So as not to bury our interview with SBC presidential candidate Rev. Johnny Hunt, we only offer this post as a PDF link, also accessible on our “Print Resources” page. Upon reading the Evangelical Manifesto, I felt impressed to write a response. Click here to read it.
Abortion (1)
Acts 29 Network (1)
Alabama Baptist Convention (1)
Announcements (54)
Apologetics (1)
Associational News (3)
Audio (56)
Baptism (24)
Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma (2)
Baptist Identity (78)
Baptist State Convention of North Carolina (1)
BF&M (40)
BGCT (2)
Book Reviews (6)
Building Bridges (6)
Calvinism (10)
Camel Method (6)
Christmas (5)
Church (22)
Communion (4)
Conferences (1)
Contextualization (2)
Convictions (26)
Cooperation (15)
Cooperative Program (13)
Discipleship (8)
Dissent (7)
Doctrine (9)
Easter (2)
Ecclesiology (50)
Ecumenical (10)
Education (9)
egalitarianism (3)
Emergent (6)
Eschatology (1)
Evangelism (10)
Executive Committee (2)
Expository Preaching (3)
Family (4)
Georgia Baptist Convention (1)
Gospel issues (21)
Great Commission Resurgence (55)
Guest Author (34)
Heresy (4)
Homosexuality (7)
Humor (2)
IMB Issues (21)
Inerrancy (6)
Interviews (15)
Islam (4)
Leadership (2)
LifeWay (3)
LifeWay Research (1)
Marriage (1)
MBTS (1)
Missions (8)
Missouri Baptist Convention (5)
news (5)
North American Mission Board (6)
Pastors (6)
Patriotism (1)
Pluralism (1)
Podcast (21)
Politics (4)
Postmodernism (7)
PPL (3)
Prayer (7)
Preaching (13)
Print Resources (2)
Regenerate Church Membership (3)
Religious Liberty (8)
Sanctity of life (5)
SBC (23)
SBC Issues (93)
SBC Pastor Conference (1)
SBC Perspective (8)
SBTS (5)
Scripture (2)
SEBTS (6)
Seminary Issues (10)
Sexual Ethics (1)
State Conventions (5)
SWBTS (22)
Technology (1)
Text Driven Preaching (3)
Theological Error (2)
Tongues (1)
Uncategorized (8)
Under 40 (3)
Video (4)
Young Pastors (1)
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
41 Comments
May 9th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Sorry about the links not working on the PDF. We have set them on the resource page.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Well done bro. You articulated a Biblical response and pointed out the issues that would prevent me from signing the document.
Not bad for someone from Oklahoma!
May 10th, 2008 at 3:25 am
I found it very odd to see Ergun Caners name on the Manifesto. But seriously, it’s been a couple of days since this thing was released. Caners name is still listed on the website. The website has been updated. Countless numbers of people have affixed their name to the Manifesto. If Caner was so sickened, why hasn’t he requested that his name be removed? I doubt Timothy George & Company would be rude and refuse.
Personally, while a moderate Baptist such as myself could affirm this Manifesto (most of it) – I’m not interested in signing. If you notice, Robert Parham of Ethics Daily blasted the Manifesto but Brian Kaylor (one of his frequent writers and a blogger) was the first person to sign the Manifesto.
I’m not interested in recovering the word evangelical. I am an evangelical but I only use that word to describe myself when it suits my purpose. And I don’t like how evangelical was capitalized in the Manifesto. By doing so, they’ve raised evangelicals to the same level as other traditions (Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, etc.).
I must add that while I know Thomas Road may be an excellent church that has great ministries, why is it that folks like yourself seem unwilling to offer any meaningful criticism of the Religious Right? At least the Evangelical Manifesto presents a more balanced, honest, and fair perspective in that regard.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Brother Robin,
When I see Jim Wallis and Brian Kaylor sign a document, it tells me I need to read it more closely because it is not saying on the surface what I am reading it saying. Has Dr. Caner taken any steps in removing his name from the document?
I too, affirm the religious liberty portion of the document. I must step away from the document where it seems to equate attention to environmental issues with the killing of unborn children. You do make an excellent argument for Evangelical Elitism. Where are the various ethnic groups that sat on the steering committee, this document calls on us to affirm?
