an evangelical manifesto
I like this document; It describes exactly why I can, and do, self-identify as an Evangelical. Some of the key points in the manifesto are below. However, it can be downloaded, along with a study guide here.
- First, to be Evangelical is to hold a belief that is also a devotion
- Second, Evangelical belief and devotion is expressed as much in our worship and in our deeds as in our creed
- Third, Evangelicals are followers of Jesus in a way that is not limited to certain churches or contained by a definable movement.
- Fourth, as stressed above, Evangelicalism must be defined theologically and not politically; confessionally and not culturally.
- Fifth, the Evangelical message, “good news” by definition, is overwhelmingly positive, and always positive before it is negative
- Sixth, Evangelicalism should be distinguished from two opposite tendencies to which Protestantism has been prone: liberal revisionism and conservative fundamentalism.
- Seventh, Evangelicalism is distinctive for the way it looks equally to both the past and the future.
Comments
30 Responses to “an evangelical manifesto”
Leave a Reply
The Books
Affiliates
Recent Blog Entries
Recent Comments
-
lying to god in worship
- Frank Wilder said: Amazing Alan. Thanks for...
- Richie “Rich” Merritt said: Great Post and quote!...
- armany said: Thanks for the...
- David Phillips said: Alan, Great word...now I...
- Peggy said: The Abbess concurs... two new books by november…yay!
- Johnny Laird said: Looking forward to both...
- Santosh said: Can't wait for both of...
- jay hardwick said: looking forward to both,... The Trouble with Paris (pt. I)
- Richie “Rich” Merritt said: WoW Lucy J..., that is... Networked structures: Liquid v. Solid church
- Scott K said: Couple of weeks late....
Yes Alan, I liked it too when I read it last week. Your points four above was one I particularly applauded and points five and six are ones I find especially important too. As I have said to a few, I am happy to identify myself as an Evangelical thus defined. I think there were a few weaknesses with the document, amongst them an insufficiently clear definition of fundamentalism which has got some conservative bloggers scratching their heads, but the strengths far outweighed the weaknesses. And, speaking as a person who is particularly focussed on engaging with religious pluralism, how they handled that issue was a breath of fresh air. Their call for civic engagement seemed balanced and compelling. I am keen to hear how Reformed types in Australia received this and if it could serve as some common ground to build upon.
the points you noted above are good…
but do yo think that “envangelical” is too loaded a word?
sorry that should read “evangelical”
I think the words “church” and “ministry” and “gospel” and “meditation” and “Christian” and “Jesus” are all equally loaded. I remember when I first converted to Christianity I felt queezy in the stomach about applying the word “Christian” to myself, for quite a number of weeks. I had so many deep negative connotations associated with it. Because of this I do use alternative language where it suits, I do sometimes identify myself as a “Jesus mystic” rather than a “Christian” in certain company, particularly before that have a chance to get to know me. But, should we surrender our language? I have come to see that as unwise and ultimately unproductive as well. I think its a problem we ultimately have to confront head on. This document does that.
Mate! Matt is smart. Good answer above Mattie. All words that have been used for a while are problematic.
Deebs, for all the problems of the Evangelical movement, I still believe it most thoroughly represents the Biblical picture of things. the other traditions have variously moved from the Bible as the primary reference document. E.g. the Catholic faith interprets via church and church tradition. Liberals all but abandon the Biblical revelation of key doctrines, the Orthodox put way too much emphasis on tradition, etc.. I do believe that the Gospel must be the organizing center of theology…and this is why the Evangelical movement is da one!
hey matt & alan,
yeah, i don’t really have a problem with that - just asking the question. i agree that we’ve got to use words, otherwise we can’t explain ourselves - i think matt is on it when he mentions context; although i prob fall in the evangelical category, i wouldn’t use the word to explain my beliefs to my friends who don’t know jesus because i don’t think the word helps; i.e. they wouldn’t understand what i mean by evangelical.
secondly, i’ve never really identified as an “evangelical” - the word has just never been used/discussed in my family/environment (maybe it was assumed). so i have to read the points above to clarify exactly what an “evangelical” is … even now to me the word’s not that important… even though i agree strongly with all the above.
