An Evangelical Manifesto: Open Discussion Forum
According to the official website, “An Evangelical Manifesto is an open declaration of who Evangelicals are and what they stand for. It has been drafted and published by a representative group of Evangelical leaders who do not claim to speak for all Evangelicals, but who invite all other Evangelicals to stand with them and help clarify what Evangelical means in light of “confusions within and the consternation without” the movement. As the Manifesto states, the signers are not out to attack or exclude anyone, but to rally and to call for reform.”
Since this topic is bound to generate much needed discussion, this thread is dedicated to all things directly related to the document. Please do not plug up any of our other threads with EM comments. Rather, discuss it here.
…………………………………………………………..
Theothursdays for 05/08/08 has been postponed to, if God wills, 05/15/08.
26 Comments, Comment or Ping
Travis
Stephen in your opinion before i start looking into this site, is this a good thing or is it just another breeding ground for heresy and apostates to make there claim to say “I AM EVANGELICAL” we already know many men who claim this are no more brothers and sisters than Satan himself.
May 8th, 2008
Travis
CM says
“We are committed to a civil public square – a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths as well. Every right we assert for ourselves as Christians is a right we defend for all others.”
Do all religions have the same freedoms we do as Christians, absolutly not, in public square yes they should with in the confines of the law, but they can not experience the freedom that comes in Christ.
May 8th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Travis, I have just started reading it today for the first time. I have just completed page 5 (I’m reading it slowly) and so far it sounds like a bunch of hogwash.
May 8th, 2008
Fusion
Gentlemen,
I know I will receive a lot of heat for this, but I have taken a liking to the document. If you are interested, you can look at the Cambridge Declaration which was signed by people like John Macarthur, D A Carson, Michael Horton etc.. and is held by members of the Association of Confessing Evangelicals. The critique of the modern church that is in that document is similar to the Evangelical Manifesto (EM for short). Overall it is orthodox in feel and doesn’t have anything I would essentially disagree, however as someone who has struggled with being called “Evangelical” I think this is a good first step. The purpose of the document is two-fold: To show what it means to be evangelical and to see how we can get along with people who don’t agree with our basic presuppositions (about 5 billion world wide). Both are needed goals. I’m sure we’ll all get to talk about more about it in the future.
May 8th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Out of the seven distinctives, I appreciated #5. The others fall way short and could serve a host of interpretations.
#1 has potentially heretical Christology;
#2 ignores the active obedience of Christ, fulfilling the legal demands of God’s Law, doesn’t mention justification;
#3 misrepresents regeneration and says that “the lifelong conversion that results is the only pathway to a radically changed character and way of life,” seemingly referring to life “in this world” as the goal;
#4 uses “Bible” and “Scripture” in the reverse order (in my [Reformed Protestant] view) - it should read: “we believe that Jesus’ own teaching and his attitude toward the total truthfulness and supreme authority of [SCRIPTURE], God’s inspired Word, make the [BIBLE] our final rule for faith and practice.”;
#5 is OK;
#6 can mean almost anything;
#7 is hideous without Scripture at the forefront - read it as a Mormon or any other cult - there will be no disagreement from them! Hideous.
Next, the “Defining Features” (pgs. 7-11).
May 8th, 2008
Fusion
Aren’t we being a bit nitpicky Stephen? I agree that 6 is pretty vague (though if I can take a stab at it, it probably has something to do with the Kingdom being lived in our lives now-or words to that effect). Would I have liked more detail? Sure, I don’t think however they weren’t aiming to be technical. Overall, they mention sola scriptura, Jesus’ affirmation of the OT and the NT, the sanctity of life and the holiness of marriage. But I’m sure there will be more to discuss.
May 8th, 2008
agogley
why do we need another declaration? Westminister and others aren’t adequate?
May 8th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
“Aren’t we being a bit nitpicky Stephen?”
Yes.
I read #6 again Frank, since as you know I value your opinion. I have even more complaints now. It is not a good idea to construct a document full of vague statements and propositions if reform is in view as a goal. Reform to what? Is Christian doctrine too precise now and needs to be muddled a bit here and there? Is it virtuous these days to be creatively vague, and that by design? Anyhow brother, as you’ve correctly noted: “I’m sure there will be more to discuss.”
May 8th, 2008
Steve Blackwell
I can understand why this group of men must attempt this seemingly “last ditch effort” to bring new life to a dying organization, it is to be expected. Men have their fingerprints all over the Church construction, beginning way back in Babel, and they are no less confused now. Men simply have not been able to keep their hands off the things of God. All the statistics show that the world is inside the Church, and it has become the dwelling place of every unclean bird. The Church as a small, tested, and suffering thing is repugnant to the world, and they will have none of that for their church; it will be glorious in its stature and presentation, but, God says in Isa 48:10-11, “Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have chosen you in the furnace of affliction. For My own sake, for My own sake, I will do it; For how should My name be profaned? And I will not give My glory to another.”
