I have a couple of comments and questions to make about whether the Evangelical Manifesto set to be released today at a news conference in Washington DC will provide any sort of consensus to salvage the term Evangelical “before its character is obscured and its importance is lost.” Before getting to that, the article in USA Today by Cathy Grossman sets the scene.
Grossman writes, “The manifesto condemns Christians on the right and left for using faith to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible.” Therefore, when faith loses its independence from the public square, the manifesto claims, “Christians become useful idiots for politicians.” According to A. Larry Ross, a spokesman for the group, the public will be invited to discuss the document and sign on in agreement, adding that “more than 80 influential Christians” have already signed it. “The goal is to lay down lines on the turf and go back to the root theological meaning of the term evangelical before its character is obscured and its importance is lost,” he said.
Some influential Evangelicals have expressed concern about the manifesto. Frank Page, president of the SBC, says he is concerned it will be “spun to conclude that Christians should hold back from speaking out on public policy.” Ed Stetzer, who has not seen the manifesto, goes on to say in Grossman’s article, “Christians need to speak prophetically to all parties, not be beholden to one. Evangelicals need to be known for what we are for: showing and sharing the good news of Christ, not only what we are against on public policy.” Al Mohler, James Dobson and Richard Land are among others named that have not signed on.
Now, I would like to add a few comments:
- If this Evangelical Manifesto is actually going to be useful, the primary point that Christians should express political views with a regard of the truth of the Bible needs to be made clear. This is where Stetzer’s comment is helpful.
- However, if it is spun to conclude that Christians should hold back from speaking out on public policy, then it will not be helpful.
- Besides, IMO attempting to save a term from the misfortune of other words like fundamentalism is entirely secondary to truly pressing matters of public policy (e.g. abortion, being careful not to turn the immigration issue into a racial one, not allowing education to be taken away from the family).
- Whether the manifesto gains widespread support or not, Christians should know they can only speak intelligently concerning issues in the public square if they first regard the truth of the Bible in a way that honors the supremacy and good news of Christ, “not only what we are against in public policy.”
What do you think? Can an Evangelical Manifesto help Christians focus properly on their role in the public square “to speak prophetically to all parties . . . showing and sharing the good news of Christ, not only what we are against in public policy,” with the clear teachings and principles of Scripture guiding us? Can it actually save the term evangelical? Do you have any concerns about this?
Update: Interestingly, unlike the USA Today article suggests, the document only deals with the issue of Evangelicals and the public square in part of the document. The manifesto attempts to reclaim the term evangelical and to express how Christians should engage public policy issues, the culture we live in, and the globalization of the public square in the Internet Age. I certainly recommend you read it.
The first question, is what is an Evangelical? The meaning and reality has been lost, it does appear. And then why are so many evangelicals (so-called again) going to Orthodoxy? Perhaps for many they are seeking the “evangelical” Church?
Irish, you asked the obvious question. Why should the term evangelical be the concern here since its meaning has already been obscured?
That is why I think the primary concern with the manifesto should not be preserving a term that already seems to mean so many different things both in reference to theology and in reference to cultural engagement. The concern should be that Christians approach and deal with issues of public policy, social issues, etc. in light of the truth of Scripture rather than veiling their political bent with the term evangelical “without regard to the truth of Scripture.”
That is what I hope comes out of something like this. Evangelical like fundamentalist has been distorted and given over to ambiguity for a long time. When one Christian suggests they are a fundamentalist because they adhere to certain fundamental, non-negotiables of Christian orthodoxy, another Christian will hear that word and react to them with the cultural and political meaning that may be attached to that word. The same goes for the word evangelical.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Note: I have added an update to this post. Click the ‘continue reading’ link to read the rest.
Justin Taylor has provided a short summary at his blog. You can read it here.
My own tradition, Anglican, has always been a Church that has sought both the Catholic and Evangelical way. Or what we call via-media…middle way. I have myself also been part of a society for Anglican and Orthodox dialogue. The Evangelical Churches are being overwhelmed by postmodernism, sadly this is all too true. But the answer will not come from another manifesto, no it has to come from the true reality of what evangelical does mean. That must include both history and renewal in the biblical and theological fidelity itself. But this also must come from the spiritual and real life of the historic Church!