I wonder if the word is better understood in America than Australia? Although I am an evangelical, I don’t think I want to fight over the word, because my guess is about 99% of Australians think “evangelical” means “evangelistic”. (Typical sample quote: “The Mormons came to my door brimming with evangelical zeal”) I include practicing Christians in that figure… it’s a little-used, poorly understood word. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an Australian media release with “evangelical” mentioned in it (used correctly).
I wonder whether the fact the church in Australia is smaller than in America, that we don’t seem to do the same amount of public brawling between the Christian left and right and centre… there’s more interest in survival, and increasingly, in mission.
In most contexts, I’d probably use “biblical Christianity” to describe what the writers are trying to describe… I think it conveys the ideals of evangelicalism without bamboozling everyone.
Alan, you’ll give me a big head, behave.
Janet, I think the problem we have in Australia is that the only time Australians see the word “evangelical” used is in inflammatory media reports about events in America. I am inclined to think it would be nice for evangelicals to define ourselves for a change rather than have the media project definitions onto us. I draw attention to the fact that certain parts of this document are explicitly directed at the media for precisely this reason. And I don’t think “biblical” Christianity is safer - consider how fundies are likely to respond if you try and claim a monopoly on that.
Oh, and since alternative traditions have been mentioned, anyone who reads my blog can see I’ve been influenced by them. With the evangelical manifesto in view however, I would be inclined to identify myself as an Evangelical “informed by” Orthodoxy, Anabaptism, Catholic monasticism and other traditions rather than “Post-Evangelical”. That is, I am not eclectic in an indescriminate manner but an integrationist with an essential evangelical core. I find it interesting to note that my Orthodox friends have recognized this.
True… and fringe groups do have a field day claiming to be the only groups true to biblical faith. Sigh…
Matt, like you I am evangelical at core, and influenced by other traditions… eg Catholic spirituality practices.
The Churches of Christ heritage (at heart, a deeply evangelical movement) is to call ourselves “Christians only… but not the only Christians”. And in some ways I’m reluctant to publicly use other titles (evangelical, charismatic, born again, blah blah blah..) because it can easily slide more a debate about who is in and who is out, who is right and who is wrong, who maintains the true faith and who is apostate… in reality that which unites us is more important than that which divides us.
That’s not to criticise the writers because I agree with them… it’s just for myself I like to keep the language of “Jesus” front and centre, not the language of “evangelical”. I’m open to the thoughts of others though.
“Christians only… but not the only Christians” I like that. And I totally agree with keeping the language of Jesus front and centre, not the language of “evangelical”. As suggested by my comment about Orthodox friends, I quite happily join with them under the one identity of “Christian” in public forums and emphasize that which is common to all.
It’s just that, there are times and places when it is appropriate to acknowledge differences - when asked about those differences for instance - and its helpful at such times to have a coherent and clear response. Having the option of referring people to a document like the evangelical manifesto is, I think, potentially quite useful. Conversely, when my Orthodox friends are asked the same question, it I would really appreciate them sending enquirers to the evangelical manifesto in preference to some of the more nefarious sites out there! That is where it is even more helpful!
That was cool. That’s everything I want evangelicalism to be and embrace coming from the evangelical background.