These men say that their heritage goes back to Jesus, and not to Constantine, but they are wrong. The institutional Church as we know it today has its origin with Constantine and not Jesus. Jesus clearly warned in chap. 3 of Revelations that if the Church did not return and do its first works over again that He would remove its lampstand. There is no record in history that the Church ever returned to its virgin purity, it never returned past Constantine and there is only a small remnant of Christianity in the area today. It appears that Christ was not bluffing. But, these men will not repent, they will only institute another, better, more dignified document, and continue to try and build the Church with the materials of man. This is just one more brick in the construction, and men still have their name on it. They seem to think that all that is needed is better organization; where is the faith in that? God told Solomon that there was not to be the sound of the hammer and chisel in the construction of the temple 1Kings 6:7. God would be the builder, and it was to be done His way, not ours. This is just makeup applied to a serious wound. We haven’t learned yet that unless God builds the house it is built in vain!
Steve Blackwell
May 8th, 2008
Travis
Apology,
I personaly think it is good to continually make new declarations, it doesnt have to change from the westminister, but its more for the sake of the church making it know in its time what scripture says, and how new words like, evangelical or reformed are used in contrast to the people who say they are “evangelicals or reformed”
Fusion
To show what it means to be evangelical and to see how we can get along with people who don’t agree with our basic presuppositions
These two points I agree with, this must be known in our day. But here is the question, Does this manifesto do this?
May 8th, 2008
Soisauce001
Long time no see.. Just thought I’d stop in.. Well here are my thoughts on this whole thing.. I’m going to take the stand that this whole shin dig isn’t all that bad. I agree a lot of it is vague but then again it is also is an attempt to “circle the wagons.” “Evangelicals” is such a broad name and I think it’s important to define what it means to be evangelical. I think can needs to be further defined but in many ways it’s a start.. I mean John MacArthur is an evangelical and so is Rod Parsley (Heretic). This two men claim to be evangelical but they are both totally different. I think this attempt to define Evangelicalism is an attempt to shut the door on heretics as much as possible.. The more defined it becomes the small this circle will become. But this first attempt is a way of holding people who claim to be evangelicals accountable, and I think that’s important.
May 8th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Not too crazy about some of the people on the steering committee…Rich Mouw…the beautiful man who apologized to the Mormons on behalf of the Evangelicals stating “we have sinned against you”!
May 9th, 2008
john
It feels like Corinth again. Lots of ideas about how to live for Jesus.
We could do alot worse thats for sure. But until the day reformation theology is preached in pentacostal churches and Calvin is seated in the pew with Chuck Smith we can talk new-reformation all we want but it wont happen. These first baby steps are just that baby steps. Theres no one here that has any qualms about kicking heretics to the curb, so thats not going to be a problem, the problem will lay in presenting the glorious gospel of Christ with power and passion from a reformed point of view and produce biblical, convincing statements that create hunger for Jesus Christ and his Word.
Who cares if we love the manifesto or hate it? In the end we must look at what we present to the Church and the World as a message and see if our lives and our message say the same thing.
The best thing that could happen to some of us is to be sent to the harvest fields of arminian churches and present the grace-rich gospel we know and love and do it without compromising or alienating everyone.
I say if the manifesto opens the door for the glorious gospel we preach to have a welcome mat and an offer to speak, I say drive a truck through it and thank God for the manifesto.
Do we preach the manifiesto? No, its a platform just like biblicalthough.com is a platform to speak. Yea I know I could look bad if I preached at Robert Schullers Church, some of us might think ole john is compromising with pop psych preaching. But wait until you hear the message, then make your decision.
John
May 9th, 2008
Mario
“The best thing that could happen to some of us is to be sent to the harvest fields of arminian churches and present the grace-rich gospel we know and love and do it without compromising or alienating everyone.”
John, our goal is exactly this. To present the grace rich gospel we know and love. We strive to do it without compromise. We do this all to the glory of God. As far a alienating everyone, I would say they are alienated as it is. All we can do is increase the intensity of biblical material going out into the “evangelical’ world without compromise in the assurance the Spirit of Grace is working on His people! We must plant the seeds! This is our ministry! If the biblical material is there and is not silent, and the people will not come, putting a counsel together sure will not outsmart what Christ has revealed.
May 10th, 2008
Frank
A better name would be “Neo-evangelical Manifesto.” It’s amazing how wordy this thing is, yet it says so little about doctrine. I’ll be terribly surprised if this manifesto has much of an impact on believers or on society in general. Yawn.
