First, Red Letter Christians announced that we are trying to create a new movement that seeks to make faithfulness to Biblical Christianity an imperative for progressive politics. With media exposure, the group recasts the image of a "Christian" in the 21st century, i.e. sympathetic toward the bondage of homosexuality and inclusive toward other religious belief systems. The Red Letter Christians misrepresent Biblical Christianity to the general public.
Now, another self appointed "non-group" of public square Christians step up to the podium at the National Press Club to act as spokesmen ( though the event is described as an invitation to join the effort ) for Evangelicals to announce:
The Evangelical Manifesto claims it does not represent a formal organization though it has assumed the responsibility of redefining what it means to be a globally responsible Evangelical.
- Dr. Richard Mouw, President of the man-centered, humanist Fuller Theolgical seminary
- Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals
- Dallas Willard, contemplative guru for the Emerging church movement.
America's pastor, Rick Warren has been rumored as a participating architect, but has not officially stepped up as a signatory.
What's embedded in the Manifesto?
1. The stage setting of the crisis-state-of-the-world :
"...momentous challenges that face our fellow humans on the earth..."
2. Staking the claim of the new American Evangelical Identity:
"we who sign this declaration do so as American leaders and members of one of the world’s largest and fastest growing movements of the Christian faith: the Evangelicals...We are therefore a small part of a far greater worldwide movement..."
3. Initiating the Evangelical Identity Makeover for improved public image and global good :
"we boldly declare that, if we make clear what we mean by the term, we are unashamed to be Evangelical and Evangelicals...Evangelicals has its own contribution to make, not only to the church but to the wider world; and especially to the plight of many who are poor, vulnerable, or without a voice in their communities."
4. The Call For Global Pluralism for Survival:
"...we Evangelicals in America, along with people of all faiths and ideologies, represent one of the greatest challenges of the global era: living with our deepest differences. This challenge is especially sharp when religious and ideological differences are ultimate and irreducible, and when the differences are not just between personal worldviews but between entire ways of life co-existing in the same society."
5. The Call for Global Ecumenism for Survival:
"Learning to live with our deepest differences is therefore of great consequence both for individuals and nations. Debate, deliberation, and decisions about what this means for our common life are crucial and unavoidable."
6. Redefining Christ's Command to be Salt and Light:
"...we Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally."
7. Global Ecumenism For Global Good:
"We fully appreciate the defining principles of other major traditions, and we stand and work with them on many ethical and social issues of common concern..."
8. Cooperation Despite the Reformation ( a la Roman Catholicism):
"Like them, we are whole-heartedly committed to the priority of ―right belief and right worship, to the ―universality of the Christian church across the centuries, continents, and cultures, and therefore to the central axioms of Christian faith expressed in the Trinitarian and Christological consensus of the early church..."
9. Roman Catholic Saint Illustrates What It Means to be a Christian:
"Evangelicals are therefore followers of Jesus Christ, plain ordinary Christians in the classic and historic sense over the last two thousand years... The heart of the matter for us as Evangelicals is our desire and commitment, in the words of Richard of Chichester and as Scripture teaches, to ―see him more clearly, to love him more dearly, and to follow him more nearly.
10. Biblical Christianity Not The Only Way; Reduced to a Principle of Civility:
"We do not claim that the Evangelical principle — to define our faith and our life by the Good News of Jesus — is unique to us. Our purpose is not to attack or to exclude but to remind and to reaffirm, and so to rally and to reform. For us it is the defining imperative and supreme goal of all who would follow the way of Jesus."
11. Strong Theological Statement of Faith:See bottom of page 5 of Manifesto. No mention of repentance or hell but references good works toward others. (Pt. 6 implication of not offending others with the scandal of the Cross or the error of other belief systems)
12. More Confusion - Strong Ecumenical Statement
"Evangelicals adhere fully to the Christian faith expressed in the historic creeds of the great ecumenical councils of the church..."
13. Resultant Statement of Christian Universalism?
"...Evangelicals are followers of Jesus in a way that is not limited to certain churches or contained by a definable movement. We are members of many different churches and denominations, mainline as well as independent, and our Evangelical commitment provides a core of unity that holds together a wide range of diversity. This is highly significant for any movement in the network society of the information age, but Evangelicalism has always been diverse, flexible, adaptable, non-hierarchical, and taken many forms."