Hello, this is Lucy J. I have enjoyed e-visiting you during my lunch break at work, so I feel like I get some soul-food and body-food at the same time… I haven’t gotten indigestion yet, despite the great variety of morsels mused over. I was ‘baptised’ into the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Australia as a baby, and was duly ‘chatechised’ with respective Creeds and articles, but in all my life of following Jesus, which at times has been a merry dance down a multi-denominational Garden Path, I’ve never seen myself as an Evangelical, as such. I do have a strong affinity with the core principles and also strongly identified with the sub-title on Brian McLaren’s book “A Generous Orthodoxy” with which I imagine most of you are familiar. It’s interesting that lately I have been grappling with what to call myself when people query who I am and what I do/believe/support etc. For now, I probably feel most truthful to say that I am a follower of The Way, being the Person and the Teachings of Jesus Christ. Although technically I would be categorised as an Anglican for the pure reason I have been regularly attending and Anglican “programme” (they won’t call the Anglican indigenous group of people in a certain part of town a “church”), I am loathe to identify myself with an evangelical denomination whose local representatives are unfortunately practising the Faith in ways that border on misogyny and racism. That sounds harsh, but in my prayers and in my relationships with all involved I find it truly challenging and transformative to walk the Way with Jesus of Isaiah 61
/Luke 4
/John 10
fame! It’s just that it’s such a long walk and although I’m a trained dancer, I stumble way too often in the Garden. But hey, I am keen to keep following The Way and find some very interesting and illuminating companions like yourselves from time to time!
Hey Lucy… I guess in the end the main point of language is communication… if a word miscommunicates because of the baggage it acquires, it make sense to me to use different words!
And you’re right… evangelical Sydney Anglicans have a certain “image” about them!!!! (as a passionate advocate for the full and free use of the spiritual gifts of Christian women in the world and the church it’s not baggage I’m happy with either.)
Ah yes, I have a Sydney Anglican stamp on my inter-denominational passport too. I currently run with the Baptists. They’re not too bad but they go a bit silent when I express dismay that they’re not as Biblical about communion as they are about baptism, “Why even the Catholics get that right!” I say. They’re never quite sure of what makes for a decent comeback. Yet some of them what to make me a deacon. Go figure. One of the advantages of being a bitsa Lucy is you learn how to push everyone’s buttons
Well, your Baptist friends should retort that communion was celebrated as a community meal in the early church communities… the idea that ONLY a male ordained priest representing Christ could conduct a legitimate communion was a post-Constantian development… in the world of the early church all believers were seen as “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God.”(I Peter 2:9
) In Pauline theology, a formal priesthood was unnecessary, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (I Timothy 2:5
)
We C of C’s are a sacramental tradition and celebrate “lay led” communion as the central point of our gatherings… with an open table to all who confess Christ. (so like Mary Poppins, we’re practically perfect.. ha ha!)
Although, I think the most authentic biblical restorationists are the emerging groups that celebrate a meal together as part of their gatherings… provided this is done with genuine “remembrance”.
I was referring more to the symbolism aspect. Baptists insist not only on adult baptism but also on full immersion. My jib is directed more at their use of leavened bread instead of unleavened bread and grape juice instead of wine. If they are such sticklers for Biblical symbolism in one rite, why not the other? “Weaker brother” arguments that highlight potential risk of turning someone to alcoholism really don’t stand up to much scruitiny as a justification for their varience in practice, and many of them know it. My alternative tack is to suggest that, if we are going to vary things why not beer and pizza given that is more contemporarily relevant. Why is grape juice so so important, what’s the Biblical justification? I have had similar conversations with some of them over their feer that using candels is too Catholic. “Explain to me then, your theological justification for the greater sacredness of fluorescent tubing?” I think to get the to think.
For the record, Baptists allow lay led communion too and I am with them 100% in that. Though in practice this tends to only happen in small groups, not main worship services.
Sorry, some of that came out a bit garbled. Posted too quick. Hope you get the gist of it though.
I totally agree… great to see you stirring up the sacred cows! I LOVE the “greater sacredness of fluorescent lighting” phrase… LOL!
(I was really just stirring you up for fun, but with with responses like that, I might have to do this more often!)
