals call other self-professed evangelicals heretics and express concern they’re leading people to hell rather than siding with them.
The only part that is different from my experience is using the word ‘evangelical’ to draw boundaries rather than ‘Christian’.
Even though I don’t agree with you on this point, as I said I appreciate your contributions. You’ve helped me think about what’s problematic about the manifesto.
Comment by: Helen
26 05/8/08 1:55 PM | Comment Link |Ok, I just did some research :). The NAE membership form has a box that you check “I have read and agree with the Statement of Faith”. So it’s an honor system but that shows members are definitely are supposed to agree with their stated beliefs. It’s not enough just to call yourself Evangelical.
Comment by: Unorthodoxology
27 05/8/08 3:38 PM | Comment Link |Perhaps I should have qualified my last statement. No longer an evangelical. I too was an evangelical for 20 years. Now I study the movement, and I think maybe I’m not communicating myself very well.
The NAE was created as an opt-in group. It is not *defining* evangelicals, but was created as a way for disparate evangelical groups to join together. Certainly there is a shared group of values within the NAE as the mission statement attests, and these bullet points are common within evangelicalism. Unlike the Manifesto, by not joining the NAE you weren’t saying there wasn’t an implicit implication that you weren’t evangelical.
The Manifesto is created as a definition that excludes. Unlike the NAE, which seeks to unify evangelicals, the Manifesto is a work of disunity within evangelicalism. It attempts to exclude classically evangelical groups (fundamentalistic evangelicals, for example) from being “evangelical.”
The NAE was created at a time when evangelicalism was embattled. So the chips were down, and the NAE was created as a way to fight back. The Moral Majority was created in the same way. All participating groups, of course, did not agree and there was significant infighting.
However, when nonevangelicals would criticize, they almost always would join together.
I agree that they spend a lot of time saying who is Christian and who is not. But they don’t spend a lot of time discussing who is and who isn’t evangelical. That this conversation, this need for a definition, is even taking place shows a fracturing of evangelicalism.
Charismatic theology, however, does not agree with all of evangelical theology.
I think this document takes aim at groups that the NAE would largely consider evangelicals (i.e. politicized conservative, fundamentalistic evangelicals), as well as more liberal evangelicals.
Comment by: Helen
28 05/8/08 5:48 PM | Comment Link |Thanks for further clarifying (and for your patience), Unorthodoxology. Ok, I see what you’re saying. I agree. And the NAE has indeed included politicized fundamentalistic evangelicals which the manifesto signatories seek to dissociate themselves from.
Comment by: benjamin ady
29 05/8/08 10:51 PM | Comment Link |Not necessarily. Although of course the Jews *are* unitarians, in some sense.
I don’t actually *know* church history. My friends Justin or Byron could help out here. But wasn’t Christianity early on Jewish to a greater rather than lesser extent? Did the early church *pray* to Jesus? I don’t think they did. I could be way off. But I thought the whole trinitarian thing didn’t get settled until … quite late–like the 3rd century or something. All that “very God of very God” stuff came in that much later, I thought. I could totally be *way* off.
Oh–some interesting commentary in the wiki article on early christianity
Comment by: benjamin ady
30 05/8/08 11:01 PM | Comment Link |I had to go poke around–here’s NRB’s statement of faith, to which members have to subscribe:
and here’s NAE’s
The difference? NRB says “lost and sinful man”, while NAE says “lost and sinful people”
Meanwhile, the both keep the “unto” rather than the “to”.
both of these latter facts, for some reason, made me grin enormously =)
Comment by: benjamin ady
31 05/8/08 11:15 PM | Comment Link |I kind of *like* the meaning of the word evangelical being all squishy. And I bet the recent manifesto isn’t really going to alter that very much.
Comment by: Byron Smith
32 05/8/08 11:31 PM | Comment Link |Being an outsider to the discussions in the US, I also noticed the American-centrism of the opening statement.
As for Benjamin’s question about early Christianity, although there were different groups and various disputes, an early high Christology (including prayer to Jesus) is recorded not only in the pages of the NT, but also in (for example) correspondence between Pliny the Younger and the Emperor Trajan (c. 112 AD). The very use of the title ‘Lord’ (kyrios) for Jesus is highly significant, as are practices as diverse as baptism and exorcism in Jesus’ name, the invocation of his name in worship, and certain scribal practices known as the ‘nomina sacra’.
There is indeed a difference between the later explicit and “settled” trinitarianism (though this continued to be defined and debated for centuries - a process which continues today) and earlier implicit beliefs embedded in worship practices, but I don’t think the claim that the idea of Jesus being divine is a late invention will hold much water historically (pace Dan Brown).
For a cutting-edge and well-respected historical scholar on these issues, check out the summaries in Larry Hurtado’s book “How on Earth did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus” or his bigger and more academic “Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity”. You could also try the slightly older and better known book “Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion” by Martin Hengel.
