An “evangelical manifesto” being released today by a group of Christian scholars and theologians is expected to try to take back the term “evangelical” from politics and return it to its theological roots.
“Evangelical” has been widely used to refer to Christians who have conservative political views, but the Evangelical Theological Society requires members to agree on just two points: inerrancy of Scripture, and belief in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as “separate but equal in attributes and glory” and essential for salvation.
First read the full manifesto, then read the rest of the article about it.
“Fifth, we believe that being disciples of Jesus means serving him as Lord in every sphere of our lives, secular as well as spiritual, public as well as private, in deeds as well as words, and in every moment of our days on earth, always reaching out as he did to those who are lost as well as to the poor, the sick, the hungry, the oppressed, the socially despised, and being faithful stewards of creation and our fellow-creatures.”
Sounds political to me….
Don
#1. That is not a political statement. I agree that some political folk disagree with #5, but that is on them, not on the statement. What in that statement do you not affirm?
I did not see the red flag word “inerrancy” in the text. That is good!
I missed topics like liturgy, baptism, communion. Guess those are not part of being an Evangelical. Maybe draft 2 will take them into account. Or maybe they really are not part of what it means to be “Evangelical”. I have never liked the term myself. I think there is a book called “Evangelical is not enough” That fits this statement!
But I did like the flavor of the text. Not your grandmothers “evangelicalism”, which may be upsetting to some. Now if we can get the evangelicals to walk the “Canterbury Trail”!
“public as well as private, in deeds as well as words, and in every moment of our days on earth”
Unless I am to be an a-political creature, how do I live out my political responsibilities in charity and love and not be political?
Until we find ourselves in something other than an “of the people, by the people” government we have both the right and responsibility, as christians, of loving our neighbor through politics; through giving our neighbor the best government that our voice and vote can produce.
Anything else is un-christian.
Don
I think Southern Seminary’s Al Mohler’s comment is a thoughtful one many of us share. It’s an issue the framers of the Manifesto don’t seem to have dealt with forthrightly:
[blockquote]The document, he said, “is often eloquent and in many ways sets forth some key evangelical convictions. My questions have to do with its actual intent. How specifically do those who are framing this document wish to define evangelicalism with reference to some crucial questions, such as abortion and gay marriage? They appear to be calling for civility, but how do they suggest discussing these issues in the public square and be as civil as they think themselves to be?” [/blockquote]
The quote is from Julia Duin’s report in the Wash. Times. Worth reading it all:
[url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080508/NATION/556874352/1002]Julia Duin report on Manifesto[/url]
w.w.
I can’t find either the word “inerrancy” or the phrase “separate but equal” in regard to the trinity. That second phrase strikes me as sounding modalist rather than trinitarian, but doing a search I can’t find it anywhere. Strange that the news article puts in in quotes. Not sure where it came from.
Okay – now I see that they are quoting the Evangelical Theological Society. But the ETS statement says, “God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.”
Partisan might have been a better word than political. All human interaction is political. Partisan fits better the idea of not becoming over-identified with the policies of a political party.
Phillip Cato