The Evangelical Manifesto: Poison In The Pot

This is Part II of the examination of the recently released Evangelical Manifesto...

14. Fourth, as stressed above, Evangelicalism must be defined theologically and not politically; confessionally and not culturally ... As such, it should not be ... confused with, or reduced to political categories such as ― conservative and ― liberal, or to psychological categories such as ― reactionary or ― progressive.

Good point...To define a movement or manifesto theologically is to test it's teachings by the Word of God. So Evangelicalism or any other movement can be weighed by this one simple question...

Is it Biblical?

15. Sixth, Evangelicalism should be distinguished from two opposite tendencies to which Protestantism has been prone: liberal revisionism and conservative fundamentalism. Called by Jesus to be ―in the world, but not of it, Christians, especially in modern society, have been pulled toward two extremes. Those more liberal have tended so to accommodate the world that they reflect the thinking and lifestyles of the day, to the point where they are unfaithful to Christ; whereas those more conservative have tended so to defy the world that they resist it in ways that also become unfaithful to Christ.

Alan Jacobs of the Wall Street Journal said it best...

Once all the self-description is out of the way, it turns out that the heart of the document is a kind of urgent appeal: Please don't call us fundamentalists or confuse us with them.

This strikes me as a regrettable tack, for two reasons. First, it is defensive, and manifestos should never be defensive. Second, it suggests a concern for labels and public perception that is not attractive in Christians. Besides, people who make the kinds of theological statements found in this document -- for instance, "We believe that the only ground for our acceptance by God is our trust in Jesus Christ" -- are
going to be called fundamentalists no matter what else they say.

16. In short, for all their purported sincerity and attempts to be relevant, extreme proponents of liberal revisionism run the risk of becoming what Søren Kierkegaard called ―kissing Judases – Christians who betray Jesus with an interpretation.

With all the Biblical references of "lip service" faith in the Old Testament, why did the writers of the manifesto choose to favorably quote an mystical existential philosopher by the name of Søren Kierkegaard?

Here's a glimpse of Kierkegaard:

Soren Kierkegaard had an interest in mysticism as well. In a dissertation at Purdue University called "Faith and nothingness in Kierkegaard: A mystical reading of the God-relationship," the writer says of Kierkegaard: "[H]e has marked structural similarities to mystics such as [Miester] Eckhart, who is warmly received by the Japanese philosophical tradition, particularly in the writings of its Zen and Pure Land Buddhist representatives." (from chapter 2, Faith Undone by Roger Oakland) Oakland adds about Kierkegaard: "[Peter] Drucker attested to Kierkegaard's mystical affinities, saying he "stands squarely in the great Western tradition of religious experience, the tradition of ... St. John of the Cross," a mystic in the 1500s" (Faith Undone, p. 25).

Here's another Kierkegaard quote from another manifesto...The Emergent Manifesto of Hope

Soren Kierkegaard argued that the moment one decides to become a Christian, one is liable to idolatry. (Samir Selmanovic, An Emerging Manifesto of Hope, p. 192-193)

Once again, why did the writers of the Evangelical Manifesto choose to favorably quote an mystical existential philosopher? Perhaps it was an emblem of secular or intellectual appeal. Perhaps it was a signal to the world that these evangelicals are truly cosmopolitan.

Interesting to note the teachings of Kierkegaard are embraced by proponents of the heretical Emerging church movement.

17. Fundamentalism has become an overlay on the Christian faith and developed into an essentially modern reaction to the modern world. As a reaction to the modern world, it tends to romanticize the past, some now-lost moment in time, and to radicalize the present, with styles of reaction that are personally and publicly militant to the point where they are sub-Christian.

For such a carefully crafted document, this broad brush statement seems awkward. "Personally and publicly militant" certainly would fit "Christian" terrorist Eric Robert Rudolph.

Do Bible-believing Christians belong in the same boat as Rudolph? Did the writers intentionally worked the language to plant such a seed? Ironic how the Manifesto was published to help break the stereotype of Evangelicals, while it stereotypes fundamentalist Christians, otherwise known as Bible-believing Christians.

Is this an example of how "we love our neighbors as ourselves..." and "ethical holiness in life ".

No doubt, these words appealed to the worldly ears from whom the writers are attempting to garner attention this election year.

To be continued...

See Part I Decoding The Evangelical Manifesto's Call For Global Ecumenism

See related post Purpose Driven Power Politics