My effort at a simple Evanglical definition, would first and foremost be: the authority of God in His own self-disclosure, thru the Spirit and speaking thru the Scripture to the human soul!
Fr. Robert (Anglican)
“80 influential Christians”
is in itself a political statement. I don’t see why it’s that much better to be beholden to or focused on these influential people and organizations than it is to be active in politics.
I’m conflicted. There’s a sufficient scarcity of faith-filled, theologically sound Christians to justify paying attention when you find one. But it’s a symptom of typical evangelicalism that we need 80 influential Christians to tell us what to believe and how to live it.
But then I’m probably a fundamentalist instead of an evangelical.
I’ll read it in a bit.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
Lisa, I often share your sentiments. Do give it a read. Though the statement is certainly not as significant as other Christian statements made in church history, the effort made by Os Guinness and the others who drafted the paper is to the point.
Evangelicalism has been easily pirated over the years because it is open to broad interpretations. This statement seeks to correct that problem, though I doubt it will actually accomplish it. With that said, I am on board with a majority of the statement.
I would not make too much of the 80 influential Christians who signed it. To say it is a political statement in itself suggests that the statement does not stand on its own as a consensus of those who have signed it.
Think about it: the Chicago statements on Biblical Inerrancy was formulated by more than 200 evangelical leaders; the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood includes board directors J. Ligon Duncan, C.J. Mahaney, Wayne Grudem, council members Daniel Akin, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., John Piper, Bruce Ware and others. Still, there are some who have concerns about it, so I think we will have to wait and see what kind of effects it may have on the church in America today.
The document also offers a short critique of fundamentalism, citing that fundamentalists often privatized their faith from the public square. In order to be brief, I agree with fundamentalists that there are more non-negotiables to the Christian faith than evangelicals require, but I also agree with the historic evangelical standpoint that Christians have a responsibility to engage culture and the public square for the glory of God and the love of our neighbor.
That does not mean we should wed our faith to politics or the culture, but we should engage it, cry out in truth for those who cannot cry out for themselves, support policy that properly aligns itself with biblical mandate, oppose policy that does not. With that said, I was happy to see that the manifesto listed more fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith than just the two required to be an evangelical and urges evangelicals to engage culture and the public square in view of Scripture.
I don’t want to appear negative toward this “Evangelical” desire. Only careful, maybe cautious. The Christian Church needs badly faithful and godly “theologians”. This title is not given easily with the Orthodox Church. Why are many evangelicals going over to Orthodoxy? Not many evangelicals want to try and answer this. And this question is not off the subject really.
Irish, sorry for not conversing with your reply earlier. Thanks for hanging around our blog and continuing with your comments. I often express similar concerns.
I would like to offer a couple of things. One, I am a Southern Baptist by both conviction and identity, but I think there does need to be some level of cooperation between evangelicals and Christians in some of the mainline denominations; therefore, that is probably why the definition of evangelical is so broad and, as a result, open to nearly everything. Mohler, who I mentioned toward the end of this post, is the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and one of the top Southern Baptist theologians. He has written an important article discussing theological triage in order to help us better understand which doctrines are certainly non-negotiable, and which ones are important, but differences could still allow fellowship between evangelicals with different views on second and third tier issues. Anyway, I agree with Mohler.
You also said, “The Christian church needs badly faithful and godly ‘theologians.’” I would suggest that the church actually has these godly theologians; however, too few are actually listening to them.
Today, we have theologians like D.A. Carson, R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, Douglas Moo, Peter T. O’Brien, Thomas Schreiner, etc. There are also godly pastors who are passionate about what the Bible says about God, his nature, the gospel, and Christ. These include John Piper, John MacArthur, Steve Lawson, Mark Dever, Tom Ascol, Phil Ryken, to name a few. The point is: evangelical churches need more pastors who will preach the Word, and more theologians who truly believe the Word for what it is.
