I agree with it… so I signed it.

EvangelicalManifesto.com

The introduction from the website:

An Evangelical Manifesto is an open declaration of who Evangelicals are and what they stand for. It has been drafted and published by a representative group of Evangelical leaders who do not claim to speak for all Evangelicals, but who invite all other Evangelicals to stand with them and help clarify what Evangelical means in light of “confusions within and the consternation without” the movement. As the Manifesto states, the signers are not out to attack or exclude anyone, but to rally and to call for reform.

As an open declaration, An Evangelical Manifesto addresses not only Evangelicals and other Christians but other American citizens and people of all other faiths in America, including those who say they have no faith. It therefore stands as an example of how different faith communities may address each other in public life, without any compromise of their own faith but with a clear commitment to the common good of the societies in which we all live together.

For those who are Evangelicals, the deepest purpose of the Manifesto is a serious call to reform—an urgent challenge to reaffirm Evangelical identity, to reform Evangelical behavior, to reposition Evangelicals in public life, and so rededicate ourselves to the high calling of being Evangelical followers of Jesus Christ.

Check out the website.

Read the entire 20 page document here.

Sign it here.

Tell your friends about it here.

HT: Matt Proctor

24 comments
  1. Unfortunately I don’t agree with all of it (I do with most of it), so I didn’t sign it.

    Email me and I’d be happy to chat w/ you about why;^)

    In Christ,
    Noah

  2. Unfortunately I don’t agree with all of it (I do with most of it), so I didn’t sign it.

    Email me and I’d be happy to chat w/ you about why;^)

    In Christ,
    Noah

  3. Unfortunately I don’t agree with all of it (I do with most of it), so I didn’t sign it.

    Email me and I’d be happy to chat w/ you about why;^)

    In Christ,
    Noah

  4. Unfortunately I don’t agree with all of it (I do with most of it), so I didn’t sign it.

    Email me and I’d be happy to chat w/ you about why;^)

    In Christ,
    Noah

  5. i like the document – a lot. and i’m enjoying reading the various opinions here and there around the web. i had some hesitations and misgivings before reading the document, but i’m actually quite impressed and invigorated after taking in the whole of what it addresses.

    one of the things i like is that the authors have chosen not to list creationism and inerrancy as 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. still, some people hold to these positions; so be it. there’s simply too much of a tendency to add items to the ever-increasing laundry list of ideas and doctrines to which we have to pledge allegiance before we’re allowed into the room marked “Christian.”

    nothing’s going to please everybody, and there are a few things i object to. for instance, i don’t agree with this statement: We Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally. Jesus’ message uses “action” verbs: teach them to DO as I have commanded you, LOVE God and LOVE your neighbor, by this will all men know … if you LOVE one another. any theology that defines us must have feet.

    i did, however, like these words: We are also troubled by the fact that the advance of globalization and the emergence of a global public square finds no matching vision of how we are to live freely, justly, and peacefully with our deepest differences on the global stage. somehow, we’ve got to figure out how we’re going to peacefully share the same bathroom over the next few decades in our ever-shrinking world.

    one interesting thing: maybe i missed it, but there doesn’t seem to be a great emphasis on evangelism in this Evangelical Manifesto. do you think that was intentional? i didn’t see a single chick tract referenced in the bibliography…

    more than anything, i find myself motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece – that it isn’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 that once served it well.

    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

  6. i like the document – a lot. and i’m enjoying reading the various opinions here and there around the web. i had some hesitations and misgivings before reading the document, but i’m actually quite impressed and invigorated after taking in the whole of what it addresses.

    one of the things i like is that the authors have chosen not to list creationism and inerrancy as 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. still, some people hold to these positions; so be it. there’s simply too much of a tendency to add items to the ever-increasing laundry list of ideas and doctrines to which we have to pledge allegiance before we’re allowed into the room marked “Christian.”

    nothing’s going to please everybody, and there are a few things i object to. for instance, i don’t agree with this statement: We Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally. Jesus’ message uses “action” verbs: teach them to DO as I have commanded you, LOVE God and LOVE your neighbor, by this will all men know … if you LOVE one another. any theology that defines us must have feet.

    i did, however, like these words: We are also troubled by the fact that the advance of globalization and the emergence of a global public square finds no matching vision of how we are to live freely, justly, and peacefully with our deepest differences on the global stage. somehow, we’ve got to figure out how we’re going to peacefully share the same bathroom over the next few decades in our ever-shrinking world.

    one interesting thing: maybe i missed it, but there doesn’t seem to be a great emphasis on evangelism in this Evangelical Manifesto. do you think that was intentional? i didn’t see a single chick tract referenced in the bibliography…

    more than anything, i find myself motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece – that it isn’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 that once served it well.