May 10th, 2008
John
Hello Mario:
Jesus preached in the synogogues, that didnt make him a pharasee anymore so than the phrasees were made Jesus. Im glad your with me on this Mario, quite frankly Ive met so many christians who dont know anything about the reformed faith or perspective, they are handed finneyism sunday after sunday in his form of altar calls and ‘deciding’ whether to believe God or not. On the other hand they are handed semipelagian interpretations of scripture over and over, From Romans to Ephesians no choice is left to God to do anything without our permission.
Introducing a God that has a choice and a God that is not asking permission is a huge alteration to their belief platform. But unless someone does it, error after error must abound and a long continuing drift toward more emergent church type philosophy will crop up.
You could feel the tone and text of the manifesto being ever so careful not to offend. Who wants to be offensive? Jesus was not offensive for carnal purposes, but he was horribly offensive to every person eventually. Jesus is a scandalon, what I dont like about ‘manifestos’ are they seem to want to remove Jesus as a scandalon and make him a bridge. We do not need Jesus to be a bridge to the the unsaved or the saved. The Spirit of God has already accomplished this -again without our permission- We are one already if God has birthed us into his kingdom.
Just as Paul teaches in Romans 9 there is an elect within the ’so-called’ elect. Or negatively put, they are not all Israel who are called Israel. I see the manfesto trying to round up the ‘elect’ under the banner “‘evangelical” We cannot fault these men for attempting to herd the sheep into a known sheepfold. We are very careful to do that here, we dont mince words about errant sheepfolds and coming out of them.
We cannot see hearts here anymoreso than they see them. The attempt to create boundries is good and a valuable step. Dr Morey is very careful to establish the boundries of his intended meanings when he presents his views. I see the manifesto doing the same thing. It also contains biblical expectations of truth in fruit, doctrine, works,
John
May 11th, 2008
Johnny B
Stephen, am I reading a different document? This is the one I read.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/cambridge.html
May 12th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Yes, that’s the wrong document. In the OP there is a link to the “official website” that will give you access to the document in full, the document in summary, and a study guide to the document.
May 12th, 2008
Johnny B
Thank You
May 12th, 2008
Travis
I can see this thing becoming huge just like Joel Osteens Church, if you catch my drift.
May 12th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
One of my personal heroes, Dr. Al Mohler, has weighed in on the Evangelical Manifesto. He explains why he was unable to sign it. His reasons are very close to some of the criticism in this thread, some of it almost verbatim (trust me, I did not plagiarize Mohler! – Maybe he plagiarized me!). I trust Mohler’s wise approach to many (not all) controversies – that’s one reason why he’s a hero. But I have always admired his deep theological commitment in the public square. Dr. Mohler told me one night that he will continue to pray for me by name – a very encouraging thing for a sort-of-young-buck like me (we were discussing the appeals to the so-called natural law in the public square and how Christians ought to abandon them entirely). Let us pray for him, that his strength will increase, and that he will continue to go against the evangelical grain whenever they go against the theological grain of Scripture. His comments can be found here.
(HT: Pastor Glenn Leatherman)
May 12th, 2008
Brett McCracken
My favorite line from the EM is this: “We Evangelicals trace our heritage, not to Constantine, but to the very different stance of Jesus of Nazareth.”
The document is mostly just an attempt to free evangelicals from their power/politics associations and re-orient them toward the work of Christ on earth, which transcends party allegiance and “single-issue politics,” as they say…
I’m politically conservative and active in the pro-life movement, but I am sick and tired of evangelicals being reduced to this and this alone. So I give a hearty props to the EM and its forceful declarations and broadening of the evangelical identity.
May 13th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Hi Brett!
I see your point. As you will see, I have taken issue with the “theological defining” or “redefining” aspects of the EM. If you feel as strongly as you do and really want to give props to the EM, in your next Christianity Today article (or any other) you should answer Frank Pastore’s questions here.
I would like to see how one from the “broader identity” camp would respond.
Thanks for the visit!
May 13th, 2008
A
I noticed natural law was mentioned. What so bad about natural law? Whithin the Reformed tradition, it has a history of being embraced until the beginning of the 21st century. I’ve heard professors from Westminster Seminary California like Michael Horton and David Van Drunen refer to how it was embraced by people like Calvin and other reformers. Scholars of different backgrounds say the same thing. I used to be against it because of the way it was presented by its opponents, but now after learning more about it, I am open to learning more about it.
May 13th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
What is natural law?
May 13th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
As predicted, the Evangelical Manifesto was just a media blurb, a puff of smoke, making no difference whatsoever. Maybe it is time to call it the Evanjellyfish “Man”-ifesto. Anyhow, if by some strange form of nerd-ishness (from which I suffer) anyone cares, here is an interesting write-up on the E-Man. It is not a favorable review. Written by Berit Kjos.
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/08/evangelical-manifesto.htm
HT: Ingrid
Jun 4th, 2008
Reply to “An Evangelical Manifesto: Open Discussion Forum”