pilgrim.not.wanderer

i’m enjoying reading the various opinions here and there around the web; please post yours here when you’ve pulled them together. i had some hesitations and misgivings before reading the document, but i’m actually quite impressed and invigorated after taking in the whole of what it addresses.

one of the things i like is that the authors have chosen not to list creationism and inerrancy as non-negotiables. for the first, there’s very little biblical justification anymore behind whatever the latest flavor of anti-natural-selection dessert is being served up; for the latter, somehow we can admit that we can’t prove the existence of God, but goshdarnit we have a golden egg this unprovable God laid right here. still, some people hold to these positions; so be it. there’s simply too much of a tendency to add items to the ever-increasing laundry list of ideas and doctrines to which we have to pledge allegiance before we’re allowed into the room marked “Christian.”

nothing’s going to please everybody, and there are a few things i object to. for instance, i don’t agree with this statement: We Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally. Jesus’ message uses “action” verbs: teach them to DO as I have commanded you, LOVE God and LOVE your neighbor, by this will all men know … if you LOVE one another. any theology that defines us must have feet.

i did, however, like these words: We are also troubled by the fact that the advance of globalization and the emergence of a global public square finds no matching vision of how we are to live freely, justly, and peacefully with our deepest differences on the global stage. somehow, we’ve got to figure out how we’re going to peacefully share the same bathroom over the next few decades in our ever-shrinking world.

one interesting thing: maybe i missed it, but there doesn’t seem to be a great emphasis on evangelism in this Evangelical Manifesto. do you think that was intentional? i didn’t see a single chick tract referenced in the bibliography…

more than anything, i find myself motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece - that it isn’t yet another “here’s everything we’re against” rant but an effort to make the gospel again a message of good news. imagine that - the gospel being good news. American Christianity has lost this defining characteristic that once served it well.

perhaps one unintended benefit of the proposal is a clear opportunity to take this EM (Evangelical Manifesto) and align it with the other EM (Emergent Manifesto) and finally have all our EM & EMs in a row without demonizing the other side.

one can only hope…

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

You said: “Jesus’ message uses “action” verbs: teach them to DO as I have commanded you, LOVE God and LOVE your neighbor, by this will all men know … if you LOVE one another. ”

What does this have to do with Evangelicalism being defined theologically rather than socially/politically/culturally?

They are saying Evangelicalism is NOT all about being white, middle class, non-coastal, Republican, anti-Roe v. Wade, uneducated, etc. When the media refers to the evangelical vote, that’s exactly what they mean. Undoubtedly that is a real social group in America. But it is not Evangelicalism according to what the signers of the manifesto mean by ‘Evangelicalism’.

pilgrim -

perhaps i read it incorrectly, but i took defining it “theologically” to mean it was going to be a set of doctrines a person had to swear to in order to be blessed ‘Evangelical.’ i certainly agree with your points about the mischaracterization of Evangelicals that is never-ending. i think that’s one of the main reasons the document was written in the first place.

mike rucker