On Wednesday, a group of Christian leaders, led by Os Guinness, went public with an "Evangelical Manifesto."
We are troubled by the fact that the confusions and corruptions surrounding the term Evangelical have grown so deep that the character of what it means has been obscured and its importance lost. Many people outside the movement now doubt that Evangelical is ever positive, and many inside now wonder whether the term any longer serves a useful purpose.
In short, the "Manifesto" was an apology for all the mistakes evangelicals have made, particularly, as in recent years, becoming increasingly defined by the political and cultural positions, instead of clinging simply to their identity as Christ-followers. Among other ills, the creators of the document acknowledged:
All too often we have trumpeted the gospel of Jesus, but we have replaced biblical truths with therapeutic techniques, worship with entertainment, discipleship with growth in human potential, church growth with business entrepreneurialism, concern for the church and for the local congregation with expressions of the faith that are churchless and little better than a vapid spirituality, meeting real needs with pandering to felt needs, and mission principles with marketing precepts. In the process we have become known for commercial, diluted, and feel-good gospels of health, wealth, human potential, and religious happy talk, each of which is indistinguishable from the passing fashions of the surrounding world.
There were 77 Christian leaders who signed the document, including Max Lucado, Jim Wallis, and John Yates. Many (like James Dobson and Chuck Colson) didn't sign it for a variety of reasons. Some criticized the lack of diversity among the signers, like Washington Times religion writer Julia Duin:
The paucity of black and female signers on this document was
pretty obvious. There are many evangelical female scholars in the D.C.
area who could have signed on and shown up at the press conference. Why
weren't any of them sought out? Organizers cited a lack of time but the
word on the street is they spent plenty of time trying to balance out
the document with certain signees from the right and the left. Surely
they could have found some local women and black leaders.
I don't know. Overall, it seems like it could be a good first step in making necessary apologies. But, will it really change anything? Only time will tell.