ver at Steve Brown etc. Os Guinness and Warren Smith were having a “civil” debate over An Evangelical Manifesto, a document released just this last May, of which Guinness has been the lead architect and main media spokesman. Not much of the actual debate concerned me greatly. It seems to be pretty cut and dry where the two parties were, and the actual debate wasn’t over the value and need for such a document. The debate revolved around why weren’t certain evangelical leaders invited to the drafting process. I was interested in a comment by Os that Al Mohler had been a rather vocal critic of the document, and that “he smelled universalism in it.” I do recall Dr. Mohler commenting on it on his radio show a month or so ago, stating something to the effect that the definition of evangelical used in the document was weak. He did concede that it was at least a starting point for a conversation. I would agree that the definition is a bit weak. I would have liked something just a bit more definitive, but I couldn’t say that it tended toward universalism. Guinness did make the point that it was “An” Evangelical Manifesto, and not “The” Evangelical Manifesto. In other words, If you don’t like it write one yourself. I like Mohler for many reasons, but I thought he was being a bit stodgy on his assessment of the document. I am reminded of the response that Dr. D. L. Moody gave so many years ago when criticized for his evangelistic methods. He said something to the effect “I like the way I’m doing it better than the way you’re not doing it.” It’s easy to make calls from the living-room recliner.
On the show Guinness explained the genesis of the project as the result of conversations a few years ago with dozens of leading evangelicals who were embarassed or ashamed by the term “evangelical”, or had just given up on the term altogether because its original meaning had been lost. Guinness went on to say that the “simple purpose of An Evangelical Manifesto, out of faithfulness to Christ” was 1) to reaffirm what evangelicalism is, 2) sound a call to reform in the evangelical community, and 3) challenge evangelicals to rethink their position in public life. Warren Smith—who is the publisher for the Evangelical Press News Service—has been a major critic of the document, as I have already said, mainly because a good number of leading “evangelicals” he thought should have been asked to contribute at the document’s drafting were not. I put evangelicals in quotes because I wonder if that is not at the center of the rub here. In the discussion it appeared that Smith was trying to get Guinness to admit that he did not view some of these men as evangelicals, mainly because of the political involvement and nature of their ministry; men like James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. Guinness would not be pinned down on that point, and I couldn’t say it sounded like he leans that way, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he and the other drafters of the document didn’t ask such men to participate. The way he delineated American religious culture into three groups would seem to imply that very conclusion:
“Evangelicals are primarily theological and spiritual; we’re followers of Jesus. We’re not first and foremost cultural like fundamentalism. We’re not first and foremost political like, say, the New York Times and many others sees the evangelicals as. We’re followers of Jesus.”
I think Guinness and others sees something that few—and especially few of us in the Southern Baptist Convention—understand. An Evangelical Manifesto may not have “evangelical” defined narrowly enough to suit some, but it is defined narrowly enough that many—and I mean us—do not meet the requirements to define themselves as evangelicals. If you don’t realize it, the word “evangel” and “gospel” are pretty much synonymous, and an evangelical has the gospel—the person and work of Jesus Christ: who he is, and what he has done, and why it matters—as the defining mark of their faith and practice. If you are more worried about changing culture, or getting the right candidate in the White House than you are about telling a lost world about the Lord Jesus Christ, then you are not an evangelical. Guinness is not advocating Christians disengaging from cultural issues and political involvement, he is merely saying that we should not be equated with those things. That is what he means by repeatedly saying “We’re followers of Jesus.” When the media and the candidates equate us with a voting block, or a “moral majority,” then they obviously do not see us as primarily followers of Jesus.
Pastors need to be very careful what they preach from their pulpits. Paul’s warning in Galatians 1:8 is serious business. There are many other passages addressing this issue from several vantage points, but that one is enough to chew on for a good long time.