See Part II The Evangelical Manifesto: Poison In The Pot
See related post Purpose Driven Power Politics
It's obvious we are reading a different manifesto. The Evangelical one is here, http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/manifesto.php
ReplyDeleteI suggest you read it.
Ron
ReplyDeleteJust in case you didn't read my post...the 13 quotes came from the first 6 pages of the same Manifesto link you shared.
Thanks for visiting
From reading it appears you are pulling them out of context and possibly mis reading the theological implications underlying what they are trying to achieve.
ReplyDeleteFrom my perspective it is admirable that we distance the Evangelical movement from being seen as another political movement.
Nothing should be seen as taking away from the message of Christ which right wing politics has and is doing.
There is also a difference between what is a cultural form and what is universal truth. It seems that many in the ODM movement have confused the two.
Re-reading your post again, you seem to be defining your Christianity by who you are against rather than who you are for.
ReplyDeleteFor myself, I declare Jesus.
From the manifesto:
ReplyDeleteFirst, we believe that Jesus Chrsit is fully God become fully human, the unique, sure, and sufficient revelation of the very being, character, and purposes of God, beside whom there is no other god, and beside whom there is no other name by which we must be saved.
Second, we believe that the only ground for our acceptance by God is what Jesus Christ did on the cross and what he is now doing through his risen life, whereby he exxposed and reversed the course of human sin and violence, bor the penalty for our sins, credited us with his righteousness, redeemed us from the power of evil, reconciled us to God, and empowers us with his life — from above.
We therefore bring nothing to our salvation. Credited with the righteousness of Christ, we receive his redemption solely by grace through faith.
Ron,
ReplyDeleteIn pt.11 of my post, I recognized the strong statement of faith that was made...however the document departs from Biblical orthodoxy when it promotes ecumenism, and reduces Biblical Christianity to a faith tradition among other faith traditions of the world. The document creates confusion in this regard.
This is the best analysis of the Manifesto I have read so far .
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately many christians suffer from what I call "Samson Syndrom" that no matter how often Delilah betrayed him , he would never think that she is the reason why the enemy was attacking him.So is with christians that they never think that their so called leaders have a hidden agenda
Wanting to "co-exist" without forced conversion is not ecumenicalism.
ReplyDeleteAllying with other traditions for a common goal is not ecumenical.
Acknowledging the rights of others to believe is not reducing biblical Christianity to just another faith. In fact the manifesto clearly declares just the opposite.
I agree with Ron that you are misreading what they are saying...
I suspect you are overly suspicious and imbuing in phrases meaning that are not their.
For example, in your point 12 you claim t promotes ecumenicalism. This is a misreading of the the word "ecumenical" in that context.
As well, your onbjection in 13 is equally eroineous. There is no CHirstian Universalism (whatever that means) here... the statnment simply means that the Christian faith has many methodologies of expression.
If the manifesto actually said what you say it says - I would agree it is dangerous... but since it does not say what you say it says your objections are straw men.
Neil
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNeil,
ReplyDeleteThe definition of ecumenical below:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) -
ec·u·men·i·cal
–adjective 1. general; universal.
2. pertaining to the whole Christian church.
3. promoting or fostering Christian unity throughout the world.
4. of or pertaining to a movement (ecumenical movement), esp. among Protestant groups since the 1800s, aimed at achieving universal Christian unity and church union through international interdenominational organizations that cooperate on matters of mutual concern.
5. interreligious or interdenominational: an ecumenical marriage.
6. including or containing a mixture of diverse elements or styles; mixed: an ecumenical meal of German, Italian, and Chinese dishes.
Hmmm... I have browsed through the Manifesto, and there isn't anything overtly heretical. However, there seems to be a subversive element within it. Jim, I don't think the points you raised are so clear cut. Certainly it is ecumenical, but I think the proof is deeper than just a few isolated passages.
ReplyDeleteTodd Friel of "Way of the Master" radio program had a gentleman on and they were "discussing" this Evangelical Manfesto and Todd was ready to pop a blood vessel. Some of the posters are saying that the Watchman Lamp writer who wrote the story is mistaken and reading things into it- but if that is true then why does Todd say he could NEVER put his name on it? Perhaps, fellow posters, there is something you are not willing to look at that others are? Go to way of the Way of the Master and listen to about 2 weeks ago where Todd talks with Os Guiness please. christianworldviewnetwork has archives of his show. Thanks
ReplyDelete