I am a Reformed Southern Baptist, or a Southern Baptist Calvinist. I am not sure if you mean something similar when you say that many evangelicals are going over to orthodoxy? I take orthodoxy to mean “recognizing and accepting the fundamental teachings and doctrines found in the Bible.” I know some of the major branches and denominations of the church consider their traditions orthodoxy but not in view of Scripture. So, I stick to saying that orthodoxy means recognizing and accepting the fundamental teachings and doctrines of the Bible. Yes, confessions and creeds are helpful and give a good idea of what the church has believed to be orthodox in history. At the same time, Scripture alone is sufficient and infallible, so orthodoxy should be defined by the clear teaching of Scripture. I imagine you feel the same way after reading your comments here.
Thanks for stopping by our blog, Irish. Does your name fit your location? I live in Texas. Blogging has brought us visitors from all over. :) Feel free to continue this here . . .
First, I am happy to see life and vibrancy in 80 perhaps well known Evangelicals! I have met a few of these men myself along the way. I hope the best for this effort I really do! As postmodernism eats away at the Church, we all better come to life and alertness, the options are not good to say the least.
Sadly, you have missed my meaning and the definition of Orthodoxy. I was speaking of the so-called Eastern Orthodox Church. Not sure if you knew this but the Orthodox Church is growing fast in the West! And the strange thing is many evangelical Christians are going over to Orthodoxy! Though I am myself Irish and Anglican, I am as I said, have/am [been] involved with Anglican and Orthodox theological dialogue. This effort goes back to the early part of the 20th century, at least in Great Britain. But now even in your USA, there has been a large growth in the Orthodox Church.
I am not unaware of the problems between the Orthodox and the Reformed on certain doctrines of grace. But these problems are more theological tensions, I believe. And perhaps something of culture, etc. If people look closely they will see and find, that even C. S. Lewis read and knew some important aspects to so-called Eastern Orthodoxy. And Western people should know also that Karl Barth (pronounced Bart by the way) was great friends with the well known Orthodox priest and scholar, Georges Florovsky.
My point to all this, is there is another way and place in the so-called Church Catholic…the Ancient and Apostolic Church of Orthodoxy! And whether we know it or not in the West, the great dogmatic work of the Eastern Church was the definition of that portion of the creed of Christendom which concerns theology proper – the doctrines of the essential nature of the Godhead and the doctrine of the Godhead in relation with manhood in the incarnation.
Fr. Robert (Anglican)…”Irish”
Fr. Robert, that is why I explained what I usually mean by orthodoxy since it appeared you were referring to something else. The trend of people swapping from evangelical churches to other major branches of the church is not necessarily surprising.
Barth and Lewis both have had a significant impact on Western Christianity, and I do not doubt they conversed with the Eastern Orthodox church. Not sure exactly what you are getting at or whether you are just observing a trend?
One of the points I have endeavored to make both on this blog and while preaching is that we should be mindful of church history, gauge what we believe in view of the long line of godly believers both in their writings, preaching, and confessions. But, this should all be done through the lens of Scripture. The church should be constantly examining their beliefs and traditions in view of Scripture, always reforming anything that needs to be more closely aligned with Scripture. That kind of effort takes humility, examination, diligence, and prayer.
For the gospel,
Kevin
Kevin,
Thanks to reply mate. I do think it is an obvious trend, and one that comes from some real needs in peoples Christian lives and spiritual needs.
Perhaps first, would be the need for authority. Not top down, as in the past with Rome..and even some evangelical forms. Where people are gathered around some pastor, or preacher, etc. The authority for both some Anglicans, and certainly for the Orthodox, is the aspect and truth of a “living tradition” (Acts 2:42). This is the grave problem with modern Evanglicalism. The lack of both Creedal support and understanding in it. Sadly some of the Reformed Creeds are not really fully biblical, nor relevant today. Look at the effort of Mercersburg Theology, very much needed, and very Catholic & Reformed, but it never took hold really in the mainstream life of the American Reformed Church. The tension between the leaders of Mercersburg…Nevin and Schaff, with Hodge, etc. bore this out. The American Reformed Church followed Hodge, etc. Even today, the Reformed are often intrenched in the Westminister Standards. And one can see problems in some Reformed American seminaries over overt conservative ideas. Of course this is my opinion, but shared by many in and out of the US.