If ya wanna go to a sacred cow bullfight, ya just gotta hang around Red**** for a while! Last night at ‘church’, one of our dark-complexioned picadors called the visiting Bishop out in front of the gathered local community, referred to him as a pharisee and ‘laid hands on him” whilst praying loudly in an unintelligible language! That was right after a rousing sermon on Acts 15
by the Matador who had been strategically and underhandedly ousted from the ministry arena over the past few months! I was just having kittens in prayer… and it all blew over, so to speak… the spear wound will most likely cause revenge reprisals and undoubtedly be a major First Aid Prayer Project for some time to come!
Lucy J
Oh my goodness Lucy… now THERE’S an element of the early church even the restorationists don’t aspire to… chaos and conflict! (Although I guess life is always a bit messy… and we should expect mission on the margins to be even more messy!)
Another comment… within C of C’s we do have unleavened bread, but fall short of the glory of the Catholics by having unfermented juice.
I think it’s interesting to note what a HUGE issue temperance was for evangelical churches in the past (in Australia at least)… back in the days when men controlled all the purse strings this was seen as a massive social evil… women and children left impoverished because of the amounts of money spent on alcohol by men, and domestic violence against women was believed to be inflammed by alcohol. So most evangelical churches developed an “anti-alcohol” stance 100 + years ago, and have taken a while to get over it. (some still haven’t, despite the fact we live in a very different social climate now).
(Al probably doesn’t like THIS bit of evangelical history!!!)
Lucy, that wouldn’t happen to be the same church that had a mural drawn on the wall by gurilla iconographists about a year ago….?
Janet, I must profess almost complete ignorance about the impact of the temperance movement amongst Australian evangelicals. I have only been part of a Baptist church for 6 years and was invited in by an assoicate pastor who, not only had a rather huge beer bottle collection, but soon became one of my favourite drinking buddies. Prior to that I was a member of an Anglican church, and long before that Catholic. So you might say my exposure has been rather mild. There are a few within our church who go for complete abstinance, whom I have fun with occasionally. But they are a minority. An influential minority to be sure but a minority all the same. You might say, as far as Baptists go, I come from the Mike Frost school (Small Boat Big Sea seems somehow to have gotten past the church by laws and puts on a much more decent communion).
Oh and Janet, stir away, but be warned it’s a Pandora’s box! Speaking of stirring up sacred cows, have you ever seen me write about the sacred cow dung worshippers? I met them at a Mind Body Spirit Festival in Sydney a few years back and witnessed one of their sunset worship rituals. It was fascinating stuff. And it raises some interesting issues in terms of how churches might contextualize Christian worship for them. But the stirrer in me would suggest this is one cultural context where many churches aren’t so far behind
Sorry, I digress.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement
“The temperance movement attempted to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed within a community or society in general — and even to prohibit its production and consumption entirely. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union is a prominent example of a religion-based temperance movement.
Most of its main supporters (in all countries) have been women, often as part of what some describe as feminism[ref?]. The strong temperance movements of the early 20th century found support from women who were opposed to the domestic violence associated with alcohol abuse, and the large share of household income it could consume, which was especially burdensome to the low-income working class.”
(My understanding this movement was especially strong in the more evangelical churches of the time… Methodists, Baptists, Churches of Chrsit, Salvation Army, Bretheren)
Having thrown up endless red herrings on this thread (sorry Al), I might at this point divert the conversation back to “missional church”… because I think the temperance movement may provide a cautionary tale for us all.
Part of the best of the evangelical heritage is engagement with serious social issues… slavery, universal education etc… and this is a core part of faithfully outworking “good news for all mankind”. However, our tendency to compartmentalise means we can easily become overly focused on issues that aren’t central to our calling as disciples of Christ. Even starting with the best of intentions, one can slide into becoming more of an “issue and agenda shaped movement” than a “Christ focused holistic mission shaped movement”. I think the temperance movement did precisely that.
The choices and values and spirituality and actions of the founders of the various Christian movements reverberate over time (for good and ill) into the “church cultures” that follow. You only need to study the history of any given denomination to see how this works itself out. This should probably give us pause for thought into the cultures we might establish in new missional endeavours.
