Let me be even more frank than before. This is a brilliant document brought to its knees by injudicious phrasing and a release process which almost guaranteed a sense of conflict and discord.
As we mentioned in yesterday's update, there was hope for An Evangelical Manifesto to become one of the most important documents in the recent history of the church.
That hope remains, but only if the drafters reverse themselves and admit to errors of process and communication. That's a tall order for a group which must surely have had to struggle to find their way to the wording released yesterday.
But failing that, the Manifesto will continue to drive yet another rift into an already shrinking band of believers commited to co-laboring for Christ.
No document committed to the ways of Jesus of Nazareth can sustain the use of the word "idiots" to describe other Christians and retain the compassion it must have embedded in it for timeless application. That phrase must be removed; it is simply impossible for it to remain and not be viewed as a stain on an otherwise groundbreaking treatise.
The term "manifesto" should also disappear, though that's a cosmetic flaw. It not only bears negative historical connotations, but it also wears the scars of earlier failed Evangelical efforts at reform. Surely another word exists that frees us from the baggage of socialistic association on the historical front, and from the baggage of angry declarations by prominent evangelical apologists in our recent history.
No document purporting to so universally define Evangelicalism can be released simply because 77 of our brightest minds gather and agree. That is but the first step in building bridges to repair the ills complained about in the Manifesto. To exclude large sections of people and groups within the Evangelical community in the exploration, drafting or ratification process is to invite the conflict we see in press reports already. That conflict is already arising among lay workers, too, as some of you have indicated when you write to ask "Do we support Dr. Dobson or the signers? Dr. Colson or the signers? Where does Billy Graham stand? Where is Rick Warren on this matter?" These are just a few of the signs of us-versus-them splits that arise when a unilateral declaration is made as publicly as a setting like the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. without first making sure brothers and sisters in Christ who share the Evangelical banner have a chance to affect the document; or even to repent at the recognition of their wrong behaviors in being confronted by it privately.
Surely the annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals was a logical place to make this declaration. Not to the world or the press, but to representatives of the 25,000 members of that body, and the groups they represent. Isn't it logical to assume this should first have made its appearance here instead of at the National Press Club and NPR? Why should the heads of major evangelical denominations, organizations and groups have been surprised by media calls asking for comment?
How we do things is as important as what we do. Right doctrine without compassion does not honor God; likewise, compassion without right doctrine is equally dishonoring to God. We cannot get the definition of Evangelical nailed down without involving all who hold to that heritage in the discussion. We cannot change the public's admittedly negative view of Evangelicals by attacking even errant fellow Evangelicals without first giving them an opportunity to repent, rejoice and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us in private, face-to-face discussions.
Further, the document must also open up at its edges, acknowledging that Evangelicals are not the only Christians; that while we staunchly believe Evangelicals hold views most consistent across the board with the truths of Scripture, it is the individual response to the work of Jesus Christ that determines who gains entry into the family of God known as Christians. This document lays out in delightful fashion why Evangelicalism should be attractive to followers of Jesus, but it must also firmly declare that we are not the only Christians. We bask in the privilege of standing alongside other brothers and sisters in Christ who may be uncomfortable defining themselves as Evangelical but who nevertheless have wholeheartedly surrendered themselves to the exclusive claim of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, and by no other means.
We don't need to reject or eliminate the Evangelical Manifesto: That would be to lose a powerful and significant tool in the Kingdom; but it does need tweaking. Only when the great men and women of the historic Evangelical tradition stand shoulder to shoulder on the same platform ready to sign, or until they stand shoulder to shoulder on the same platform to proclaim their bonds despite NOT being able to sign, then this document is not yet finished, not yet ready for the media scrutiny it is already enduring.
The drafters should declare it a draft; and what was presented to the press on May 7 as a finished project must now be declared a work-in-progress.
Restoration and redemption of people is more important than restoration and redemption of the reputation of our label. The work of the first will most surely accomplish the task of the second.
--Randy Kilgore
Visitor Comments (0)