The point is many evangelicals, both in America and Great Britain are seeking and finding both authority and renewed spiritual life in the “living traditions” and biblical voice of the ancient face of the Orthodox Church in this our modern and even postmodern world. This is more than a trend I think!
The great question is, what are we in the Western Church/Churches going to do about this? Go into denial, or combat mode with Orthodoxy? Or better yet, maybe learn something that this great Ancient Church and Living Tradition has and is giving to our Christian people?
Sincerely In Christ,
Fr. Robert
Fr. Robert, though I do not doubt that it is a growing trend (or as you put it, more than a trend) in Europe and perhaps in urban areas in the United States, it just is not happening in the southern portion of the country, where I live.
In fact, in the town I live in, I do not know of a single congregation of Eastern Orthodox background. I would guess there are some small congregations in some of the larger cities, but outside of the large hispanic Catholic communities in our area, there is still a large Protestant population with few people venturing over to other more liturgical congregations, like Episcopal churches. In fact, those are some of the more empty churches. Right now, the larger churches are Baptist and non-denominational (often charismatic). The non-denominational churches are often growing also, though that is of another concern since some have very little concern for doctrinal integrity to Scripture.
That is not to say your thoughts about Eastern Orthodoxy do not matter, even where it isn’t readily seen. Some of the larger, methods/programs driven churches in America are losing members who seem to be ready to be a part of a church that is more concerned about theology, the gospel, and the truth of Scripture.
I know that does not correspond directly to what you said, but I will stick to this: churches need to be faithful to Scripture, especially in their leadership. They should preach the Word faithfully (2 Tim. 4:1-2), “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb. 4:12), learn from the traditions of the church that are faithful to Scripture, and reform those areas that are not.
I love the church, both local and universal. I pray that the many errors presently taught and held to will be discarded and that those convictions will be reformed to the truth of the Bible. I pray that the things that are right will be guarded and defended for the glory of God and the supremacy of Christ in this world.
This conversation has been interesting, even though it has gone off in a tangent from the topic at hand: evangelicalism and engaging the public square, especially in a democratic environment. Thanks for expressing those things; they have definitely caused me to pause and think about the implications of those trends. I actually plan to post a review of The Next Christendom by Philip Jenkins that discusses the growing ‘southern’ hemisphere face of Christianity. You may find it interesting.
I will be away from the internet for the rest of the week, mostly. So, I may not be able to comment any further about this. Thanks again, though. Have a nice weekend, Fr. Robert.
good thoughts. i’m enjoying reading the various opinions here and there around the web. i had some hesitations and misgivings before reading the document, but i’m actually quite impressed and invigorated after taking in the whole of what it addresses.
one of the things i like is that the authors have chosen not to list creationism and inerrancy as non-negotiables. 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. still, some people hold to these positions; so be it. there’s simply too much of a tendency to add items to the ever-increasing laundry list of ideas and doctrines to which we have to pledge allegiance before we’re allowed into the room marked “Christian.”
nothing’s going to please everybody, and there are a few things i object to. for instance, i don’t agree with this statement: We Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally. Jesus’ message uses “action” verbs: teach them to DO as I have commanded you, LOVE God and LOVE your neighbor, by this will all men know … if you LOVE one another. any theology that defines us must have feet.
i did, however, like these words: We are also troubled by the fact that the advance of globalization and the emergence of a global public square finds no matching vision of how we are to live freely, justly, and peacefully with our deepest differences on the global stage. somehow, we’ve got to figure out how we’re going to peacefully share the same bathroom over the next few decades in our ever-shrinking world.
one interesting thing: maybe i missed it, but there doesn’t seem to be a great emphasis on evangelism in this Evangelical Manifesto. do you think that was intentional? i didn’t see a single chick tract referenced in the bibliography…
more than anything, i find myself motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece – that it isn’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 that once served it well.
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
What did you think of The Cambridge Declaration? (1996)
I think their points as to your “action” verbs, is that proper and good theology should run and move our actions.
Proper Anglicans, as the E. Orthodox know that there cannot be a divide between theology and Christian action. But real Christology moves our hearts and feet!
