Over the last couple of days I’ve finally gotten around to reading (and reflecting) on the Evangelical Manifesto which has been garnering much attention since its publication last week. I’ve also spent some time reading various responses to the document- in both Emergent and more conservative Christian circles. So far, the response has been, for the most part, quietly positive. Whether or not this is ultimately where people want the evangelical movement to be, it is certainly a move in the right direction. Very few people, save perhaps extreme exlusionists like Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, would argue this point.

Before I opened up the PDF version of the document I took some time to take note of my mental/emotional state. Just as I often do before entering a movie theatre, I asked myself what my expectations were. Was I hopeful? Or was I skeptical? Was I cynical? Or was I positive? Did knowing some of the names of the people who did (and didn’t) sign the document predispose me to expect more, or less, from it?  Did I open the document considering myself an evangelical, or not? And did whether or not I considered myself an evangelical change how I was about to perceive and receive this document? I’d encourage you to ask yourself some of the same questions before reading this particular Evangelical Manifesto of which I speak.

Now, let me offer some initial thoughts after a day or two of letting this document percolate about my consciousness. Here goes:

1.) First off, the title is AN Emergent Manifeso: A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment. This is good. The fact that this was not called THE Evangelical Manifesto tells me that there was recognition that this is a broad movement- and that no one person, nor one group, can claim to offer THE definition. The document says as much:


However, while the AN versus THE is a good thing, I can’t help but question the capital E before every mention of the terms evangelicalism and evangelical. I really don’t think this applies. This is not an official entity. So, sorry folks, but in this article and from here on in I’ll continue to use the small “e”- because I think its most appropriate.

Next up, a paragraph that gave me pause. How does it strike you?

Now, read on to a related section…

Now, as has been noted elsewhere in the blogoshere, one can’t help but wonder at the bold claim that this is one of the world’s fastest growing Christian movements, one that is seeing rapid growth in the Global South. When I read such statistics I think of the growth of Pentacostalism, which isn’t exactly evangelicalism is it? And you’d think that, in a document seeking to define identity, if anything, there’d be an attempt, at least a desire, to draw such a distinction. At best, this is a desire to be inclusive. At worst, it is a desire to claim another movement's growth as one's own.

Okay, moving on, here is a paragraph that sincerely made me cheer:

Amen. Before various faith movements (be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or what have you) begin to address internal issues, I think it is vital that they first address their place within the larger context of Planet Earth and its dominant inhabitants- the human race. So I was very pleased to see this issue addressed, and addressed in such an open-armed way. Okay, moving on to the nitty-griity of definitions

Indeed. However, the lines are not so easily drawn.  In my mind, the issue is not whether or not to be political, but rather, how to be political.  Overall, one cannot easily delineate where theological ends and where political, or for that matter, lets be honest - social or cultural - begins. And I think some humble acknowledgement of this fact would have been helpful. That being said, at least the document says “should be defined” rather than “is defined”. But still, the division of these categories still seems to me to reek a little of modernism.

Okay, now for a section that made me scratch my head.

What are they getting at here? Jesus didn’t say much, except in rather vague and cryptic terms, about his views regarding authority and inspiration- especially in regards to how we understand those terms today. It seems a little bit of anachronism is seeping into the document here, maybe even oozing. And even so, whatever Jesus did affirm, he was clearly speaking of Old Testament texts- and even there only in reference to texts that existed in multiple, unfixed forms at the time – as was later attested to in findings in places like Qumran.

Okay, in a related section the steering committee writes

As others have eloquently pointing out, isn’t Sola Scriptura a tradition in itself? I would certainly argue that it is. Come on, folks. Something doesn’t have to burn and give off an aroma, or drape a bishop, or define rules of order, to be considered an example of tradition.

Moving on to a final quote:

Now, before I launch my critique of this section, let me offer an olive branch. As with any text, we should first ask ourselves an essential question: what is the intended audience? This document is very much an attempt to offer an “in-house” definition of evangelicalism. That being said, it is written, in many ways, as a correction piece. No doubt with hopes that the media (among others) will pick it up and consider it before aligning evangelicalism with movements such as the Religious Right in the future. So, perhaps it comes off a little more awkward and rigid than some of the authors would have liked. This is an unfortunate biproduct of living in an era of the soundbite. Lets just say it doesn't lend itself welll to sophisticated, nuanced conceptions.

Now that being said, it seems like this section offers several classic false dichotomies. Sacred/Secular, Public/Private, etc. The problem arises, in my mind, when we even shape the conversation in such terms. But, as I said, my olive branch remains extended, even if my arm is getting tired.

So, overall, I was happy with the document. Like I mentioned at the outset, it suggests to me that the trajectory of the evangelical movement is, for the most part, on the right course. Still, I have to wonder if that very trajectory, carried on a spirit of ecumenism, will one day make the term evangelical itself (whether with an "E" or an "e") completely obsolete. And wouldn’t that be ironic. We shall see…