The Salty Peanut Gallery

Last Wednesday during a press conference at the National Press Club “An Evangelical Manifesto” was made public for the first time. This was a result of a three-year project by a group of theological scholars and Christian leaders attempting to define the term “Evangelical” in a day when it is most often used to describe a sociopolitical demographic. There goal? “…to draft a document that reclaims the term and the calling for both the culture and community of faith.”

This is a rather interesting concept. Apparently the framers believe that the word itself isn’t bad per se just misunderstood. They readily admit that many “now wonder whether the term any longer serves a useful purpose.” This attempt at reclamation assumes that they at least believe it still does. It’s certainly a lovely sentiment. The question is does it really do what it claims to do? Not everyone thinks so.

Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for James Dobson of Focus on the Family had this to say:

One of the things that disappointed Dr. Dobson was that when the manifesto was initially circulated, no African-American pastors or theologians were on the invite list. His thinking was, “How can this purport to represent the voice of evangelicals when people so vital to who we are as a movement are excluded from involvement?”

Dean Nelson, conservative black pastor and head of the Network of Politically Active Christians also agrees.

African-American Christians have been involved politically for years, and for them to have this type of document without having participation from the minority community really calls into question if [the writers of the Manifesto] are really serious about being progressive, as they say that they are.

Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has misgivings of his own. He believes “this document says far too much on the one hand, and far too little on the other.” Dr. Mohler writes:

The document says a great deal about this confusion, and much of it is helpful and prophetic. I am in total agreement with the argument that Evangelicals “should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally.” But when the Manifesto presents a theological definition of Evangelicals, it turns out to be a rather minimal definition.

The Manifesto is brave in calling for an end to “culture warring” that threatens to unravel the society and shut down civil conversation and deliberation. But its bravery does not extend to any specific proposals about how this can be done.

Wheaton English professor, Alan Jacobs, doesn’t consider it to be much of a Manifesto either.

If only it had given us some sense of whom it is speaking to. Once all the self-description is out of the way, it turns out that the heart of the document is a kind of urgent appeal: Please don’t call us fundamentalists or confuse us with them. This strikes me as a regrettable tack, for two reasons. First, it is defensive, and manifestos should never be defensive. Second, it suggests a concern for labels and public perception that is not attractive in Christians.

Joe Carter of the evangelical outpost considers the Manifesto “a worthy effort”, but even he acknowledges the flawed logic behind its writing.

No doubt much of evangelicalism is not evangelical (or even Christian) but that has little to do with the perception people have about the term “evangelical” being used as a synonym with right-wing politics. That blame can indeed be placed squarely on the shoulders of the media. The media considers the term “evangelical” to be political rather than theological because of their own willful ignorance.

And it’s not very likely that will change any time soon despite this particular effort. For all the theological wisdom of its distinguished authors and more than 70 signers and for all their good intentions, this document really doesn’t do what it was intended to do and that is reclaim the term “Evangelical”. One wonders whether or not that is even possible. In the end the Evangelical Manifesto is turning out to be a colossal waste of time.