@ Mike, thanks for your comment; your opinion is certainly welcome here. However, I would like point out that you are probably reading something into the EM from its silence on the subject. If you know anything about the majority of the leaders who drafted the EM and signed it, they believe in the authority, sufficiency, inerrancy, and infallibility of God’s Word for both compelling internal and external reasons.
It would be a long leap to wed the EM to the Emergent Manifesto IMO.
@ Irish, I agree there.
kschaub -
i expect you’re right, but my point is that they didn’t make it part of the secret handshake that let’s you into the group marked “evangelicals” or even “christians,” and that’s a good thing.
a long leap? perhaps. but now that there are some specifics in black and white, an attempt to find common ground and identify agree-to-disagree issues is at least possible.
although, sadly, not probable, unless each side can recognize that the other isn’t on a mission from hell…
mr
No one is going to weigh-in on the Cambridge Declaration (1996)? Should not all of these “Evangelical” statements be seen in the historical?
For Anglicans the Church is always historically & salvifically – One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic reality.
Another aspect for Evangelicals to think and ponder, at least for the “theolog’s”. What is “theosis? Or what does the text of 2 Peter 1:4 mean for an Evangelical?
I ask this in light of the new book: Partakers of the Divine Nature; The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions, Editors: Michael J. Christensen and Jeffery A. Wittung (Baker Academic…Baker Books, etc.). This book the first of it’s kind to seek a full historical search on this subject. With both a Luther tradition essay (Finnish); and an essay on the idea of theosis in John Calvin.
Save the Wesleyan history, this subject has been neglected in the Evangelical (not counting the Anglican Church, who has always been the church of the via-media (middle way) catholic & evangelical.
I ask this as the the new Evangelical statement says nothing about the theosis process? Does it matter to Evangelicals?
Irish, things have been busy. I am also working on ideas for new posts, so I have been paying closer attention to those things than this meta.
Let’s see . . . I have not read the Cambridge Declaration, but would be interested to. If you would like feel free to email me a copy or link to it (my email is posted on my author page).
I will take a look 2 Peter 1:4 later this evening. To be honest, I am not familiar with the fairly technical issues you just asked about, and doubt I can speak to them with any authority.
Kevin,
That’s fine, perhaps this subject has gone as far as you want to take it? I am no doubt a very broad evangelical being an Anglican and one that is very close to Orthodoxy also. But I too love the Word of God, and the text..and believe that exegesis is very important. But it must always be done within the context of the historical and incarnational Church (of Christ). This can never be a narrow work or only a denominational effort. The whole Church must be involved. And I personally believe in some form of ecumenical theology! The issues that are pressing the Church, both modernism and postmodernism, etc., demand our best spiritual and theological hearts and minds! It will be from the Churches heart & core in Christological life and love that our witness to the risen Christ, but “cruciform” will change both ourselves and the world around us. Thus “theosis” is not just some mystical element, but the process in which God’s life in Christ fills and transforms us: “the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory (glorification)” (Col.1:27)
Fr. Robert +++
Fr. Robert, no way. This has been enjoyable and interesting. We can continue some of this stuff via email. I was wondering what you think about Christian responsibility and dealing with cultural and political issues for the glory of God (e.g. Wilberforce and the abolition of the slave trade)?
Kevin
Kevin,
Thanks for the e-mail. I will respond back on that also.
But here for the moment at least, I would say that the Christian should be mindful, but careful of the many of things in a fallen world. When our hearts & minds are dead to sin and self, and looking at Col. 3: 1-4..we then can “touch” back into the world, as St. Paul also says, “For the love of Christ controls us”. (2 Cor.5:14) Indeed then our only “compel” is Christ and His love! From here we can then serve back into the warfare of “the world”. But our first concern is always the interior heart & life, before the presence of Christ!
God has called all of us to different places and levels of service, but always our heart & mind are His first! The “Martha verses Mary” (Lk 10:38-42) element is a good contrast. Our Lord does not rebuke Martha, but does say that Mary has chosen the better part. But we must not press this too hard. For the Martha-Mary heart can exist both in the one heart & soul.