What really got me was the putting down of a clear witness for Jesus Christ. We also repudiate the two other positions. First, those who believe their way is the only way and the way for everyone, and are therefore prepared to coerce them. If by coerce the preparers of this document means force, then they should have said as much. But, they did not, so I am left to presume that coerce means open dialog in the area of public ideas. The ideas that rule the day such as Paul at Mars Hill. If taken to its logical end, the statement effectively stops any public witnessing opportunity. Something else I thought was what made us evangelical.
Blessings,
Tim
May 10th, 2008 at 8:26 am
I signed the Manifesto, because I read it, and am in agreement with what it says. Not because of who else signed it or didn’t sign it. And not because of how it might be spun. I think this is a part, as Christians, of letting our “yes” be “yes” and our “no” “no.”
Also, I don’t see how anyone can say the Manifesto in any way de-emphasizes a commitment to human life and the sanctity of marriage, when it clearly says:
“…we CANNOT BACK AWAY from our biblically rooted commitment to the sanctity of every human life, including those unborn, nor can we deny the holiness of marriage as instituted by God between one man and one woman…”
Tim,
It looks to me like you have misread the part about “coercing.”
Consider, for example, this statement:
“We have no desire to coerce anyone or to impose on anyone beliefs and behavior that we have not PERSUADED them to adopt freely, and that we do no not demonstrate in our own lives, above all by love. ”
Clearly, the Manifesto is not opposed to persuasion as a means of Gospel witness, only coercion.
Finally, I would like to encourage everyone to actually read all the way through the Manifesto with an open mind, before jumping to conclusions.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:27 am
BDW
I do not find the need to criticize the religious right when there are guys like you who do a much better job of it than me.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Brother David,
I am not used to this particular side of you. I have always admired you as one that would freely engage a conversation without implying something like someone not reading a document. I have read the document, shoot, I even read the signers.
This document has nothing about inerrancy. We have battled the double-speak that is prevalent within this document. Also, it mentions nothing about the blood atonement. Curious how that statement has been changed around. Wonder Why? Could it be that ‘blood’ is offensive to these scholarly types that do not want to be defined by scholarship?
Blessings,
Tim
May 10th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Brother Robin,
The “Evangelical Manifesto” is merely a direction document, it is a set of principles leaning to at least a more biblical approach than previously espoused by these same affiliated individuals.
I would not look at the Manifesto as a “Statement of Faith” by any stretch. The Manifesto is political in nature fighting political battles, it does not primary seek to expose the truths of scripture specifically, yet seems to embark upon principles which again are making attempts to walk a more biblical route than many of the similar previous attempts.
If one is comparing this document to their specific beliefs and convictions, then they may be missing what these men are attempting to accomplish. They call for reform,…but it is a faint call to try and define evangelical away from the Americanized mold in which it has been caste. There is nothing inherently wrong with what has been said, except I would agree with you concerning the flaw of shaping the killing of babies alongside certain other political green advances.
The Manifesto is simply another document lightly ringing the bell for a deeper look into what it means to know the evangel. Speaking the gospel rings the bell with greater clarity and begins the process of reforming evangelicalism to its rightfully pursued definition. If you get the gospel right, evangelicalism becomes less ambiguous.
Blessings,
Chris
May 10th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Chris
I believe you are partially right. Yes it does provide direction, but it also sets some specific beliefs concerning their faith. The major disappointment to me is an extremely weak statement concerning inerrancy. That,to me was one of the major pillars for the evangelical movement in the mid 20th century. This was also one of the major concerns of the of the conservative resurgence in the SBC. To affirm this document is to set both movements (evangelical & CR) back.
Do you think the document does a good job in that regard?
To all,
I have a busy day ahead of me, so I will be in and out all day.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Tim,
It was not my intention to single you out as someone who may not perhaps have read the Manifesto in its entirety. Upon looking over my comment again, I can understand how you may have reached that conclusion. I am sorry. I meant the final line, “Finally, I would like to encourage everyone to actually read all the way through the Manifesto with an open mind, before jumping to conclusions” as separate from the part that was addressed specifically to you. Once again, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Regarding inerrancy, the BFM 2000 does not mention the term “inerrancy” either. The Evangelical Manifesto talks about the “total truthfulness and supreme authority” of Scripture. Granted, others in the past, especially in our particular battle in the SBC, may have used terms like that, and twisted them to not mean what they clearly say. But, as Chris Johnson mentions, this is not a “Statement of Faith,” as such. It has a very different function than, for instance, the BFM. While I am a strong proponent of inerrancy, and continue to support the overall goals of the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC, I don’t think it is necessary to export our particular battles and shibboleths as Southern Baptists to the wider-based Evangelical forum.
