The Point of the Manifesto Put Simply May 8. 08
This is similar to a comment I just posted. I rarely do this in two spots, but in this case it is important.
This is similar to a comment I just posted. I rarely do this in two spots, but in this case it is important.
Is the Manifesto the same old, same old? I think not. The document asks believer and non-believer alike to appreciate what we are doing to our social fabric in the way we engage. It then asks evangelical believers especially to take a very close look before God at how we engage and what the term evangelical meant long before the current cultural faceoff. This historical review is a way of gaining balance and thinking about that assessment. This kind of self assessment is always called for in a spiritual context and can be a very healthy exercise. At an individual level it is what "quiet times" are all about: Before God and the Word asking if we are all we should be. The difference is that this is a public appeal to consciously enter into such reflection within our own community.
By the way, there is biblical precedent for this, when prophets like Nehemiah and a host other prophets at different times prayed and called for such assessment by the entire believing community of his day.
Here is the question the Manifesto raises: Can we/should we pause in self-reflection about how we engage as believer-citizens on issues of the day, both spiritual and political? The Manifesto argues, "Yes, we should."
Jesus has much more to say about a whole host of issues than the ones that have been targeted over the last few decades, INCLUDING the ones that have been discussed and defended (sometimes very well, sometimes not so well). Does tone matter as well as content? I think so. To these questions the Manifesto also calls for reflection. What variety of factors are at stake in such an assessment? Among them are: (1) the well being of our society, (2) the authenticity of believers’ claims to love God and one’s neighbor, (3) the integration of those calls to love, as well as (4) the central importance evangelicals give to the need for spiritual transformation to really grow into human maturity, as individuals and as a society.
So how does one respond to such a call?
Simply resort to the previous style of confrontation? Probably not.
Claim that such a call to self-reflection and assessment "muddies the waters" or worry about a scorecard that asks who the call initially includes or excludes? Don’t think so. Do such critiques, honestly made, really address the point when all, including the signers, are invited to ponder in silence? Not really.
Rather than simply dragging out the old labels and categories (Liberal, conservative, Catholic, atheist, ECT), can we ask what in the document is a problem or what is well said? Is it really a key concern to ask who was initially asked to sign a document that invites ANYONE to sign? Should we not ask instead if one should sign on? Should we not ask why or why not sign? Can or should one as a believer-citizen today engage with conviction for their values without doing things that fuel the present cultural war? Is this question worth asking and pondering? The Manifesto simply says, "Yes." So that is the point. Pause and ponder anew what we evangelicals are truly called to do–and pray it be done with a balance that honors God and loves our neighbor, even in the midst of serious debate. Is that point worth signing onto? Is it?
To read and consider signing the document, go to www.evangelicalmanifesto.com
22 Comments
Phil
Yes.
Yes.
ANGIE FRANCE
Disapointed
It’s sad that you put your name on a so called manifesto stating that conservative fundamentalism is wrong. We are fighting the fight of our lives to stand up for the bible and what it stands for. If you think thats divisive, you are sorely mistaken. We that believe the bible means what it says no matter what others may say. We will not pander to groups or the media. Whats right and wrong has always been the same. We as bible believers do care for other causes other that abortion. We do feed the poor, help out those in need. If you are on any list agreeing with Wallis, something is very wrong.
bock
Disapointed dlb
Angie:
Thanks for writing. Evangelicals stand up for the Scripture and how it addresses all of life. That is what the document said. So if that is what you consider key, and you have concerns in these areas, then the manifesto does address your concern and affirms your key commitment to be a faithful believer. In fact that is the chief concern. The only other issue beyond what is believed is how the issues are engaged. There is no pandering to groups or the media here. The document speaks affirming the right to life and the sanctity of marriage. Be sure you read the document, not what others say about it or merely looked at who signed on.
dlb
Dan Lioy
I signed onto the document . . .
Dr. Bock,
I signed onto the document. It verbalizes key concerns I have and does so in an informed, irenic manner. Also, I appreciate the considerable time and attention invested into crafting the final draft of the Manifesto. An examination of the blogosphere suggests the document is producing a considerable amount of dialogue and debate. I think this is potentially productive, especially in fostering greater understanding both individually and collectively within the body of Christ.
