An Evangelical Manifesto?

So what do folks make of the recently unveiled "Evangelical Manifesto" (download the pdf)?  On the one hand, I think it is in the spirit of a "generous" orthodoxy of the sort that motivated this blog from its inception. In general, I think it rightly criticizes trends on both left and right, and problems both internal to evangelicalism as well as external challenges (e.g., the public policy impact if the "new atheism" gained a foothold).  Most of the time, I thought it sounds like David Wells or Don Carson--that is, sort of a grumpy Reformed take on evangelical "therapies" of various persuasions--but this certainly isn't the only voice. 

On the other hand, I find it a strange document.  Now, some of the steering committee and charter signatories include some of my friends, whom I respect a great deal.  So I'm not registering any radical dissent.  But I found myself struck by several things while reading it:

1. Well, there's that whole problem of knowing just what "evangelical" means (or, as they insist in the only footnote, Evangelical--as if evangelicalism has the weight of Catholicism, Anglicanism, or Orthodoxy).  I have to confess that I find the term less and less helpful.  And while this document demands that it be defined "theologically" (and not "sociologically"), I find the defintions offered here (e.g., believing in Jesus) a bit fuzzy.  In short, I'm not sure why the authors are so convinced that "the term is important" (p. 2).  For who?  For what? 

2. Related to (1), I always get a bit nervous when folks begin emphasizing evangelical "identity" (and this document explicitly takes up such identity politics, despite the "grave danger" [p. 4]).  Why does the concern to assert "evangelical" (sorry, Evangelical) identity always feel like an exercise in boundary-drawing with an ominous sense that Catholic-bashing is just around the corner?  Now, I'm not saying that this document does this--and many of these signatories are, in fact, involved in Catholic-evangelical dialogues.  But you can see that this issue is always lurking around such projects when they assert, "Our purpose is not to attack or to exclude" (p. 5).  Hmmm...methinks thou doth protest too much? I guess my question is: what does the term "Evangelical" get you that the term "Catholic" doesn't?  When folks give me answers to that question, I find they either offer me something I don't want, or proffer some caricatured understanding of the Catholic tradition.  Or, to put it otherwise, when they list the "distinctives" of evangelicalism (pp. 5-6), is there anything on there that Catholics wouldn't endorse?  If someone says "sola Scriptura," then we've got other problems (see [3] below).

3. I guess what I was most surprised to see--given the theological heavyweights behind this--is what I can only describe as a rather naive hermeneutic.  Take two examples: First, after affirming that "Evangelicals  adhere fully to the Christian faith expressed in the historic creeds of the great ecumenical councils" (though--dirty little secret--vast swaths of evangelicals are rabidly anti-creedal), the Manifesto then asserts: "We have no supreme leader [why does this sound like some B-grade martian movie?], and neither creeds nor tradition are ultimately decisive for us.  Jesus Christ and his written word, the Holy Scriptures, are our supreme authority" (p. 7).  Seriously?  Are we really entertaining a notion that Evangelicals are those Christians who have some sort of pristine, tradition-free access to "what Jesus really said"?  I thought F.F. Bruce had debunked this sort of naive Scripture/tradition distinction for evangelicals years ago.  As if there isn't a massive and complex evangelical tradition of reading Scripture (for more on this, see chapter 5 of my Fall of Interpretation).  Second, in the same vein, the Manifesto claims that "Evangelicalism goes back directly to Jesus and the Scriptures."  Really?  C'mon. 

4. I think the Manifesto is at its best when its critical finger points backwards at evangelicalism itself (pp. 11ff), for instance when it chides evangelicals who have "become cheerleaders for those in power and the naive sycophants of the powerful and the rich" (p. 13).  So, too, when it points beyond single-platform politics of abortion or marriage and raises the issue of "conflict" (why not just say "war?"), racism, corruption, poverty," and more (p. 14).  It is interesting to note what's not named in here though: e.g., militarism? capitalism? nationalism?

