Contained below is a portion from Dr. Richard Land's blog entry 'Why I'm not signing the 'Evangelical Manifesto'. The text below can be read in its entirety here. (Any bolded or italicized text is my own emphasis).
Dr. Land:
"What are my problems with the statement? Let us begin with a basic, foundational theological question. The Manifesto affirms that “Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth.” That is surely true, but it is also hopefully true of all the many followers of Jesus who would never call themselves, or desire to be called, Evangelicals.
The Manifesto then enunciates several beliefs that Evangelicals “have prized above all” and that they “consider to be at the heart of the message of Jesus and therefore foundational for us.” The Manifesto then asserts that “the only ground for our acceptance by God is what Jesus Christ did on the cross and what he is now doing through his risen life, whereby he exposed and reversed the course of human sin and violence, bore the penalty for our sins, credited us with his righteousness, redeemed us from the power of evil, reconciled us to God, and empowers us with his life ‘from above.’”
When I read that statement I say, “Amen.” Then I ask myself, “Why ‘foundational for us’ instead of ending with ‘foundational’? And why ‘our acceptance’ rather than ‘the only ground for acceptance by God’?”
Could this be an attempt to qualify the most basic of all evangelical foundational beliefs, Jesus’ assertion that “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6)? I could not help but notice that when the Manifesto quoted this verse several paragraphs earlier in the document, the drafters omitted the last half of the verse: “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Why?
Is this just verbal imprecision, or is it something more? I know the majority of the drafters and the original signees, and I know that they are “exclusivists” — people who believe that for all men everywhere there is only salvation in personal faith in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16). However, I know at least one original signee to be a non-exclusivist. The question must be asked, and asked clearly and directly — does An Evangelical Manifesto believe that salvation for all men everywhere is through personal faith in Jesus and only Jesus?
Further, can someone believe something other than “exclusivism” concerning salvation and still be an evangelical? This evangelical’s answer to that question is, and always will be, “No!”"
-----------------
I must first note two things: First, that I respect and understand where this writer is coming from; and also that I respect that Dr. Land chose not to actually name the person he considered a Non-Exclusivist.
I'm assuming that the "original signees" Dr. Land is referring to is, or includes, the Steering Committee, which is comprised of Timothy George, Os Guinness, John Huffman, Rich Mouw, Jesse Miranda, David Neff, Richard Ohman, Larry Ross and Dallas Willard. Given Dr. Land's definition of a Non-Exclusivist, I would say at least one person on this list fits that definition (though I must mention I only know the general beliefs of two of the men on the Steering Committee).
Anyone who reads this and knows me is probably also aware of who is probably being called a Non-Exclusivist. So my questions are:
1. Is there a clear definition of what an Evangelical is?
A lot of Reformed and Mainline Protestants might not consider themselves Evangelicals, while there are actually some Catholics who call themselves by that name. I would generally define the term Evangelical as referring to people who would identify with the basic tenets of "The Fundamentals", and who identify with the basic tenets of a modern conservative Protestant domination, such as the need for personal conversion, the Bible as the highest authority, etc.
2. (a.) If an Evangelical cannot be a Non-Exclusivist, can any Christian be a Non-Exclusivist (as defined by Dr. Land),
(b.) or have such persons passed from difference of opinion into heresy?
I don't know what the history of interpretations has been on this matter, but I guess there has probably been debate on it previous to the last couple weeks.
3. If I'm right about who that "Someone" is, should Someone be referred to as an Evangelical?
My answers would be: 1, Kinda; 2(a.), Yes; 2(b.), No; 3, Yes, if they are willing to still be called by that title.
Anyone else have an opinion?
