A number of Evangelicals have jointly issued An Evangelical Manifesto. Here’s an excerpt:
All too often we have trumpeted the gospel of Jesus, but we have replaced biblical truths with therapeutic techniques, worship with entertainment, discipleship with growth in human potential, church growth with business entrepreneurialism, concern for the church and for the local congregation with expressions of the faith that are churchless and little better than a vapid spirituality, meeting real needs with pandering to felt needs, and mission principles with marketing precepts. In the process we have become known for commercial, diluted, and feel-good gospels of health, wealth, human potential, and religious happy talk, each of which is indistinguishable from the passing fashions of the surrounding world.
I’d be interested in any reactions to the document, which I encourage you to read in its entirety.
HT: JT
i confess that i had some hesitations and misgivings before reading the document, but was actually quite impressed and invigorated after taking in the whole of what it addressed.
i am glad they chose not to say that creationism and inerrancy were non-negotiables. for the first, there’s very little biblical justification anymore behind whatever latest flavor of anti-natural selection is being put forward; for the latter, somehow we can admit that we can’t prove the existence of God, but goshdarnit we have a golden egg this unprovable God laid right here. kind of stupid when you think about it … not that thinking is a pre-requisite of course in any of these endeavors.
more than anything, i was motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece – that it wasn’t yet another “here’s everything we’re against” rant but an effort to make the gospel again a message of good news. imagine that – the gospel being good news. American Christianity has lost this defining characteristic ever since it embraced the neo-con’s Jesus bobble-head doll.
perhaps one unintended benefit of the proposal is a clear opportunity to take this EM (Evangelical Manifesto) and align it with the other EM (Emergent Manifesto) and finally have all our EM & EMs in a row without demonizing the other side.
one can only hope…
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
Yeah, we can’t be sure the scriptures are without error, but goshdarnit they’re Good News! It’ll be a bummer if the parts we like turn out to be the untrue parts.
@ Mike, look at the defining features on page 7. Here you’ll find:
I believe this would include Sola Scriptura. This is also addressed on pages 8 and 9 describing the slippery slope of Liberal Revisionism:
To Larry’s point, what “good news” do we have if the source of that news is wrong? Think about it.
what “good news” do we have if the source of that news is wrong?
i think that’s my argument, not yours. if your faith is built on an inerrant bible, then it’s misplaced. your faith should be based in no small part on the God you’ve seen at work in your own life and in the lives of others. scripture plays a part, reason plays a part, experience plays a part – the stool has several legs because it would fall with only one. the challenge is to find the proper balance, not to err fully in the direction of only one.
to assume that there is a God because we have in our hands a perfect document from Him is to say that God had been unknown to Joe Everyman Human until the invention of the printing press and the Protestant reformation.
luckily, God didn’t wait until you and Larry came along to ask permission to work in the lives of the people He created.
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
@Mike: to the extent that a person’s faith is built on an inerrant Bible — as opposed to the truth conveyed by that Bible — I’d agree with you about it being misplaced. The proper basis for a person’s faith is truth, and the Bible is a truth-bearer, not a truth-maker… it is inerrant if and only if its testimony corresponds to reality.
Would you say that the Bible makes objective claims about reality? If so, to what extent do you think those claims are true?
“The challenge is to find the proper balance.”
And the standard one uses to do that would be?
I don’t assume there is a God because we have a perfect document from Him, I assume we have a perfect document from Him because there is a God (Who is perfect and cannot lie).
As far as our experience, R.C. Sproul says it better than I can:
“One of the most dangerous things you can do as a Christian is to determine your theology by your experience”
There is nothing intrinsically good or noble about “experience” in and of itself. It must be measured against a standard to determine if it has any worth. Joseph Smith and Mohammad each had an “experience” with “god” but both were dead wrong and have led millions into eternal damnation.
“The proper basis for a person’s faith is truth, and the Bible is a truth-bearer, not a truth-maker… ”
Very well said Hugh. I think that’s what I was trying to get at but didn’t, at least not as well as you did! 🙂
Al Mohler provides an excellent analysis of the “manifesto” in his column this morning.
An Evangelical Response to “An Evangelical Manifesto”
In many of the minds of the world…
Evangelical =
Conservative
Republican
Anti-Abortion / Pro Life / Clinic Bombers
Angry White Males
Backwoods
Uneducated
This is much of what people see on the TV.
As I have written before here, the Bible tells us that the world will hate us because they hated Jesus too.
Unfortunately we are hated for many political and social reasons and not from the biblical reasons of balanced demonstration of our love for each other and compassion for others, while also pointing out injustices and sin in the world. We radiate hate and anger and not as much radiating Christ.
There is a balance of being salt and light in there somewhere, and that doesn’t not mean rubbing salt in wounds, or using laser light to burn people.
I am not a fan of labels anyway. I personally cringe when called a Baptist or Republican as I do not fall in lock step with any group, but serve where God has me to be.
There’s my 2 cents if anyone is buying it. 😉
“doesn’t not” = “doesn’t”
LOL! No Grammar checker!!
Melinda from Stand To Reason makes a good point:
Full blog entry…