The Dude Abides
Chicago Sun Times
May 9, 2008 Friday, Final Edition
Copyright 2008 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc. All Rights Reserved Section: NEWS; Pg. 26
Length: 834 words
Byline: Cathleen Falsani, Special to The Chicago Sun-Times
Mao Zedong published one. So did Ted Kaczynski, Ron Paul, and Valerie Solanas, the radical feminist writer who shot Andy Warhol.
The communists had one. And so did the anarchists, the humanists and the founding fathers of the Unites States of America (although they called theirs a “declaration,” not a “manifesto.”)
Now the Evangelicals have one, too.
Earlier this week, a group of more than 70 clergy, leaders and theologians released The Evangelical Manifesto, a 20-page declaration reclaiming the word “Evangelical” (with a capital “E,” they insist) from the pit of political realm where, they say, it is in danger of losing its sacred meaning.
The word “manifesto” conjures to my mind images of wild-eyed extremists with a rusty mimeograph machine and an ax to grind — the opposite, I’m guessing, of what these influential American Christians had in mind when they set out to right their religious ship.
But the word itself, which comes from the Italian manifestare, meaning, “to make public,” is much less intimidating than what we popularly associate with “manifesto” in our contemporary lexicon.
How appropriate, then, that these religious folk chose one loaded word to describe their attempts to reclaim the proper meaning of another loaded word: Evangelical.
“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,” the authors of The Evangelical Manifesto say in its introduction. “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.”
I couldn’t agree more with their premise. In a dozen years on the religion beat, there is no question I’m asked more frequently and no misconception that I have to correct more often than what an Evangelical actually is.
The association the word has in our popular consciousness is with narrow-minded, condemning, mean-spirited, hypocritical holier-than-thous who belong exclusively to the Grand Old Party, wholeheartedly support the war, are hostile toward science, suspicious of the arts and media, and who would sooner judge you than show you any grace. As an Evangelical myself, this is painful and infuriating.
It’s maddening because the reputation the term Evangelical has is, in part, well-earned. So I’m thrilled to see a cross-section of Evangelicals — from Sojourners founder Jim Wallis and Wheaton College President Duane Litfin, to Notre Dame historian Mark Noll and Forbes Magazine publisher Rich Karlgaard — rise up and face this issue head-on, with a rational, civil point-by-point rebuttal, an historical and theological primer, and . . . a mea culpa.
“If the Evangelical impulse is a radical, reforming, and innovative force, we acknowledge with sorrow a momentous irony today. We who time and again have stood for the renewal of tired forms, for the revival of dead churches, for
the warming of cold hearts, for the reformation of corrupt practices and heretical beliefs, and for the reform of gross injustices in society, are ourselves in dire need of reformation and renewal today,” the manifesto says. “We confess that we Evangelicals have betrayed our beliefs by our behavior.”
Earlier in the document, after reiterating the Evangelical mission to go to the ends of the Earth to invite (not berate) people to follow Jesus, the authors add: “At the same time, we readily acknowledge that we repeatedly fail to live up to our high calling and all too often illustrate the truth of our own doctrine of sin. We Evangelicals share the same ‘crooked timber’ of our humanity, and the full catalogue of sins, failures and hypocrisies. This is no secret either to God or to those who know and watch us.”
Evangelicals are supposed to be known for something — namely, Jesus said, by their love — and all too often have defined themselves by what they are against, the manifesto says. “It is a colossal Yes to life and human aspirations, and an emphatic No only to what contradicts our true destiny as human beings made in the image of God.”
The authors are emphatic about Evangelical not being a term exclusive to any political party, denomination, geography or social persuasion.
It is a theological term. Period.
The manifesto warns against allowing Evangelicalism to be co-opted by any political ideology, saying to do so makes the church “the regime at prayer” and its members “useful idiots” for one party or another.
“Whichever side it comes from, a politicized faith is faithless, foolish, and disastrous for the church,” the manifesto declares. “The Evangelical soul is not for sale. It has already been bought at an infinite price.”
If you’ve ever wondered what an Evangelical really is, I would encourage you to read the manifesto in its entirety for yourself at www.evangelicalmanifesto.org.
And then, if the Spirit moves you, to nail it to your church door. Comment at suntimes.com.
[email protected]
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In