For some reason, the Manifesto is off-line right now, so I can’t go back and check what it says or doesn’t say about substitutionary atonement. I imagine they are just tweaking a few things, and it will be up again soon. If, indeed the Manifesto communicates that substitutionary atonement is merely an option as Evangelicals, I would have problems with that, as well. For the time being, I can’t remember exactly what it says on that.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:19 am
The Manifesto is back on-line. This is what it says:
“Second, we believe 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. We therefore bring nothing to our salvation. Credited with the righteousness of Christ, we receive his redemption solely by grace through faith.”
To me, that is a pretty good statement. While it may not use the actual term “blood atonement” or “substitutionary atonement,” I think it is saying the same thing.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:30 am
David
I believe you have misunderstood me. I am not talking about the term inerrant, but I am talking about the doctrine of inerrancy. You are right in that the BFM does not use the term, but it does affirm the doctrine by stating that the Bible is, “truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.
The EM does not even come close to clearly affirming the doctrine of inerrancy.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Brother Robin,
I think the EM document is an attempt by these authors to their car back on the road…. sorta like trying to get your car out of a muddy ditch with the help of your friends. Evangelicalism during most of American history has ebbed to a disappointing consensus definition by scholars in the late 20th century.
To put into a little more of a perspective, it appears to me that folks like Bock and others are trying to re-engage the culture (University’s, etc.) to look at the reality of the real factual history of Christ (not the one that has been contrived of late on ABC) and pursue a conversation with the culture based upon real facts. I was in a meeting with him several months back and I think I understand his pursuit, and I think he is probably right from the academic perspective. How that gets transitioned into the church is how some may try to take this Manifesto, but again, my sense is that the EM is not a SOF, nor does it even get close to what the called out ones should be discussing in worship.
Back to the muddy ditch analogy….I think these in the academic society are at least attempting to surface and put more meat on the skeleton of what they call “Evangelicalism”. The evangel has already been defined,…and yes, I agree with you that the principles set forth in this document do not use the exact wording of the BF&M, but at least the EM is getting some traction…..but rest assured there is a lot of mud still in the ditch and storms on the way… and with five or six guys trying to push this television culture definition of evangelicalism out of the ditch,… it is messy business. I like what you have brought forward though, because it should only help to draw attention and precision to the facts of why the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.
Blessings,
Chris
May 10th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Robin,
The way I understand the plain reading of “the total truthfulness and supreme authority of the Bible, God’s inspired Word…our final rule for faith and practice,” it is indeed espousing the “doctrine of inerrancy.”
By the criteria you are using here, you would have to decline to sign the following (just to mention a few) Baptist Confessions of Faith as well…
1644 London Baptist Confession of Faith
“The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not mans inventions, opinions, devices, laws, constitutions, or traditions unwritten whatsoever, but only the word of God contained in the Canonical Scriptures.”
1698 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith
“The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.”
Principles of Faith of the Sandy Creek Association
“That Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God, and only rule of faith and practice.”
May 10th, 2008 at 11:09 am
That should be 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:37 am
David
Again, I believe you re missing the point. If I was living in the time those documents were produced, I could affirm what they say about the scriptures. But times and issues have changed. Inerrancy is the issue of today. I don’t disagree with the statements used in the EM or those documents you point to, but for times like these, the doctrine of inerrancy should have been addressed. It seems the battle for inerrancy may still need to be fought.
I will be gone for a few hours so I will catch up then.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Brother David,
As I said we are once again engaged in double-speak. Please tell me the difference in saying; reconciled us to God and saying reconciled us to God through his blood.