Perhaps the healthiest “culture factor” we should work into our lives and families and missions and churches is “listening to the Spirit… being willing to follow… being willing to change… being willing to re-evaluate… being willing to die.”
*sigh* Simple and difficult.
Ha ha Matt… just read comment 23!
Established churches have a higher level of reverence for old dung than fresh dung. (as in the wineskins parable they are inclined to say: “the old is better”)
Thanks for the threads of thought… got a few to hang off them… I’ve danced and prayed at the Dung Gate of the Old City of Jerusalem… gates and doors have at times been strong images for me… e.g. Rev 3
Philadelphia - opening and closing doors)… and of course the gates of hell NOT prevailing against the movement of “the church” that our Lord Jesus Christ is building… it’s a bit like standing at the door with the job of making sure THE GOOD NEWS can flow into and grow in “the church” and the tangent/counterfeit news is prayerfully ushered out. The Evangelical Manifesto gives some principles that protect, encourage, and empower that kind of process, so that “the church” can be equipped through the APEST-practising people to live and advance the Kingdom of the Heavens here on earth. There seems to be seasons of work… something that seems relevant and important in some seasons is not so in others (e.g. Temperance – BTW I won a prize for a Temperance essay at my primary school where the Principal and teachers were those very feminist types Janet alluded to, evolving out of the WW1 & WW2 women’s emancipation era. I wrote it when I was 12 as we were provided the literature to base it on at school. It had the effect in my family of 3 – Mum, Dad and me – of Mum suspecting Dad of an alcoholism problem which sped up their journey to the brink of divorce and both of them having a nervous breakdown!). It’s probably important to “keep in step with the Spirit” and read the times and the seasons. Matt – I’m not sure about the mural thing… maybe it got painted over because it’s plain blue now, and I was talking to my ousted Matador friend the other day about how wonderful it would be to have community artists paint a mural to creatively welcome people at the door!
Lucy J
Oh my goodness… that’s a heavy experience for a 12 year old to be amidst… I hope you’ve recovered!
It does remind me whenever involved with a social issue… no matter what it is… it is important to embrace that Jesus loves the sinner, and not to become caught up in self righteousness or becoming judgmental. I’d have to say that Christian activists on the right and the left often lack the “aroma of Christ” in loving grace toward their opponents. Just look at some “Christian” websites… crikey!!! (Oops… remembers the international readership of this blog… I mean, my goodness me!)
Well, Janet, I’ve clicked over the half-century now, and both my parents died decades ago… it was only in retrospect triggered by your comments that I saw the situation that way… but I do think it’s fascinating to realise that there could be ‘victims’ and consequences of things we espouse and practise that we have no idea about or control over. So yes, like you, I think that emphasising LOVE is particularly important when we get close to any aspects of righteous judgment in situations in which we can find ourselves. It reminds me of ‘critical thinking’ theory… asking the questions ‘Who benefits from that?’ and ‘Who is harmed by that?’, no matter how right and good we are convinced we are about a pet concept or practice. I always think of myself wearing gian “L” plates. (L being for Learner, for those who might not be familiar with driver licencing procedures).
Lucy J
Alan,
I find point five of the manifesto quite vague. What do you mean by the good news being more “positive” than “negative”. Are you defining positive as dealing with God’s love and the negative aspects of the gospel as those dealing with God’s judgment and wrath? Or does “positive” refer to what Christians “stand for” as opposed to what we “stand against” (negative)? Please clarify.
Randall, interesting question. I wont answer for Alan of course but personally I see it as interconnected. I say yes we should focus more on what we “stand for” more than what we “stand against” and I find it distressing when Christians so focus on sin and judgement (and specific sins and specific judgements) that our hope becomes almost an afterthought. The good news is first and foremost the message that Jesus is risen and that he is Lord, and that death and sin have been overturned. Of course the gospel challenges us to look at our life and our world in a new way, and looking will necessarily involve a confrontation of the ugliness to be found within it, but the ugliness should never take centre stage.