Evangelical Manifesto

[Kathy O'Connor]

I found this to be an interesting read.

http://www.evangelicalmanifesto.com/


Sojourners (sojo.net) has a study guide available for use with small groups. I haven't had time to check it out, but thought I'd mention it for those interested.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I found this to be an interesting read.

http://www.evangelicalmanifesto.com/

Sojourners (sojo.net) has a study guide available for use with small groups. I haven't had time to check it out, but thought I'd mention it for those interested.

After only a quick read: There are a lot of good points there. It attempts to define evangelicals in terms of mission and faithfulness to calling rather than in terms of doctrines and culture, especially trying to track a middle ground between "liberals" and "fundamentalists." In the modern religious context, I think that is helpful.

However, the very use of the categories of "liberal" and "fundamentalists" is a little simplistic. The last 200 years of theology cannot so easily be categorized into two polarized categories. And the critique of "liberals" was much more intense than that of "fundamentalists," especially in light of the open admission that "fundamentalists" are close to their version of "evangelicals."

Also, the document states that evangelicals must be defined theologically rather than culturally or socially. I would agree, but that does not solve as much as they would like it to solve. There are several places where the basically Reformed theological framework within which they are working comes through, such as an emphasis on a penal/substitutionary view of the atonement, imputed righteousness, and a view of sin as necessary and ongoing. While the perspective of the work of the Holy Spirit could be incorporated into a Wesleyan perspective, it is generally weak on the work of the Holy Spirit in transformation. Rather, the HS is seen more generally as enabling us to live with sin, at the very best a suppressionist or Keswickian position if not an outright Reformed perspective.

Also, some comments can be read more than one way within a larger evangelical context. For example the emphasis on the “total truthfulness” of Scripture could easily be read as inerrancy. Correspondingly, there is no mention of the interpretative tradition of the Church, past or present, as having any kind of authority for faith and practice. While the document rejects individualism, this lack leaves open the question of how we go about interpreting and applying Scripture as a “supreme authority” if we do not have a larger communal framework within which to operate (for example, there is no Doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament).

On the whole, this document addresses some of the problems that have emerged in the equation of fundamentalism with evangelicalism. And it does a good job of focusing on the purpose of Christianity in reaching out to others in various ways that go beyond appeals to conversion. But it is still too narrow in terms of a theological definition of evangelicalism. It could easily be adapted into a more Wesleyan-friendly version.

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

[Dale Cozby]

Dennis I agree that it doesn't take long to see the theological background of the framers of this document.

However, if we look past the subtle and sometimes not so subtle theological persuasion of its writers, they do address some issues that really do cause a black eye for those of us called "evangelical" that we should work toward.

I think overall, it calls for unity at different levels.

It calls for a global civility and freedom to dialogue and persuade for all people.
It calls for us to accept a larger picture than the issues that have defined us politically or culturally in the USA.
It calls for us to be missional rather than doctrinal.

But it does, I think, over define the theological meaning of "evangelical"
Especially in the Summary document.

[Ken Pell]

In spite of the reformed theology that drives the document I found it refreshing.

I could not help but think about how a Wesleyan influence would have beneficial however.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

It is necessary in many instances to be communaity minded. But, even though we cannot, all, go into all of the world and preach the gospel, we can pray, give and send. But, basically, I feel that we are very much responsible for the vineyard, in which we have been planted.
It is something like this. If I should win the whole world, and my children's souls are lost-have I accomplished His will for me and my family--while trying to each out to many far beyond, our ability to personally reach. I strongly believe in missional work, but still feel that the vineyards, Dwayne and I have been put in, at various times and places were our responsiblity.
We cannot replace the doctirnes, and ways we should live that are a Godly and Christlike example, for all of these other things that the current EM church wants us to work toward.

I was a lttle surprised today, as I read how parents have taken on the responisbility of homeschool in order to keep their children in a Christian atmosphere. I knew that part- but, the article coninued to say how mnay churches, and home churches have developed from the homeschool families. I had not made this connection, even though, as I think about it now, I am seeing that around this area. This will be the end of nine school years of homeschooling my grandson, and helping at times, with the others.
One of our dughters and her family are attending a neat clean, store front church, that is basiclaly full of homeschoolers. The other daughter has began church at home and wishes to reach out to others. Our son, I think attens a big church in Nashville on Sunday afternoon, that seems to cater some services to artisic minded people that like to stay up late and work on music etc. and students like that, also. But the other services that he attends are in a home. So, as I put 2 and 2 together, I see where the writer of the article is coming from.
But, whatever vineyard we have been placed in, should be where we center most of our work of the kingdom. Now this is just my feelings. Anyone is welcome to their own.

[Kathy O'Connor]

I appreciate the insight all of you have made. As I'm relatively new to the Nazarene Church, I'm not as adept at seeing the different "theological flavors" of the document, but I'm learning. :) Thank you for pointing those out.