Comment by: Byron Smith
33 05/8/08 11:52 PM | Comment Link |I posted a lengthy comment, particularly in response to Benjamin’s questions about history, but it seems to have disappeared. :-(
Comment by: benjamin ady
34 05/9/08 12:04 AM | Comment Link |The underlying implication here is … that … there are religious and ideological differences–ones that have these attributes. I mean that’s assumed as given. This assumption seems a relatively large one to me, and I’m not convinced that *God* assumes that.
See how gently we extend our claws? We won’t hurt you. We promise.
Well, excepting in this particular massively publicized attempt to wrest the language of the discussion.
Wait–stop the presses. Did I miss the press conference? When did that happen? I’m yotta stoked. But … um … just one smallish question. When do we get to *see* this reversal? … Anybody there?
Okay–this *is* a wresting of the term. *Especially* since they are really talking about American Evangelicals. My experience was certainly one of negative over and before positive. Beyond that, everybody knows it. I mean see the book UnChristian. Who were all those people referring to when they said that the first thing that comes to their mind when you say “Christian” was “judgmental, antihomosexual, hypocritical, too political and sheltered”? (Here’s a hint: They weren’t thinking of the charismatics.)
Comment by: benjamin ady
35 05/9/08 12:19 AM | Comment Link |Oh dear. I find I am getting angry, reading the document.
I find their listing of their own faults insipid. Highly non-specific. If it wasn’t so angering it would be boring. It’s the same thing I sat under for many years in the evangelical church I grew up in. Lip service was paid to confessing our faults, but none of the *really* bad ones was ever mentioned, and generality rather than specificity was the theme. Why even bother?
I want to know how many of the charter signatories pastor a church which has an American flag prominently displayed in the sanctuary week in, week out, year after year?
This is what they lament, while American military personnel, many of them beyond doubt evangelical, using American made weaponry, much of it without doubt designed and manufactured by evangelicals, continue to kill innocent Iraqi children nearly every week. I don’t get that.
Why do they choose the other as the typifier? What about “typified by American Christian violence?”
(to use a little word I use around the house sometimes–”I’m crankified!”)
Comment by: Benjamin
36 05/9/08 12:22 AM | Comment Link |Byron
I fixed it! Thank you for saying something. Sometimes things get caught by the spam filter for no reason.
Comment by: Byron Smith
37 05/9/08 12:32 AM | Comment Link |Thanks! I hate that feeling of losing something. It never feels right when you try to say the same thing again.
Comment by: Byron Smith
38 05/9/08 12:40 AM | Comment Link |Great question. I only recognise a few of the charter signatories (generally the scholars, rather than pastors), but from what I know of at least some of them, I’m guessing that they would feel quite uncomfortable about national flags in worship spaces.
Comment by: Byron Smith
39 05/9/08 12:48 AM | Comment Link |This is what they lament in the culture warring. Of actual wars, almost all that is said is this:
Would have been nice if they explored the implications of that for attitudes towards foreign policy.
Perhaps it is difficult to be specific when they are aiming at a broad list of signatories. Perhaps they still could have been more specific. Do you think they were doing more than listing their faults? It sounded like they were expressing regret, attempting to repent, and calling for change. Isn’t there something worthwhile in that?
Comment by: Benjamin
40 05/9/08 1:51 AM | Comment Link |Byron
You don’t really get that in Oz, do you? Have you been in the States enough to see it? It’s very common here–to see an American flag in church sanctuaries. Very common. In fact, I wonder what the percentages are? Maybe Barna has polled it?
Comment by: Byron Smith
41 05/9/08 2:32 AM | Comment Link |I’ve only been to three church services in the States (two different churches) and I don’t think either had a flag, but I understand (mainly from reading on the web) that it is common.
In Oz, an occasional old and traditional Anglican church might have an Australian AND British flag (often as part of a war memorial to WWI), and similarly traditional Presbyterian churches might have a Scottish flag somewhere, but I suspect it is generally less of an issue, not least because fewer Australians are passionately nationalistic (or rather, the idolatry of nation occurs more often on the sports field than in spaces of Christian worship).
Comment by: Helen
42 05/9/08 4:25 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin, way to go rescuing Byron’s comment from the spam catcher - you rock! :)
Benjamin when they say ‘not being completely equated with any nationality’ they probably mean, Germans (for example) can be Evangelicals too, not ‘don’t fly your flag in your sanctuary’. I’m not sure other countries do that anyway - just as other countries don’t have a pledge. It’s probably an American cultural thing.
As for not confessing the “worst” sins - I assume you mean “they didn’t confess the sins which are worst in my opinion“. (Since you have said you’re more postmodern than modern)
People who aren’t Christians often blame Christians for not taking a stand against the problematic extremes of some Christians. Now a number of visible (mostly conservative?) evangelicals some have made some sort of attempt to do that and I appreciate it. Especially since I wouldn’t have expected it to come from conservative evangelicals, but from more liberal ones. Because conservative evangelicals tend to be so focused on getting people saved that they hesitate to do anything which would take attention away from that, such as saying, yes we really should care about the poor, or, we disagree somewhat with fundamentalists (even though they are the ones who agree with our emphasis on getting people saved).