Grace and peace,
dtl
http://danlioy.googlepages.com/
bock
Signed dlb
Precisely.
dlb
Truth Unites... and Divides
“Cultural War”?
“Can or should one as a believer-citizen today engage with conviction for their values without doing things that fuel the present cultural war? Is this question worth asking and pondering? The Manifesto simply says, “Yes.” So that is the point. “
I agree that the question is worth asking and pondering. As such it behooves us to question the question. It seems that the posed question presupposes that a “cultural war” is bad and anything that Christians do to fuel the cultural war is to be avoided. And that Christians should sternly rebuke and repudiate other Christians who they think are fueling an unnecessary and provocative and alienating “cultural war”.
This should naturally lead to the following questions. Does God hate a “cultural war”? Is a “cultural war” glorifying or unglorifying to God? Is a “cultural war” expressly against God’s will? If being Salt and Light while fulfilling the Great Commission sparks accusations that a “cultural war” is being unnecessarily originated and waged by Christians, should evangelicals cease and desist so that they are not fueling a “cultural war”?
So then if the analysis turns to, “Well, perhaps a “cultural war” is permissible and arguably one should be waged, but HOW it’s being conducted by those claiming to be Evangelical Christians should be re-examined”, well that’s an entirely different proposition. A “cultural war” may be precisely what God wants His soldier-servants of Christ to engage in, but the tactical campaign may need to be modified (or not be modified at all). And which evangelical Christian or group of evangelical Christians gets to say and determine for the whole indefinable mass of Evangelicalism how the campaign in a “cultural war” should be conducted?
P.S. Would the Evangelical Manifesto embrace the irenic approaches of Athanasius and Martin Luther??
bock
Cutural War? dlb
It is one thing to be in a cultural war, another to do things to exacerbate it in unnecessary ways–and be proud of it in the process. I believe Scripture says our war is NOT against flesh and blood, but against spiritual forces. That battle is the one we are in, without unduly alienating those we hope and pray will embrace the gospel. Our key goal is to encourage people to come to faith. Martin Luther was responsible, not only for the Reformation but for an anti-Semitism that reflected a poisoned European attitude toward Jews. Nor is it clear that Athanasius’s cause, though just and doctrianally sound, was of a biblical standard in terms of tone and approach that calls for us to love our neighbor and pray for our enemies (I believe Jesus said that–and He is the truth).
dlb
Truth Unites... and Divides
“Cultural War” Part 2
“It is one thing to be in a cultural war, another to do things to exacerbate it in unnecessary ways–and be proud of it in the process.”
Naturally, I and any other Bible-believing Christian would agree with this truism. However, with respect and honesty, I think this is a strawman. (And if one doesn’t think this is a strawman, then the immediate challenge forthwith would be for folks to explicitly name those Christian leaders and Christian organizations that are exacerbating the cultural war in unnecessary ways and are also proud of it in the process. Indeed, responsible integrity demands that accusations of prideful and unnecessary exacerbation be levied towards those conducting it. Are any signers of the Evangelical Manifesto willing to identify the ones that they want to fling the first stone at?)
And with respect to your comments on Martin Luther and Athanasius, would the Evangelical Manifesto and their signers embrace them despite their strengths, flaws, and weaknesses? Or would the drafters of the Manifesto ask people who are similar and like Martin Luther and Athanasius in temperament and behavior to NOT sign the Manifesto? Your response wasn’t clear. For I do believe that Martin Luther and Athanasius was not just contending against flesh-and-blood, but also against spiritual forces. Not only that, but that God also blessed them and their steadfast servanthood as despised cultural warriors tremendously.
bock
Cultural War Part 2 dlb
Truth:
Remember that the Manifesto is addressed to people on the right through to the left. It asks for reflection. The goal and intent was not to name names, but to set forth the values and then let people examine themselves to see where they fit. They were invited to sign on, if they shared the combination of values (truisms?) the manifesto states. We shoudl not sin. That is a truism in one sense, but one worth embracing.