5. The document sort of goes "Greg Boyd" in a final section where it laments the error of "politicizing" faith, either on the right or the left.  This, of course, sounds clear enough, until you start to ask just what "politicize" means--indeed, what does "politics" and "the political" refer to here?  Just the machinations of the state?  When they say that "Evangelicals see it as our duty to engage with politics" (p. 15--really, by the way?  A duty?  Of what sort?  On what basis?), it seems to me that they mean evangelicals have a duty to participate in the machinations of the given state.  Maybe.  But I would just register that it's not quite that easy; that's not the only way to "be political."  I always find evangelical discussions on these matters are quite content to let "politics" function as a black box.  It seems to me that they might mean a "party-izing" of the faith.  But I'm worried that lurking in there is actually some sense that "politics" is "outside" faith, and then we have to figure out how to get "faith" into connection with politics.  And that would seem to assume that the faith is not "political" in itself, which I think would be another naive assumption. 

6. Finally, when I got to the end, I kept hoping that I would figure out just why this Manifesto was released.  Why now?  What's the hook?  On this point, I remain a bit befuddled. 

Do we need an "Evangelical" Manifesto?  Is it "important" to "keep the term?"  I remain unconvinced, particularly if keeping the "distinctives" of "Evangelical" means buying into some rather simplistic hermeneutical moves.  And at the end of the day, I would rather be part of a Manifesto that can be affirmed by "mere" Nicene Christians rather than "Evangelicals" alone. 

Your turn.

Comments

[James K.A. Smith]

Oh, and I meant to mention: this isn't a scientific analysis, but from my accounting, of the 71 "charter signatories," only 6 are women. That should bring Jennell into the discussion! ;-)

[unorthodoxology]

Grumpy Reformed types. Well put. Made me snort. I got the same vibe. I think all your critiques are pretty spot-on. Here's what I would add, less on content, more on idea.

I like this document at times, but mostly, I find this manifesto extremely disturbing, not so much for its content but for what it aims to do.

Regardless of what its authors say, it is attempting to set itself up as an, if not, the authority on evangelicalism. Power through discourse. It is attempting to *define* the terms of discussion on evangelicalism. It seeks to divorce itself from fundamentalistic evangelicalism, rather than admitting the historical fact that in America, these two strands are linked inextricably and come from the same source.

Neither does it speak significantly to the charismatic renewal in many evangelical churches, thus, the structuring absence of the article disavows charismatic evangelical expressions as not evangelical.

Plus, this a group with power handing down a manifesto. By it's nature, manifestos are usually top-down documents with little regard for what goes on day to day in real life.

This is very interesting, though, linguistically. This group is trying to create a new discourse around the word evangelical, and it will be interesting to see how successful they are. It seems that this group is essentially attempting to revise the history of evangelicals to exclude people they consider too conservative or liberal by saying this is not true evangelicalism.

But they factually cannot divorce fundamentalistic evangelicalism from this tradition any more than you can divorce liberal, social evangelicalism (abolitionism & suffrage) from the tradition. They are all under this label, for better or worse.

I understand they may be frustrated with the way people use this word. And that the right wingers tend to get the most press. But this is a struggle for the soul of (I still say, conservative) evangelicalism which goes back to the 40s and 50s when folks like Billy Graham tried to soften the rhetoric of the fundamentalists from the early 20s and 30s.

[dopderbeck]

I think it's an excellent document overall, and I signed it. But, clearly, it isn't perfect. Is there a swipe at emergent where it mentions and criticizes "a new kind of faith?" That would be unfortunate. But the reason I signed it is for the aspects of it that recognize the need for humility, particularly with respect to politics and the sciences. Let's hope it serves not as another boundary-maker but instead as a softener of some boundaries that are too rigid.

[jenell]

Indeed, James, I'm crafting a post on that very subject - hopefully will have it up by day's end or tomorrow.

James, did you sign it? I did.

Part of the beauty of a manifesto or call is that it gains life after its creation -- at least to some extent, we create its effects by talking about it. I like this conversation here.

Wonder about the 'theological heavyweights' who created the document. Several on the steering committee aren't theologians - one is described as 'businessman.' I wonder what James, or others here, think of the cluster of men who comprised the steering committee. Do they have a common perspective or vision or something? And which 'heavyweight' evangelicals are excluded (Greg Boyd comes to mind) and why?

[steve martin]

I do like the document. But I agree that the definition is a little fuzzy. I really like the definition John Stackhouse uses for the EFC (Canadian equivelant of NAE). He states 6 characteristics 1) orthodox & orthoprax 2) crucicentric 3) biblicist 4) conversionist 5) missional 6) transdenominational. He also notes that there is nothing peculiarly
evangelical about any of them singly, but that the characteristics function as a set for Evangelicals (ie. 5 out of 6 doesn't cut it). See entire document on EFC site at: http://files.efc-canada.net/min/rc/CFT-1-1-DefiningEvangelical.pdf for details.