Comment by: Helen
43 05/9/08 4:54 AM | Comment Link |Byron, thanks for joining the conversation. I appreciate your comments.
Can you remind me where people prayed to Jesus in the NT?
I agree that a high Christology is implied in the NT.
Comment by: Helen
44 05/9/08 4:56 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin, I meant to say, I also think it’s a little weird them saying they don’t lead with the word Evangelical yet this whole document is to rescue the identity of ‘Evangelical’.
Comment by: Helen
45 05/9/08 5:45 AM | Comment Link |Interesting response I read:
(from here)
Comment by: Helen
46 05/9/08 6:37 AM | Comment Link |Interesting commentary on the manifesto in the WSJ online:
Come on, you call this a manifesto?
Comment by: benjamin ady
47 05/9/08 9:44 AM | Comment Link |That would be beverly lahaye wife of tim layahe author of the extremely twisted and highly popular end times left behind series?
Comment by: Helen
48 05/9/08 12:07 PM | Comment Link |Yes, I think she’s Tim’s wife and yes he is the co-author of the Left Behind series (Jerry Jenkins is the other author).
Comment by: benjamin ady
49 05/9/08 12:46 PM | Comment Link |Of course long before he co-wrote the Left Behind books, the two of them (Tim and Beverly) wrote “The Act of Marriage”–the ‘naughty’ book which was on the bookshelf of all the couples in the church I grew up in, so that as a child whenever I visited their houses, being the bookmonger that I am, I would notice it in perusing their bookshelf, and would want to read it, but would be terrified of being caught, and so (mostly) never did. This memory makes me grin hugely–laughing at myself.
Comment by: benjamin ady
50 05/9/08 12:47 PM | Comment Link |I really liked the Alan Jacobs article you linked (in comment 46). He says
He nailed it.
Comment by: Helen
51 05/9/08 2:37 PM | Comment Link |Yes, I thought that was an interesting article. He also picked up on how American it was.
Comment by: karen
52 05/9/08 4:51 PM | Comment Link |It’s huge. When I was a kid growing up in church, we pledged allegiance to the American flag, the Christian flag (yes, there is a flag and a pledge, or there was) and then the bible. IN THAT ORDER! ;-)
The last church I attended went through a huge uproar when it was suggested that the American flag be removed from the altar and placed in the lobby. Oh lordy, the outcry that resulted - it was like a bomb went off! It eventually led to the head pastor being removed (actually, he resigned under pressure, but …). There were other issues, but the flag was the breaking point.
Here’s another manifesto response, written by an ex-fundy blogger.
Comment by: benjamin ady
53 05/9/08 5:31 PM | Comment Link |How annoying. I just realized that in order to comment on the manifesto sight, you have to sign it.
Maybe I should create a fake email address for the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and then sign it as him, and then I can leave a comment as him, which might be fun, although i would doubtless lack his eloquence.
They’re not exactly setting any records over there for signatories, are they? I mean their list of signatories is growing at a pre-internet rate. Sad, really.
Comment by: Byron Smith
54 05/9/08 7:42 PM | Comment Link |Of course the usual pattern attested by countless references is to pray to the Father in or through Christ. However, there are a few brief references in which Jesus is either included in the address (1 Thess 3.11) or addressed directly (Acts 7.59-60; 1 Corinthians 16.22; Revelation 22.20). Invocation of Jesus’ name is also a kind of prayer (”calling on the name of the Lord” in 1 Corinthians 1.2, Romans 10.13, 2 Timothy 2.22, etc.). Paul’s letters also nearly always start with a blessing along the lines of “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Comment by: Helen
55 05/10/08 6:09 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your answer, Byron.
So there is no role-modelling of prayer routinely addressed to Jesus only in the NT. There are two “Come Lord Jesus” [as in, please return to the earth soon] requests and Stephen’s dying cries “Lord Jesus receive my spirit” and “Lord do not hold this against them”. But no longer prayers which are addressed to Jesus.
Comment by: Helen
56 05/10/08 6:11 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin, wow, I didn’t notice that the day the site went up. Either I missed it, or maybe they got some critical comments and decided to eliminate them by adding the restriction that only signers can comment?
I think using someone else’s name on the Internet counts as fraud so I wouldn’t do that ;-).
Comment by: Helen
57 05/10/08 6:12 AM | Comment Link |I didn’t notice this subsite at first either. It has an html version of the manifesto.
Comment by: Byron Smith
58 05/13/08 9:39 PM | Comment Link |I thought much of this response from J. K. A. Smith was on the money.
Comment by: Helen
59 05/14/08 6:16 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for the link Byron - that’s an interesting thoughtful review.
Comment by: benjamin ady
60 05/14/08 10:46 PM | Comment Link |I’ll chime in with a thanks as well Byron. That was very readable =)