• Home
• Events
  • Google Calendar
  • Subscribe
• Cohorts
  • Find a Cohort
  • Contact Cohort Support
  • Cohort Blogs
• Groups
• About
  • FAQs
  • Values and Practices
  • Support
  • Leadership
  • Emergent Worldwide
  • Publishing Partners
• • weblog
  • podcast
  • press kit
  • donate
  • Feeds (RSS)

Whither "Evangelicalism"?

Posted May 7, 10:40 AM | 3 comments | by Steve Knight | Link

[Note: Not everyone in Emergent Village would self-identify as being “evangelical,” so this mega-post will be viewed by some as being rather irrelevant. For others who were raised evangelical, like myself, this is a very real part of the emerging church conversation.]

Today’s announcement by some prominent evangelical leaders—such as Os Guinness (Trinity Forum), Richard Mouw (Fuller Seminary), David Neff (Christianity Today), and others—of a new “Evangelical Manifesto” raises the question once again of what it really means to be “evangelical” and what the implications of that might be.

The 20-page “Evangelical Manifesto” states, “Reformers, we ourselves need to be reformed. Protestants, we are the ones against whom protest must be made. ... We speak only for ourselves, yet not only to ourselves. We therefore invite all our fellow-Christians, our fellow-citizens, and people of different faiths across the nation and around the world to take serious note of these declarations and to respond where appropriate” (emphasis in the original).

Among the charter signatories are Miroslav Volf, Jim Wallis, Ron Sider, Eric Metaxas, John Ortberg, Stephen Strang (Charisma magazine), Bob Buford (Leadership Network), and 60+ others.

Helen Mildenhall has already responded, “I haven’t read it all yet—it’s long—but from what I’ve seen and heard so far I think it’s a step in a positive direction.”

Justin Taylor has posted his own summary of the document and writes, “It’s an imperfect but nevertheless (in my opinion) remarkable document that deserves serious attention. The press has latched on to the political dimension of the document, but the critique of theological liberalism is much more extensive and pointed.”

Watch for others in the emerging church blogosphere to chime in. I’ll try to post updates at the bottom of this post as those come online.

Here are some of the other voices in and around the discussion of what it means to be “evangelical”:

Tim Keller: What is an Evangelical?
Speaking at the EMA conference in the UK last year, Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian in New York City, addressed the question of “What is an evangelical?” and offered three “evangelical essentials”:

• “the final full authority and clarity of Scripture (the formal cause, the idea)”


• “the gospel — that salvation is by sheer grace alone through faith alone in the substitutionary work of Christ alone (the material cause, the raw material)”


• “in a life of repentance — repentance as a life and not as a one-time event (the efficient cause, the means)”

Keller has recently spoken about three points of the Gospel—incarnation, atonement, and restoration. Not everyone agrees with Keller that working for justice (i.e., the third leg of the tripod, restoration) is part of the Gospel. Speaking at this year’s “Together for the Gospel” conference, Mark Dever, senior pastor of Capitol Hill Bible Church in Washington, D.C., argued against making the Gospel “too big” by including justice. This seems like a fundamental faultline for those who would call themselves “evangelical”—is justice/restoration part of the Gospel? or is it an “implication” of the Gospel (and, therefore, less important)?

According to Darryl Dash, “I think it’s Keller who has said elsewhere that we’re still waiting for a Gospel movement that includes both a focus on the trajectory of the gospel (a renewed material creation) and the means (sheer grace, not works).” He quotes Keller: “One of the biggest problems we’ve got is that the older evangelicals are really great at the second aspect of the gospel. The newer younger evangelicals are fairly good at the first. But I don’t know yet of a movement that seems to be bringing these together properly.”

Noting the lack of gender and non-Calvinist diversity at the “Together for the Gospel” conference, Dash asks, “Is a Gospel movement possible that allows diversity in these areas of doctrine within the broader evangelical movement? ... I still have hopes for a wider evangelical coming-together around the Gospel.”

The Myth of Evangelical Political Engagement
Not everyone is convinced that the evangelical movement has been co-opted by one political party and/or ideology. Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost writes, “Rather than assuming that evangelicals are a large, powerful, committed political bloc that, for some inexplicable reason, is completely ineffective, the more realistic conclusion is that politically engaged evangelicals are like a herd of unicorns: powerful and abundant in the imagination while not actually existing in the real world.”

So is the “Evangelical Manifesto” based on misplaced concerns? Some will no doubt be arguing that point.

Interview with Christine Wicker, author of The Fall of the Evangelical Nation
“Sources kept telling me that the evangelical movement was in trouble. But evangelicals have always cried wolf, and I didn’t believe them. Then the results of the Southern Baptist Million Baptism Campaign came in. The Baptists spent more than a million dollars, did a big national road trip and walked neighborhoods all over the country. But they baptized fewer people than the year before.

“That forced me to re-consider something else I’d learned but left out of my book. A megachurch consultant had given me pretty good proof that megachurches are facing big trouble. I put the million baptism failure and the megachurch troubles together and started digging.

“It was all there. Most of it gathered by evangelical churches themselves. Just waiting for someone to look for it.”