I realize this is an American document but it would have been stronger IMHO if it leveraged Stackhouse's definition.

[mike rucker]

i confess that i had some hesitations and misgivings before reading the document, but was actually quite impressed and invigorated after taking in the whole of what it addressed.

i am glad they chose not to say that creationism and inerrancy were 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. kind of stupid when you think about it ... not that thinking is a pre-requisite of course in any of these endeavors.

more than anything, i was motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece - that it wasn'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 ever since it embraced the neo-con's Jesus bobble-head doll.

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

[Brandon Jones]

I appreciated your comments. My only guess on your #6 is that it's an American election year, and there is a hope by this group that reporters will stop treating evangelicals as a mere voting bloc. This is how I take the incorporation of the phrase "useful idiots" from the document itself.

[Steve Long]

Did Duane Litfin, pres of Wheaton sign this? If so, will he repent for firing Hochschield and make a public apology? Then the manifesto might have some teeth. Or do the signatories assume with Litfin that "Evangelical" does in fact mean -- absolutely not Catholic. If so, then Jamie is correct in his reservations.

Steve Long

[Kevin Hector]

Prof. Smith,

You imply that the claim:

(1) "We have no supreme leader, and neither creeds nor tradition are ultimately decisive for us. Jesus Christ and his written word, the Holy Scriptures, are our supreme authority" (p. 7)

Entails commitment to the claim that:

(2) "...Evangelicals...have some sort of pristine, tradition-free access to 'what Jesus really said.'"

This strikes me as uncharitable. To hold that tradition must be held accountable to Scripture does not require one to understand Scripture as a sellarsian "Given" that one can perceive from sideways on, that is, apart from engagement in tradition-mediated practices such as concept-application. The fact that we have no tradition-free access to Scripture entails only that we cannot hold all of our commitments accountable to Scripture all at once, so to speak; so long as we leave unquestioned a sufficient number of other commitments, we can call any one of our commitments into question. This, in any event, is the line taken by Sellars, Davidson, van Fraassen, and many, many others, to explain why nonfoundationalism doesn't entail that "anything goes," nor that we can't hold our commitments accountable to a certain stretch of those commitments which we take to be "basic." But then, I'm sure I don't need to tell you about these things.

The point is this: among the possible interpretations you could have brought to bear on this claim, you chose the one that makes its authors out to be "naive." Why not ascribe a different interpretation that takes them to be just as sophisticated as you? In addition to the fact that you have an obligation to strive for charitable interpretation, by reading the relevant claims in this way, you may actually persuade "naive" hermeneuts to adopt a more "sophisticated" view.

(Then again, maybe your fault lies only in choosing an inapt quotation; perhaps there is evidence elsewhere in the Manifesto that would support your "naive" interpretation.)

I appreciate your insights on these matters, but I would appreciate them more if you strove to interpret evangelicals charitably.

Kevin

[James K.A. Smith]

Fair enough, Kevin. How about the other quote I cited in the post:

"Evangelicalism goes back directly to Jesus and the Scriptures."

What would be a charitable way to read "directly," in light of the other concerns I've expressed regarding the general project of defining "evangelical" as always already feeling anti-Catholic?

Perhaps "naive" was a snobby way of putting it. But I'm just not sure how to understand the claims about Jesus and the Bible being "direct" authorities for "Evangelicals" _except_ as a muted polemic against others (e.g., Catholics) who recognize the necessary mediation of tradition, and hence the authority of creeds, bishops, etc.

This raises another question, namely, what implicit ecclesiology is at work in the document. I don't have it in front of me, but I don't remember the church making much of an appearance (but I could be mis-remembering). But doesn't such talk of "direct" access to Jesus make it sound like the implicit ecclesiology of "Evangelicalism" is free church primitivism? I know, I know: there are all sorts of evangelicals who are Anglicans, Presbyterians, etc. Of course. What, then, are they asserting when they claim to be "evangelical?" Does their "evangelical" identity trump their Anglican identity? Well, then, it seems to me that "evangelical" is a sort of essentially parachurch phenomenon.

