Unfortunately I don't agree with all of it (I do with most of it), so I didn't sign it.
Email me and I'd be happy to chat w/ you about why;^)
In Christ, Noah
Shane Vander Hart
· 1 year ago
Just sent you an e-mail, and am looking forward to hearing from you. I hope all is well with you and Lindsey in DC.
mikerucker
· 1 year ago
i like the document - a lot. and 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.
They may not have mentioned inerrancy, but they do cite the authority of the Bible in faith and practice throughout this document.
"Jesus Christ and his written word, the Holy Scriptures, are our supreme authority; and whole-hearted devotion, trust, and obedience are our proper response."
"to be Evangelical is to recognize the primacy of the authority of Scripture"
Regarding creationism - again they refer back to the Bible as the sole authority of faith and practice. There is very little disagreement that God created, but there is "in-house" debate over new earth vs. old earth vs. God-initiated evolution (which really is held by very few evangelicals).
You are right about evangelism is not mentioned, but I believe the intent of the document is to clarify mainly that we are to be identified theologically, not politically. I think it was to address our interaction with the world. In that sense, I believe that it is implied.
It should have greater mention however. It isn't a perfect document, but it was a document that I felt I was able to sign even though it doesn't entirely define who I am as a Christian.
They may not have mentioned inerrancy, but they do cite the authority of the Bible in faith and practice throughout this document.
shane that's the point i was trying to make; sorry if it wasn't clear (maybe my wife is right - i really do communicate poorly...). i believe scripture has great authority, but i don't base it's authority on the bible having to be inerrant.
and, again, with creationism, that's why i was glad they didn't try to make it or ID or the gap theory or alien seeding or whatever the latest guess is a critical piece needed to stamp someone 'Evangelical.'
All Comments
Email me and I'd be happy to chat w/ you about why;^)
In Christ,
Noah
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
mikerucker.wordpress.com
They may not have mentioned inerrancy, but they do cite the authority of the Bible in faith and practice throughout this document.
"Jesus Christ and his written word, the Holy Scriptures, are our supreme authority; and whole-hearted devotion, trust, and obedience are our proper response."
"to be Evangelical is to recognize the primacy of the authority of Scripture"
Regarding creationism - again they refer back to the Bible as the sole authority of faith and practice. There is very little disagreement that God created, but there is "in-house" debate over new earth vs. old earth vs. God-initiated evolution (which really is held by very few evangelicals).
You are right about evangelism is not mentioned, but I believe the intent of the document is to clarify mainly that we are to be identified theologically, not politically. I think it was to address our interaction with the world. In that sense, I believe that it is implied.
It should have greater mention however. It isn't a perfect document, but it was a document that I felt I was able to sign even though it doesn't entirely define who I am as a Christian.
Blessings,
Lance
www.lancessoulsearching.com
shane that's the point i was trying to make; sorry if it wasn't clear (maybe my wife is right - i really do communicate poorly...). i believe scripture has great authority, but i don't base it's authority on the bible having to be inerrant.
and, again, with creationism, that's why i was glad they didn't try to make it or ID or the gap theory or alien seeding or whatever the latest guess is a critical piece needed to stamp someone 'Evangelical.'
mike rucker