[...] http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/09/why-the-evangelical-manifesto-did-not-work/by Michael Patton @ Parchment and Pen (21 Sep 2009) [...]

I think the Manifesto did what it set out to do. It stated a purpose and accomplished it, albeit in a somewhat muted way. The purpose was not to spark a revival, elect a president, convert a huge amount of people to Evangelicalism, or create a creed that Evangelicals must know just as well as the Bible.

The stated purpose was to provide a statement of what it does and doesn’t mean to be an Evangelical. I think it was only meant to be read by people who care about that in the first place- that is, those who have a beef with Evangelicals and would say untrue things about them, or perhaps people who find themselves among Evangelicals and like what they’re doing, but they’re not sure why they have to call themselves that instead of “Protestant,” “fundamentalist,” or just a Christian.

I am one of the people who cared, in that I know quite a few people of both varieties and was able to put this in their hands. Like I said, it accomplishes its stated purpose in either case.

Once more, the Evangelical Manifesto does what it says it does. That means it works. It doesn’t blitz the media, form a canon, become a creed, force a vote, or give you two pats on the rear. But it’s not supposed to do those things. Mr. Patton, you’ve repeatedly said it didn’t “work.” I tend to say it did.

I think that you might have hit it on the head. I loved the Manifesto, and found profound apathy among just about everyone else.

A couple of people whom I could convince to read it pretty much came to the conclusion you did — that it was meant to legitimize Christian support for then-Sen. Obama. That became a conversation-ender.

Ah, well …

I for one greatly appreciated the manifesto. Although I would define myself solidly in the evangelical camp, there are so many caricatures of evangelicalism that I was starting to doubt myself.

Among the caricatures I have heard:

Evangelical implies Republican party
Evangelical implies Young Earth Creationist
Evangelical implies Complimentarianism
Evangelical implies Inerrancy
Evangelical implies Pre-tribulation rapture
Evangelical implies homophobia
Evangelical implies anti-women’s rights
Evangelical implies T.V. Evangelist
Evangelical implies Focus on the Family

None of these things I found implied in the Evangelical manifesto, which meant that the “tent” was still big enough to include me.

[...] just read a post about the apparent failure of “The Evangelical Manifesto,” something I didn’t [...]

It did not work because it had the word evangelical on it. No one cares what evangelicals think anymore. The word leaves a slimy taste in the mouths of those who are not, and those who are still there are either becoming more fundamental… or leaving. Evangelicals will always be around, but their hayday is over and they are now being pointed to the back of the bus (by Christians and non-Christians alike).

“The Manifesto was a confession of faith put together by many high profile Evangelical leaders attempting to define and clarify what Evangelicalism is.”

The problem was that not many people were asking what it was.

Sad to hear, Jim W. Truly sad. I cannot think of anything more critical and this statement (among other statements I mentioned) seek to wrap some “best practices” or guidelines around how our faith meets our practice.

No doubt, your experience is not the only one.

Cheers to you for presenting!

I presented it to the elder board of my church (I am an elder, too) and asked for input on whether we as a church would support it. Only got one response, which was we really didn’t need to concern ourselves about it. Personally, I think I’m the only one of the board who actually read it. The rest of the guys on the board and our pastor are good and godly men but they don’t see any real value in supporting this statement for the broader church as a whole. So I do think like Paul that we are somewhat myopic in our vision and mission and I think this is probably the case for a lot of evangelical churhes due to them being separate, independent entities.

Without question, the churches are the linchpin here. In fact, how many in churches today have heard of The Fundamentals: A Testimony For the Truth (1910-1915), The Lausanne Covenant (1974), The Manila Manifesto (1989): An Elaboration of Lausanne, Evangelicals and Catholics Together (1994), The Gift of Salvation (1997), The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration (1999)? See my history of these.

The myopic, inward-focused nature of churches is sad beyond measure.