My tendency to read the document and claims in the way that Kevin notes is not intended to be a snobby dismissal; in fact, it comes from a pretty decent legacy of hurts at the hands of evangelicals who thought they had "direct" access to what Jesus wants.

[Haven Perez]

Maybe this is not the place, maybe there are books you fine gentlemen can direct me to; however, what the hell is an Evangelical? How is it different than being called a proselytizing Protestant?

For the longest time, I’ve suspected that there are two columns that support the Evangelical label. The trans-denominational theological column, developed by the Neo-Evangelicals, which has come to mean whatever a charismatic personality, can convince you what it means, thus it casts a wide net. DG Hart’s Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham describes this.
And the Political Right column, formed by the alliance between white conservative Evangelicals and Republican strategists during the late 1970s, which knows exactly what it (the evangelical label) means--right-wing political theories. Randal Balmer’s book, Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America, describes this event.

I’m doing ethnographic research on the ways Evangelicals of color (self-identified, mostly non-denominational Charismatics and a few Pentecostals) and mainline Protestants of color (some of them identify as “evangelical” some of them don’t), view white Evangelicals and/or Protestants and then their view of the State/Government. The results are quite telling, however the evangelical label is all over the place.

P.S. Just picked up your book, Live Theory Professor Smith. I fine read.

[James K.A. Smith]

I'll leave it to those who like the term to define "Evangelical" for you, Haven (this Manifesto is a good start, as is Stackhouse's definition that Steve Martin noted). But I will second the claim that Hart's _Deconstructing Evangelicalism_ has been too under-appreciated in these discussions.

[James K.A. Smith]

By the way, I'm living in England right now, so it's hard to discern from over here whether the Manifesto is having an impact on conversation in the States (which is really the only place where it's relevant). Are non-evangelicals paying attention to it? I didn't see anything about it in the NYTimes. Just curious.

[Haven Perez]

I'm at USC, and the professors who deal with religion, culture and politics (2 Profs in Political Science, 1 in Sociology and 1 in Annenberg Communications) have all sent me e-mails.

Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost covers some of the attention by the media:

AP: Evangelical leaders say their faith is too politicized

USA Today: Manifesto aims to make 'evangelical' a less-political term
Reuters: US evangelicals call for step back from politics

NPR: 'Evangelical Manifesto' Aims to Depoliticize Religion

The evangelical blogs are all a-buzz:
Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds has a rundown, and at the end of his post there several links from assorted the evangelical bLogs.

All this on the heels of Wicker’s The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church and other stuff.

This interview with Debra Dickerson is fascinating: The Myth of the Moral Majority

[Kevin Hector]

Prof. Smith,

Thanks for the response. I should say, first, that your point about "directness"-claims being used to underwrite some pretty nasty practices is well taken. Let me be clear that I'm not disagreeing with you about the need to maintain a space from which such claims can be critiqued. I just think it's more effective to try to open up this space, as far as possible, within evangelical self-understanding.

So then: how might one charitably read the claim that "in its very essence, Evangelicalism goes back directly to Jesus and the Scriptures..."? Even in context, the claim is a bit ambiguous, but in view of the document's other claims, I take it that two points are in view: on the one hand, that contemporary "Evangelicalism" carries on the normative trajectory of apostolic Christian practice, and on the other, that it keeps going back to Jesus and the Scriptures. We could think of these as the claim's substantive and methodological implications, respectively. Do these implications necessarily imply the sort of naive, uncritical perspective we are worried about? Spelling this out would take a lot more time than I'm prepared to devote to this post, but why couldn't we explain the "directness" in question in Davidsonian terms: just as we perceive objects through (that is, by virtue of having) language, so we perceive Jesus and Scripture through (that is, by virtue of participating in) practices that have been carried on by the Christian tradition? (I am aware that there are some relevant disanalogies, but I don't have time to go into them here.) Understood in these terms, there would be no reason to think that the "directness" (or, perhaps better, the "immediacy") in question is incompatible with affirming that which is mediated by the tradition--indeed, this account would involve a sort of gratitude to the tradition. And, to be sure, that's just one way of spelling this out; there are several others. The point is that although we could read "direct"-ness as indicating a naive sort of evangelical self-understanding, there are other ways we could interpret it, and I'm suggesting that we encourage versions of the latter.

