Dr. Darrell Bock was one of my professors at DTS during my years as a Master’s student. He’s an exemplary Christian scholar, and I am grateful for his contribution to the kingdom. That being said, our assessment of “An Evangelical Manifesto” is very different. In the last two days we have debated the Manifesto two different times on two different radio stations. The gist of our disagreement is over what the Manifesto calls “single-issues politics.” I argue that in America, abortion and marriage are transcendent moral issues. The first two items are the debates with Dr. Bock. The third item contains my initial analysis of the document from Wednesday. Friday…

On Wednesday, a group of high-profile, centrist evangelicals unveiled “An Evangelical Manifesto” at the National Press Club in Washington, D. C. A nine-person steering committee is responsible for the contents of the document (including Timothy George, David Neff, Richard Mouw, and Os Guinness). There are also scores of notable “charter signatories” (including Mark Bailey, Darryl Bock, J. P. Moreland, Alvin Plantinga, Ron Sider, Jim Wallis, and others).

The Washington Times reports why some prominent evangelical conservatives did not appear among the charter signatories of the recent “Evangelical Manifesto.” James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Richard Land and Janice Crouse are among those not listed, and all of them have statements in the Times article. Dr. Albert Mohler is also on the record expressing reticence about the document. Here’s the relevant excerpt from the story: ‘Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., said he was passed over but doubted he would have signed a document “that vague.” ‘The document, he said, “is often eloquent and many ways sets forth some key evangelical convictions. My questions have…

Alan Jacobs is a professor of English at Wheaton College, and he has written a pointed critique of “An Evangelical Manifesto” for The Wall Street Journal. His take on the document is clarifying: ‘The Manifesto is a very American document, the product of an election year, and a strong reaction against a quarter-century of evangelical identification with the Republican Party. . . ‘A purpose finally emerges with the appearance of a word never mentioned by its predecessor: “fundamentalism.” The Manifesto sets a course for evangelicalism that steers between the twin dangers of liberalism and fundamentalism. Few words are needed to distinguish evangelicalism from liberalism, but the authors, while they admit…

Richard Mouw is on the steering committee that drafted “An Evangelical Manifesto.” Yesterday, NPR interviewed him about the “Manifesto,” and the audio is available here. Or you can listen to it below. The interview begins at 27:20. [audio:http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/17/90266651/npr_90266651.mp3] I am not yet ready to post all of my reflections on the document, though I can tell you now that my review will be mixed. One of the reasons for my skepticism is confirmed in this interview. As everyone knows, leading evangelicals like James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Charles Colson, Albert Mohler, and others have not signed on to support the “Manifesto.” Mouw tells NPR that many of those who haven’t signed…

“An Evangelical Manifesto” was released this morning at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. As I noted in previous posts, I will offer some reflections on the “Manifesto” either later on today or tomorrow. For now, I direct your attention to the media materials that have been released. There is a video recording of the event held this morning: Archived Webcast of Press Conference. You will need Windows Media Player to view it. There are two websites: www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com and www.evangelicalmanifesto.com. The latter of the two websites is a press-friendly site that has an executive summary of the 20 page document.

USA Today has a story out in advance of the release of the “Manifesto.” There are some encouraging signs here that were missing from the AP story that I referenced in the previous post. The opening paragraph reads: ‘An “evangelical manifesto” being released today by a group of Christian scholars and theologians is expected to try to take back the term “evangelical” from politics and return it to its theological roots.’ A spokesman for the “Manifesto” says that,

This weekend the Associated Press reported that a group of evangelicals will release a document criticizing an evangelical movement that is too mired in partisan politics. ‘Conservative Christian leaders who believe the word “evangelical” has lost its religious meaning plan to release a starkly self-critical document saying the movement has become too political and has diminished the Gospel through its approach to the culture wars. ‘The statement, called “An Evangelical Manifesto,” condemns Christians on the right and left for “using faith” to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible, according to a draft of the document obtained Friday by The Associated Press.’ I have not yet…

Yesterday I lamented the fact that the evangelical left has their priorities all wrong. They refuse to treat abortion-on-demand as a transcendent moral issue. In other words, they do not think it should be a priority for Christians to support the protection of the unborn in law. Christians might try to reduce the abortion rate through social action, but they should not seek to protect the unborn through political means. At least that’s what the religious left is urging us to do.