    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

  7. i like the document – a lot. and i’m enjoying reading the various opinions here and there around the web. i had some hesitations and misgivings before reading the document, but i’m actually quite impressed and invigorated after taking in the whole of what it addresses.

    one of the things i like is that the authors have chosen not to list creationism and inerrancy as 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. still, some people hold to these positions; so be it. there’s simply too much of a tendency to add items to the ever-increasing laundry list of ideas and doctrines to which we have to pledge allegiance before we’re allowed into the room marked “Christian.”

    nothing’s going to please everybody, and there are a few things i object to. for instance, i don’t agree with this statement: We Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally. Jesus’ message uses “action” verbs: teach them to DO as I have commanded you, LOVE God and LOVE your neighbor, by this will all men know … if you LOVE one another. any theology that defines us must have feet.

    i did, however, like these words: We are also troubled by the fact that the advance of globalization and the emergence of a global public square finds no matching vision of how we are to live freely, justly, and peacefully with our deepest differences on the global stage. somehow, we’ve got to figure out how we’re going to peacefully share the same bathroom over the next few decades in our ever-shrinking world.

    one interesting thing: maybe i missed it, but there doesn’t seem to be a great emphasis on evangelism in this Evangelical Manifesto. do you think that was intentional? i didn’t see a single chick tract referenced in the bibliography…

    more than anything, i find myself motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece – that it isn’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 that once served it well.

    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

  8. i like the document – a lot. and i’m enjoying reading the various opinions here and there around the web. i had some hesitations and misgivings before reading the document, but i’m actually quite impressed and invigorated after taking in the whole of what it addresses.

    one of the things i like is that the authors have chosen not to list creationism and inerrancy as 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. still, some people hold to these positions; so be it. there’s simply too much of a tendency to add items to the ever-increasing laundry list of ideas and doctrines to which we have to pledge allegiance before we’re allowed into the room marked “Christian.”

    nothing’s going to please everybody, and there are a few things i object to. for instance, i don’t agree with this statement: We Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally. Jesus’ message uses “action” verbs: teach them to DO as I have commanded you, LOVE God and LOVE your neighbor, by this will all men know … if you LOVE one another. any theology that defines us must have feet.

    i did, however, like these words: We are also troubled by the fact that the advance of globalization and the emergence of a global public square finds no matching vision of how we are to live freely, justly, and peacefully with our deepest differences on the global stage. somehow, we’ve got to figure out how we’re going to peacefully share the same bathroom over the next few decades in our ever-shrinking world.

    one interesting thing: maybe i missed it, but there doesn’t seem to be a great emphasis on evangelism in this Evangelical Manifesto. do you think that was intentional? i didn’t see a single chick tract referenced in the bibliography…

    more than anything, i find myself motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece – that it isn’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 that once served it well.

    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

  9. Mike,

    They may not have mentioned inerrancy, but they do cite the authority of the Bible in faith and practice throughout this document.

    “Jesus Christ and his written word, the Holy Scriptures, are our supreme authority; and whole-hearted devotion, trust, and obedience are our proper response.”

    “to be Evangelical is to recognize the primacy of the authority of Scripture”

    Regarding creationism – again they refer back to the Bible as the sole authority of faith and practice. There is very little disagreement that God created, but there is “in-house” debate over new earth vs. old earth vs. God-initiated evolution (which really is held by very few evangelicals).

    You are right about evangelism is not mentioned, but I believe the intent of the document is to clarify mainly that we are to be identified theologically, not politically. I think it was to address our interaction with the world. In that sense, I believe that it is implied.

    It should have greater mention however. It isn’t a perfect document, but it was a document that I felt I was able to sign even though it doesn’t entirely define who I am as a Christian.

  10. Mike,

    They may not have mentioned inerrancy, but they do cite the authority of the Bible in faith and practice throughout this document.

    “Jesus Christ and his written word, the Holy Scriptures, are our supreme authority; and whole-hearted devotion, trust, and obedience are our proper response.”

    “to be Evangelical is to recognize the primacy of the authority of Scripture”

    Regarding creationism – again they refer back to the Bible as the sole authority of faith and practice. There is very little disagreement that God created, but there is “in-house” debate over new earth vs. old earth vs. God-initiated evolution (which really is held by very few evangelicals).

    You are right about evangelism is not mentioned, but I believe the intent of the document is to clarify mainly that we are to be identified theologically, not politically. I think it was to address our interaction with the world. In that sense, I believe that it is implied.