Perhaps not the assault to or with reason you were looking for? But, I am leary of the social gospel, it has been the bane of many protestant (so-called) churches and people. I see many theo-political blogs by students on here. Look at my own Anglican Church and Communion also! Don’t get me wrong, we must deal with injustice and be ready to help in all forms. But few of us are “called” to be a Wilberforce. Few of us have his, or had his position, etc. But certainly all Christians must stand up against evil, and the evil one! When it comes, and it will come! But when God calls a man or woman to a stand against a certain moral and or spiritual injustice He will equip them. Perhaps today, some of the spiritual injustices are overlooked? Our Lord’s Name is being defamed and maligned terribly.
Fr. Robert, that is precisely the kind of response I believe Christians should give. We are pilgrims, elect exiles in this world, both called to yearn for the kingdom that is yet to come, and to stand for things that honor and glorify God even in this current world.
That is why Christians should both stand for the cause against abortion and also yearn for the coming of Christ, that all things will be placed under his feet for his rule. I hope you see that in this blog . . . we are both called to do what we can in our present circumstances, but we are also confident that these things will not see their best and final conclusion until Christ returns and makes all things new for the praise of his glory.
Kevin,
Amen, my brother, we are from “a better country”! The tension of the already, but not yet.. of the eschaton is very real!
By the way, this may surprise you? But I am historic pre-mill. I lived and taught in Israel for several years, and came to love both the Jewish people, and the modern nation of Israel. This does bother some of both, my Anglican and Orthodox brethren, but it is more than just a mental thing with me, but both theological and personal. But I am open on this. It may be that God will only bring back an elect remnant of national Israel? (Rom.11:25-29) And the millennium is spiritual? And thus A-mill, but I cannot see a Post-mill position at all. And even Rome with Vatican II said: “Israel according to the flesh, which wandered as an exile in the desert, was already called the Church of God (Num.20:4)”.
It is all too apparent (to me at least) that the world and the kingdom will always be in constant opposition until the coming and full eschaton of Christ! (1 John 2:15-18)
RKD
But if satan is bound? He sure does have a long chain..lol
Amen. Come Lord, Jesus.
Fr. Robert, it has been a joy conversing with you about so many things on this topic. I too believe Christ’s return since his ascension is imminent. However, until then, we are pilgrims . . . sinners saved by grace with clear commands to preach the gospel, and declare the ways of the Lord to this world, whether they heed it or not. But we pray they heed it!
Keep commenting, either here or in our other posts. Or, email me, my brother. Talk to you again soon.
Kevin
Hey Kevin, thanks for commenting with your support of prayer for me. I posted a follow-up article on my grandfather’s funeral, with a reflection on prayer life and the predestination and election of blamelessness in Christ in Ephesians 1. I’ve prayed this passage of Ephesians to the Lord for my own life, and have prayed it on behalf of you and Bekah and the brothers of Elect Exiles, that the passage would provide you with great vision for your service to the Lord and service to His church for your own lives.
I would consider this a timely response as praise to the Lord for His providence, as the Evangelical Manifesto has been on my mind too, since its publication. After reading and reflection and prayer out of Ephesians 1 to the Lord, I would have to say that the Word of God is a better driving force for evangelism than politics in this world. May the choosing power of God and His great plan for the Gospel in world history be a saving influence on many political atheists this day.
I finally finished reading it. Is this the right place to simply say I didn’t like it?
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
Lisa, it is not a perfect document, so divergent opinions are fine. In general, I would say some of the same things that Dr. Mohler said about the strengths and weaknesses of the EM.
However, it does say some good things. Anything in particular that you want to share about it?
Last week, Fr. Robert (Irish Anglican) mentioned the Cambridge Declaration as another Evangelical statement of affirmation and denial to compare to the Evangelical Manifesto. The Cambridge Declaration was made on April 20, 1996 by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
You can read it here.
Though the purpose for each statement is different, the Cambridge Declaration is, in my opinion, a superior treatment of the fundamentals of Christianity, and a document I would sign on if it had the same open forum as the Evangelical Manifesto.
For the gospel,
Kevin