As for the judgment about "strawmen," I will allow others to make that assessment as well. We are stating a value that I do not believe is a truism. The presence and intensity of a cultural war is something everyone sees and discusses. What is more difficult to determine is where the blame lies. The hope and prayer behind the manifesto is that a responsible self-examination might lead us to ask where this has been contributed to by evangelicals in ways that do not reflect biblical values. There are numerous times when people among us have argued the right case in the wrong tone, have imputed knowledge of motive when they do not know it, have placed the worst spin on the cause for a move when that is not known etc. Part of the point is our spiritual responsibility to take such a look.
This is not a document that wants to step back from engagement and disagreement, as some have reported and as perhaps your posts imply. Our public dialogue will be about positions that are opposed to view held by others and there division results. However, we should be careful (in fact it is a morally important) to engage in a manner that balances truth, integirty, and love. Please do not hear this as saying many who contend for key issues about the right to life (or sense a call to single issues) do not do this. That is not the point either. It is that if we overstep in terms of tone, it is important to look in the mirror and assess. A second point about the manifesto often not heard by those most passionate about a single issue is that others who calibrate the priorities differently than those tied to specific issues may well do so out of just as deep a biblical and spiritual well as those led to treat a single issue. That, of course, is part of the public square discussion.
I have engaged in the public square now for several years on topics where the exclusivity of Jesus is rejected, arguing for his uniqueness. That divides. But I try to do so in a manner that allows my case to be clear and yet to be careful to keep the issue on the table and not engage in disrespectful exchanges. If I overstep, the manifesto applies to me. It is with that personal self-reflection that I signed on. To me that is a worthy value to have as I engage in what I know will be contentious topics.
As for Luther and Athanasius, for all they did that was right and God honoring with respect to truth, that does not mean we also cannot learn from their mistakes as well. It is that nuance of contending for truth but doing so well, by loving those with whom we contend (a teaching of Jesus) that the Manifesto is seeking to attain. Truth is not only about content. It is also about the style of engagement.
dlb
By the way, if I were to sign on with a moniker it would be disciple (a learner) who desires to pursue truth, reflect it whereever it leads in mind and practice, and remind myself that learning continues until He returns. A truism and/or the core of discipleship?
Carol
Dr. Bock said “Before God
Dr. Bock said “Before God and the Word asking if we are all we should be. The difference is that this is a public appeal to consciously enter into such reflection within our own community.
By the way, there is biblical precedent for this, when prophets like Nehemiah and a host other prophets at different times prayed and called for such assessment by the entire believing community of his day.”
Then why make this confession/pronouncement to “the world” at the National Press Club? It seems at odds with what you’ve said above. I’m not meaning to be sarcastic here, but it’s almost by doing so you are saying ‘before God and the WORLD we are asking if we are all we should be.’ Is there a precedent for THAT in scripture? Again, I’m not being sarcastic – it’s hard to convey that in blogs sometimes – I’d truly like to know.
bock
Before God dlb
Carol:
Thanks for the honest question:
Nehemiah 8:1 has people gather at the Water Gate in a very public way. Nehemiah 9, their repentance is very public.
Jeremiah stood at the gate of the temple, one of the most public of places in the nation (Jer 7).
Finally, imagine writing books of prophets calling for repentance and naming sins of God’s people and placing them in a sacred text for anyone to read to see God’s standards?
David wrote Psalms of repentance that we sung and recorded.
Do these help to answer the biblical standard that repentance is something that is not to fear being publicly declared?
dlb
Carol
dlb wrote, “Do these help to
dlb wrote, “Do these help to answer the biblical standard that repentance is something that is not to fear being publicly declared?”
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I’m still seeing a disconnect, however. It seem that the Manifesto was (among other things, I realize) a public confession of sin purposely “aimed” at unbelievers. I don’t really see the confessions in Nehemiah being directed to anyone but God Almighty. The same with David’s psalms. Were they really meant to improve the image of the Israelites (or David) among the pagans? Is there a NT parallel?
bock
Do these help? dlb
Carol:
I understand.
We can sin against God and against others simultaneously (see the prodigal’s confession. I have sinned against you and God)
Of course part of the issue here was to call the community to repentance in a public way (IE, not for unbelievers but before unbelievers, before the world). Part of the issue here is to be careful that inconsistency is not a situation where God’s name ends up being tarnished because of our inconsistency in the acts we perform in his name (Romans 2 discusses this). That is what the manifesto was asking for.