View a preview of Wicker’s statistics showing the evangelical slide

Yes, Nominal Evangelicals Exist
Christianity Today editors write, “Our neighborhoods—and churches—are full of nominal Christians, even nominal evangelicals, who still need conversion. Evangelical is not a synonym for ‘committed Christian.’ There is a massive difference in behavior and belief between those who affiliate with evangelical churches and those who actually attend them. ...

”[Christine] Wicker thinks it’s a scandal that the megachurches are full of uncommitted Christians. The megachurches think it’s an opportunity.

“Wicker, a former Southern Baptist, grounds her book in far too many false assumptions. Perhaps her worst is thinking that evangelicals are calling their neighbors to become evangelicals. We’d rather call them—and ourselves—to become better disciples of Jesus.”

Evangelical Cizik Among Time’s 100 Most Influential People
The subtext to this recent news story is that Cizik survived a very public attempt to oust him from the National Association of Evangelicals a year ago, which was led by James Dobson and others. The attempt failed, and the influence of Dobson and other dissenters in the NAE has seemingly waned—while Cizik’s influence has risen, marked most poignantly by this TIME magazine feature.

Tellingly, Dobson and other conservative evangelicals such as Richard Land, head of the public policy arm for the Southern Baptist Convention, were apparently not asked to sign the “Evangelical Manifesto.” Then again, Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, and Doug Pagitt all confirmed to me that they were not asked to sign it either.

Previously:
The Emerging Critique of Evangelicalism

UPDATE: This is not directly “Evangelical Manifesto”-related, but I thought it does add another interesting perspective on the relationship of evangelicals to the broader culture. John Marks, co-creator of Purple State of Mind and author of Reasons to Believe, writes about his recent experience at the Wheaton College/Billy Graham Center “Evangelism Roundtable” discussion of “Imagination and the Gospel”: “When it comes to participation in and creation of American popular culture, the consensus seemed to be, evangelical Christians are being left behind, and they know it all too well. ... [But] there is ferment among the evangelicals. ... In a quiet conversation being held in churches and conferences and seminaries around the country, barely audible as of yet, the hunger to break out of accepted molds of thought and action is growing. The effort to end the long ghettoization of the Christian mind has begun. Whether secular America will offer itself as a partner in this conversation remains to be seen.”

UPDATE: More responses to “An Evangelical Manifesto”:

James K.A. Smith writes on the Generous Orthodoxy blog, “In general, I think it rightly criticizes trends on both left and right, and problems both internal to evangelicalism as well as external challenges (e.g., the public policy impact if the “new atheism” gained a foothold). ... On the other hand, I find it a strange document.” Smith outlines six “strange” points and concludes, “Do we need an ‘Evangelical’ Manifesto? Is it ‘important’ to ‘keep the term?’ I remain unconvinced, particularly if keeping the ‘distinctives’ of ‘Evangelical’ means buying into some rather simplistic hermeneutical moves.”

Jim Wallis explains his endorsement of the “Evangelical Manifesto” over on the God’s Politics blog, “We have a serious image problem. People think that we should stand for the same things as Jesus did. So it’s time to change the image. A substantial group of evangelical leaders are trying to do just that. ... I very much affirm the views expressed in the manifesto and was happy to accept an invitation to be one of the charter signatories.”

UPDATE 5/8/2008: The Everyday Liturgy blog outlines seven “good” points about the “Evangelical Manifesto” and five “bad” points. It also ties the “Evangelical Manifesto” into a discussion of the “equity system” outlined in Brian McLaren’s Everything Must Change.

UPDATE 5/9/2008: James K.A. Smith takes another look at the “Evangelical Manifesto” and concludes: “Such definitions define ‘Evangelical’ by what evangelicals THINK and BELIEVE, rather than what they DO. That, I think, reflects just the sort of modernism that gives us evangelicalism (and fundamentalism) in the first place. ... When it comes to this elusive thing called ‘evangelicalism’ it seems like you can only know them by their documents. I think this reflects a modernist conception of doctrine as prior to liturgy, whereas I think the wisdom of tradition points to the priority of liturgy to doctrine. So, no, I didn’t sign it and won’t.”

In other news, a new survey performed by LifeWay Research (affiliated with the Southern Baptist denomination) found that just over half of people (52%) said they disagreed with the statement, “I am concerned that at times Christians are too involved in politics.” Less than half (44%) somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement.

Ed Stetzer, the director of LifeWay Research, is quoted as saying, ”[I]n regards to public policy, it is a both/and, not either/or. You cannot stand for justice and be told you cannot speak of Jesus, nor can you love God and His Word and not care for unborn children, the abused, and social justice. ... Christians need to speak prophetically to all parties, not be beholden to one. If evangelicals are seen as a voting bloc of the Republican Party, I am concerned. If Christians are told to leave their faith outside the public square, I am more concerned.”

Justin Taylor has posted a round-up of his own on the “Evangelical Manifesto.” He quotes Alan Jacobs, Denny Burk, and Joe Carter, who blames “the elite media” for politicizing the term “evangelical.”

Bookmark this article using Remarkable!