Justin Taylor summarizes the manifesto on his blog and links to it. It sound like it will be an interesting document to read and one that I might even agree with (for the most part) if Taylor’s summary is accurate. I found this to be pretty helpful since I’ve been thinking along these lines recently:
2. They repudiate the two extremes defining the present culture wars in the US: (a) partisans of a sacred public square (those who would continue to give one religion a preferred place in public life); and (b) partisans of a naked public square (those who would make all religious expression inviolably private and keep the public square inviolably secular). In its place they are committed to a civil public square (a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths as well).
3. They are concerned that a generation of culture warring, reinforced by understandable reactions to religious extremism around the world, has created a powerful backlash against all religion in public life among many educated people. In its place they call on all citizens of goodwill and believers of all faiths and none to join them in working for a civil public square and the restoration of a tough-minded civility that is in the interests of all.They are concerned that globalization and the emerging global public square have no matching vision of how to live with our deepest differences on the global stage. Global communication magnifies the challenges of living with our deepest differences. They warn of two equal and opposite errors in the emerging global public square: (a) coercive secularism and (b) religious extremism. They also warn repudiate the positions of coercive religion (which leads to conflict) and relativism (which leads to complacency).
I think that since we are a post-Christian nation we need to keep in mind that we can’t impose our Christianity on others but we also cannot be driven from the square because we’re Christian.
I don’t have time to read it now, so I can’t really say if I agree with the document. I will read it after finals but by then it will probably be yesterday’s news and everyone will have moved on to something else. Oh well, I’m used to it 
posted May 8, 2008 at 12:07 am
This “To be Evangelical is to hold a belief that is also a devotion.” is an elegant, poetic way of describing the Christian life. ‘Though in context it says something different than I supposed.
posted May 8, 2008 at 10:19 am
Michelle,
Read the rest of the document. There are some things that are certainly questionable, if not completely unBiblical.
posted May 8, 2008 at 11:46 am
“we need to keep in mind that we can’t impose our Christianity on others but we also cannot be driven from the square because we’re Christian.”
Christians are most welcome in the public square. What is not welcome is the imposition of their faith’s tenets over and to the exclusion of the beliefs of others.
When you insist on Christian trappings (Ten Commandment statues, swearing oaths on Bibles, and Nativity scenes come to mind) in the public square while simultaneously forbidding pentangles, hammers & scicles (sp?), the Q’uran, etc., you ARE “imposing” your beliefs on the rest of us. You simply refuse to admit it.
posted May 8, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Look, Paul, I wouldn’t recognize “unBiblical” if it bit me on the nose – just ask michele.
So, without holding you to it, could you elaborate?
posted May 8, 2008 at 4:17 pm
post your reaction to it when you can – i’d like to hear your thoughts. i had some hesitations and misgivings before reading the document, but was actually quite impressed and invigorated after taking in the whole of what it addressed.
they chose not to say that creationism and inerrancy were non-negotiables – i liked that. for the first, there’s very little biblical justification anymore behind whatever the latest flavor of anti-natural-selection dessert is being served up; for the latter, somehow we can admit that we can’t prove the existence of God, but goshdarnit we have a golden egg this unprovable God laid right here. kind of stupid when you think about it … not that thinking is a pre-requisite course in any of these endeavors.
more than anything, i was motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece – that it wasn’t yet another “here’s everything we’re against” rant but an effort to make the gospel again a message of good news. imagine that – the gospel being good news. American Christianity has lost this defining characteristic ever since it embraced the neo-con’s Jesus bobble-head doll.
and, maybe i missed it, but there didn’t seem to be great emphasis on evangelism in this Evangelical Manifesto. was that intentional? i didn’t see a single chick tract referenced in the bibliography…
perhaps one unintended benefit of the proposal is a clear opportunity to take this EM (Evangelical Manifesto) and align it with the other EM (Emergent Manifesto) and finally have all our EM & EMs in a row without demonizing the other side.
one can only hope…
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
posted May 8, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Yeah, I was going to when I finished my finals next week and if it’s really questionable I’ll note it. What did you find wrong with it?
posted May 9, 2008 at 10:16 am
“creationism and inerrancy were non-negotiables”
Then this is a self-defeating enterprise.
posted May 20, 2008 at 9:04 pm
ex-Pentecostal quoted me…
“…creationism and inerrancy were non-negotiables.”
and then offered this…
Then this is a self-defeating enterprise.
elaborate a little further, if you will. i’m not sure where you’re heading with that comment, and i’d like to discuss things if the forum allows us to.
thanks.
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com