There are at least two further reasons to support the kind of reading I'm suggesting. First, it's fairly clear that the document understands evangelicalism as carrying on (rather than exempt from) tradition. Second--and more importantly--if evangelicals think that they have to choose between an apparently "Catholic" understanding of tradition and the kind of "primitivism" about which you're concerned, they may well take themselves to be justified in holding to their "primitivism." Alternatively, if friendly voices make it clear that these aren't the only options, and that there are ways of upholding the primacy of Scripture without adverting to such "primitivism," then I suspect we might make some progress toward one of the goals you and I share.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

Kevin

[bradm]

Here is a WSJ article about it.

[Dean Ohlman]

As a 65-year-old, reared in the GARBC Dispensational fashion, and having spent most of my life in Evangelical Christian ministries, my feeling when reading it was simply, "So let it be said." It is a good statement and carefully crafted. All this blogging criticism seems in fact to be the very reason we need a statement like this. Why not give it a rest and let its wisdom percolate within us all for a while.

[James K.A. Smith]

Kevin, I appreciate your wise and generous thoughts here. I see what you're up to, and I can appreciate the strategy as both cagey and sanguine. It sounds like we're coming from different starting points, which generates different stances: you've got an investment in the term "evangelical," or feel that it has potential, and thus you're inclined to a charitable read and want to clear space for a sort of evangelicalism that, frankly, is not like most evangelicals. I can appreciate that.

Me, on the other hand? I'm committed to evangelicals like my family. (Sometimes I feel like Orwell amongst the northern working class of England--as much as he wants to identify with the miners and tripe shop owners of Lancashire, he just can't shake his public school formation. So, too, much as I am taken with a thicker, Catholic tradition, I still can't shake my evangelical formation.) But I find myself less inclined to see much of value in saving "evangelical" because I think it has alot more baggage. But I think we're both after the same thing: I'm basically trying to get evangelicals to see themselves as Catholic. (Keep in mind that I don't talk this way to real people! ;-) This is insider talk for fellow theologians.)

I think you underestimate the extent to which anti-creedalism (and thus anti-traditionalism) is inscribed in the DNA of evangelicalism. But on this point, I actually think the drafters of the Evangelical Manifesto might do the same. Which raises a related issue: to what extent is the "evangelicalism" of the Manifesto a kind of "ideal" projected from the heads of theologians? (I don't say this in an accusatory way: I've often said the the Pentecostalism I envision can only be found in the head of Amos Yong!) Is the "evangelicalism" of the Manifesto more of a promise than a reality? And if so, how do we deal with the gap between the two?

[Haven Perez]

Your 4th observation hits the nail on the head.

I think the relationship between American Evangelicalism and American Nationalism would prevent any critique of the United States’ embrace of mass death and destruction in the pursuit of hegemony. The right-to-life is a luxury, most American Evangelicals reserve for a minority of the unborn population within the United States; however Middle Easterners’ right-to-life is contingent on the fears and anxieties of Americans, especially fiercely nationalistic Americans.

The relationship between American Evangelicals and warmongering is pretty deep. I remember one critique of Billy Graham was that he never met an American war he didn’t like.

Although the invasion and occupation of Iraq was protested by most mainline Protestant churches; white Evangelicals, by large margins, supported the military action. (as well as 49% of Latino Evangelicals). The United Methodist Church ran a commercial before the war, saying, “We’re President Bush’s church and we’re against the war.” And the National Council of Churches, an organization that represents 35 various mainline Protestant churches, ran a newspaper ad that said, “President Bush, Jesus changed your heart. Now let him change your mind.” However, 69% of people polled who identified as Evangelical or conservative Christian backed President Bush’s military action. That’s pretty scary.

One problem political Evangelicals have is convincing Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and Evangelicals of color that they all share the same concerns. No matter what the latest polling data may suggest about the theological/spiritual diversity of American evangelicalism, (which seems to be problematic for other reasons) contemporary evangelical politics is best explained as “a 'nativist' defence of the culture of native-born Anglo-Saxon Protestants.” And as such, very limited.

Although I’m not a huge fan of Steve Bruce (sociology of religion), his observations concerning evangelical Protestantism and right-wing politics is spot on.

And at the end of the day, I would rather be part of a Manifesto that can be affirmed by "mere" Nicene Christians rather than "Evangelicals" alone.

Amen to that.

[Stephen Lawson]

Great comments.

My thoughts about the manifesto are here:

http://www.peaceablezealot.com/peaceablezealot/2008/05/evangelical-man.html