Jay Tolson writing for U.S. News and World Report examines the purposes and some of the initial responses to An Evangelical Manifesto that I posted about yesterday. I print excerpts from Tolson's article below and then give some links connecting to other noteworthy responses....The document, drafted over three years by nine evangelical theologians and writers, is largely the brainchild of social critic Os Guinness, whose most recent book, The Case for Civility: And Why Our Future Depends on It, develops many of the same themes on religion and public life that are addressed in the manifesto. Initial signers included almost 80 pastors, theologians, activists, and others representing a fairly broad spectrum within the movement, from Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners magazine, on the liberal end to James Tonkowich, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, on the more conservative. But the absence of many leading conservative evangelicals from the list of original signers, including Focus on the Family's James Dobson, supports what some observers are already saying about the manifesto: that it is a strong rebuke to the religious right...
If all that seems to suggest a reasonable middle way, why are some leading evangelical thinkers not adding their names to the manifesto? Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, says he was not invited to sign—an oversight, the manifesto authors say, but not an intentional slight. Now that he has read it, Land says that he agrees with 90 percent of its contents but still will not sign. A crucial 10 percent, he says, suffers from language that is "at the very best imprecise or at the very best obtuse," problems that he finds typical of most documents written by committees.
Land points to the document's explanation of one the bedrocks of evangelical conviction: "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..." The narrowing effect of the possessive pronoun "our" leaves open the possibility of other ways to salvation, a possibility that Land insists evangelicals do not entertain. Land agrees with the document's call for reform within evangelicalism to make it distinct from the larger culture. But in addition to listing the ways evangelicals "have become known for the commercial, diluted, and feel-good gospels of health, wealth, human potential, and religious happy talk," as the document reads, Land wonders why it doesn't mention the way evangelicals have conformed too fully with practices of the larger culture in areas such as sexual infidelity and divorce.
Land also charges that imprecision complicates what evangelicals should try legitimately to achieve in the public realm. When the document asserts that evangelicals "have no desire to coerce anyone or to impose on anyone beliefs and behavior that we have not persuaded them to freely adopt," Land argues that it would seem to suggest that abolitionist evangelicals were wrong to work for politicians and policies to coerce slaveholders into abandoning slaveholding. The way in which one coerces is important, Land acknowledges, but that does not rule out the necessity of legal coercive means to bring about reforms that Christians and others see as consistent with religious or philosophical convictions...
Intentions aside, an expansion of concerns can lead to a lessening of intensity and dedication to some. And in that sense, the manifesto typifies some of the recent changes within evangelicalism that have been identified by Rice University sociologist Michael Lindsay, author of Faith in the Halls of Power. In particular, Lindsay sees a new breed of evangelicals—what he calls cosmopolitan evangelicals—with a growing influence and presence in some of the highest offices of government and public affairs, including the Oval Office. These evangelicals are broadening and, in some cases, tempering the concerns of the older generation of "populist'" evangelicals precisely because the younger evangelicals are now playing the politics of coalition and negotiation rather than confrontation. The manifesto, he says, "points to a divide between cosmopolitan evangelicals and the old-style populist evangelicals."
But what may such a tempering of evangelical concerns lead to? Perhaps, for example, to less concern about preventing single-sex unions (though not marriages), Lindsay suggests, but to no lessening of concern about abortion. "I think the evangelical manifesto shows the growing influence of the cosmopolitan wing of evangelicalism," he says. "It's the new public face of the evangelical movement."
And those links to other responses I promised? Here's one from Harry R. Jackson, Jr.; a particularly interesting response from Albert Mohler; and one from Richard Land (the theologian quoted in Tolsoin's article). In addition, don't miss Alan Jacob’s article in the Wall Street Journal or Janice Shaw Crouse's "Muddying the Evangelical Waters" posted at Concerned Women for America.
And, oh yes; one more -- a brief article by Dr. Ergun Mehmet Caner, President and Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School at Liberty University. Dr. Caner's name is on the published list of signatories to An Evangelical Manifesto and he's a bit steamed about it.
In recent days, I became aware that my name is on the list of “Charter Signatories” for the Evangelical Manifesto (EM).
There is only one problem: I never signed it.
A few months ago, I was consulted by a member of the steering committee, and invited to read through a rough draft. At that time, I stated in an email that I felt the language concerning the forefathers of evangelicalism was too dismissive and too harsh. Men such as the founder of our University, Dr. Jerry Falwell, acted with courage in putting evangelical Christianity on the frontlines of the American dialogue.
I was saddened to read that this language was not changed. Then I became angered by the tone of the presentation at the National Press Club (NPC).
I must state for the record, the EM does NOT reflect my position, and the speakers at the NPC do NOT reflect my position concerning the current state of Evangelicalism...
Read the rest of Dr. Caner's compelling response here.