    It should have greater mention however. It isn’t a perfect document, but it was a document that I felt I was able to sign even though it doesn’t entirely define who I am as a Christian.

  11. Mike,

    They may not have mentioned inerrancy, but they do cite the authority of the Bible in faith and practice throughout this document.

    “Jesus Christ and his written word, the Holy Scriptures, are our supreme authority; and whole-hearted devotion, trust, and obedience are our proper response.”

    “to be Evangelical is to recognize the primacy of the authority of Scripture”

    Regarding creationism – again they refer back to the Bible as the sole authority of faith and practice. There is very little disagreement that God created, but there is “in-house” debate over new earth vs. old earth vs. God-initiated evolution (which really is held by very few evangelicals).

    You are right about evangelism is not mentioned, but I believe the intent of the document is to clarify mainly that we are to be identified theologically, not politically. I think it was to address our interaction with the world. In that sense, I believe that it is implied.

    It should have greater mention however. It isn’t a perfect document, but it was a document that I felt I was able to sign even though it doesn’t entirely define who I am as a Christian.

  12. Mike,

    They may not have mentioned inerrancy, but they do cite the authority of the Bible in faith and practice throughout this document.

    “Jesus Christ and his written word, the Holy Scriptures, are our supreme authority; and whole-hearted devotion, trust, and obedience are our proper response.”

    “to be Evangelical is to recognize the primacy of the authority of Scripture”

    Regarding creationism – again they refer back to the Bible as the sole authority of faith and practice. There is very little disagreement that God created, but there is “in-house” debate over new earth vs. old earth vs. God-initiated evolution (which really is held by very few evangelicals).

    You are right about evangelism is not mentioned, but I believe the intent of the document is to clarify mainly that we are to be identified theologically, not politically. I think it was to address our interaction with the world. In that sense, I believe that it is implied.

    It should have greater mention however. It isn’t a perfect document, but it was a document that I felt I was able to sign even though it doesn’t entirely define who I am as a Christian.

  13. They may not have mentioned inerrancy, but they do cite the authority of the Bible in faith and practice throughout this document.

    shane that’s the point i was trying to make; sorry if it wasn’t clear (maybe my wife is right – i really do communicate poorly…). i believe scripture has great authority, but i don’t base it’s authority on the bible having to be inerrant.

    and, again, with creationism, that’s why i was glad they didn’t try to make it or ID or the gap theory or alien seeding or whatever the latest guess is a critical piece needed to stamp someone ‘Evangelical.’

    mike rucker

  14. They may not have mentioned inerrancy, but they do cite the authority of the Bible in faith and practice throughout this document.

    shane that’s the point i was trying to make; sorry if it wasn’t clear (maybe my wife is right – i really do communicate poorly…). i believe scripture has great authority, but i don’t base it’s authority on the bible having to be inerrant.

    and, again, with creationism, that’s why i was glad they didn’t try to make it or ID or the gap theory or alien seeding or whatever the latest guess is a critical piece needed to stamp someone ‘Evangelical.’

    mike rucker

  15. They may not have mentioned inerrancy, but they do cite the authority of the Bible in faith and practice throughout this document.

    shane that’s the point i was trying to make; sorry if it wasn’t clear (maybe my wife is right – i really do communicate poorly…). i believe scripture has great authority, but i don’t base it’s authority on the bible having to be inerrant.

    and, again, with creationism, that’s why i was glad they didn’t try to make it or ID or the gap theory or alien seeding or whatever the latest guess is a critical piece needed to stamp someone ‘Evangelical.’

    mike rucker

  16. They may not have mentioned inerrancy, but they do cite the authority of the Bible in faith and practice throughout this document.

    shane that’s the point i was trying to make; sorry if it wasn’t clear (maybe my wife is right – i really do communicate poorly…). i believe scripture has great authority, but i don’t base it’s authority on the bible having to be inerrant.

    and, again, with creationism, that’s why i was glad they didn’t try to make it or ID or the gap theory or alien seeding or whatever the latest guess is a critical piece needed to stamp someone ‘Evangelical.’

    mike rucker

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Child Labor: Is Newt Right?

Newt Gingrich is a master of controversy. From throwing a tantrum over…

Jan Mickelson: Real Men Need Grace

WHO-Radio personality who was asked to address the Real Men Conference on…

New Hampshire Trip Report

Last weekend I had the chance to attend the Straight Ahead Ministries…

I am in Turkey. That is all.

First of all, hello from the amazing country of Turkey! It is…