Hope this helps.
dlb
Terry
blog
I have enjoyed reading your blog and have added it to my blog roll.
gonzodave
Definitions of “evangelical”
Dear Dr. Bock,
I’ve followed with interest the many comments around the “blogosphere” concerning this MANIFESTO of Evangelicalism. Definitions about “isms” come and go.
I invite you and any interested party to take a look beyond the “in speak” of evangelicalism and read a fascinating and timely piece written by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon @ http://www.apuritansmind.com/HistoricalTheology/McMahonDontCallMeEvangelical.htm.
Regards in Christ Jesus,
gonzodave
bock
Definition dlb
Gonzodave:
Thanks for the post. Just a note. Anyone who writes that Carl Henry was against the evangelical movment does not understand its history at all. Henry edited the journal that has represetnted the movment for years. Its name: Chrsitianity Today. So I am not at all sure how accurate the post is.
dlb
gonzodave
More history of evangelicalism
Dear Dr. Bock,
Post Note to my previous comment:
In the spirit of “ecumenicalism” and a well rounded view of of the ambiguous word – evangelicalism, I additional invite any interested person to read the article posted @ http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/institutions.htm.
Regards in Christ,
gonzodave
bock
More History dlb
Gonzodave:
More of the same, thanks. Anyone who complains of Billy Graham today, suggesting he is liberal, really has an imbalanced spectrum. No one has presented the gospel clearly to more people in our time.
dlb
dopderbeck1
Manifesto
As a law professor who self-identifies as an evangelical, I think the Manifesto is an excellent and much-needed document, and I signed it without hesitation. Could I find nuances in it that I might not agree with 100%? Sure. But its tone, its holistic approach, its bold affirmation of vibrant and historic Christian faith, represent the very best ideals we should want to pursue — ideals, I think, that go right back to Jesus’ teaching and the Apostles’ instructions to the early church as reflected in scripture.
gonzodave
Your response to “More History”
Dear Dr. Bock,
Thank you for your courteous responses. However, concerning an “imbalanced spectrum” held by John E. Ashford in his book “Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism II” that he updated and revised in 1991 from his father’s work of 1958 and 1975, I read in Eerdman’s Handbook to Christianity in America on page 319:
“The social gospel differed from evangelical reform movements like the Salvation Army in at least two respects. First, it tended to emphasize structural reforms, changes in law, government policy, and the formal institutions of society. Second, it was firmly rooted in Protestant liberal theology.”
Regards in Christ Jesus,
gonzodave
bock
Response “More History” dlb
Gonzodave:
I think you missed my point. There is no social gospel when the work being affirmed is a reflection of spiritual commitments that grow out of the gospel. This is not merely an ethic we are discussing in that context (as the social gospel was and liberal theology often is), but a responses tied to the concept of being faithful to Jesus’ call to live in a manner that honors God. In other words in this issue, the point does not remove the centrality or role of Jesus (In contrast to the social gosple which made his role one only of ethical guide). So this is precisely why we are not discussing the social gospel here but the living out of values rooted in Jesus’ teaching and the call to be faithful to the gospel in terms of how we engage others. This is why the quote you give does not apply to what I am saying.
dlb
MIKE
Fundamentalism not a part?
Upon reading the manifesto, I was delighted to see Evangelicals seeking to define themselves theologically. I believe too, the list of sins mentioned are extremely accurate too (ie. the entertainment, materialism, etc). One thing I do not understand is the stance against Fundamentalism. If Evangelicals are seeking to define themselves theologically, and Fundamentalists agree theologically with the manifesto’s definition, would Fundamentalists not then be under the umbrella of “Evangelicals” too? The “liberals” were distinguished from Evangelicals based on theology yet the Fundamentalists were distinguished based on their practice (or sins). The manifesto mentioned the Fundamentalists’ lack of forgiveness and love (p.9). These are horrible sins to be sure! Yet these are sins no greater than the ones listed by the Evangelicals themselves! Without doubt, Fundamentalists are in dire need of reforming and repenting themselves in these areas just as Evangelicals need to reform and repent of the areas they mentioned. It is my hope, that Evangelicals will accept their Fundamentalist brothers and sisters, even if the acceptance is not returned.