Also, you are correct as to inerrancy not being in the BF&M. However, truth without any measure of error certainly is clearly in that document. As to the argument you present to Brother Robin, you forget one thing. 1644, 1689, and the founding of the Sandy Creek Association, were times that men and women never questioned the veracity, sufficiency, or inerrancy of the Scriptures. Today, in all cultures, God’s Word must be clearly presented without the double speak of total truthfulness, supreme authority, or God’s inspired Word. You see, while someone could affirm the total truthfulness of Scripture they would not necessarily be saying they affirmed the Scripture truthful in its totality. While someone would say that God’s word had supreme authority, they would not necessarily be saying that God’s Word held Authority Supremely in their life. And someone saying that God’s Word was Inspired, they would not necessarily be saying that God’s Word had been inspired to them yet.
This is what I am saying about doublespeak.
Blessings,
Tim
May 10th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Tim,
“…the only ground for our acceptance by God is what Jesus Christ did on the cross…bore the penalty for our sins…redeemed us from the power of evil…”
By the same token you say that this statement is not adequate because it does not specifically use the words “blood atonement,” you could say one that did use the words “blood atonement,” but didn’t say anything about the nails or the crown of thorns, is inadequate. My point: we can go on and on ad infinitum with our demands for greater specificity and greater explicitness in what we say. And, when important issues are at stake, there is sometimes a justified need for greater specificity and explicitness. But, it seems to me, no matter how specific and explicit we are, there will always be someone out there who thinks we are not specific or explicit enough.
The same goes for the discussion about inerrancy. In the middle of the argument provoked by theological liberalism and neo-orthodoxy, in order to distinguish between certain nuances of understanding, it has proven helpful. But, we still need an entire Chicago Statement to explain what we mean and don’t mean by inerrancy. And, there are still, no doubt, people who think the Chicago Statement is not specific enough.
But the context of the Evangelical Manifesto is not the specific polemic regarding these fine points of doctrine. This is not about, for example, who we should pay to teach in our Baptist seminaries. It is about how we identify ourselves, as Evangelicals, before the world, who are largely uninterested in our internecine squabbles, and denominational differences.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Brother David,
I never said that it was not adequate. Note that I could affirm the document in the way it is written as long as I choose the definition of the words. My thesis rests on the use of double-speak to promote a document. This same document, when placed before all who are signing will not say the same. For example, some on the document will not affirm inerrancy, but would affirm inspired. While they affirm inspired they would say after reading Scripture, may this become God’s inspired Word to you That is double speak plain and simple. Something that your dad said; “they use the same words but different dictionaries“.
Blessings,
Tim
May 10th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Tim,
Okay, fair enough. I agree with you here. But, that is precisely what I was alluding to in my first comment here, when I said:
“I signed the Manifesto, because I read it, and am in agreement with what it says. Not because of who else signed it or didn’t sign it. And not because of how it might be spun. I think this is a part, as Christians, of letting our “yes” be “yes” and our “no” “no.””
This, as I understand it, is not about joining together with everyone of the signers in the same denomination. And, it is not about signing on to everything every one of the signers might believe individually. It is about what it actually says.
I am glad you could affirm the document in the way it is written as long as you choose the definition of the words. I agree with you, there are possible understandings of the document with which I would not agree. But, that is the nature of human speech. It can never be as precise and inequivocable as we might like.
In the meantime, I like the general message that the Manifesto is trying to get across, and I am able to agree with everything it says, at least, in the way I myself interpret it. For me, that is good enough.
Have you read what Dr. Darrell Bock, from Dallas Seminary, says about this over at Ed Stetzer’s blog? I think it is quite instructive.
May 10th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Robin,
One more example to further my argument:
Would you refuse to sign Southern Seminary’s Abstract of Principles because you don’t think what it says about Scripture is sufficient enough?…
“The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and are the only sufficient, certain and authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience.”
Although this was originally penned in 1858, it is still considered as valid and “in force” today, even after we have been through all the debates on inerrancy of the past century.
May 10th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
David
I am sorry, but again it seems you are still missing my point. The scenario you present leads me to ask, why would I sign it. If it was to teach at Southern or Southeastern, then yes because I know that those schools also affirm inerrancy in the BFM. The bigger question is, would I support institutions that did not affirm inerrancy. The answer to that is no.
The EM is a rally call for evangelicals to move forward. To do so without affirming the doctrine of inerrancy is double talk with what brought evangelicals together in the mid twentieth century. It is a break from that tradition while still holding on to the label evangelical. Because these men lacked clarity on affirming what evangelical historically have affirmed, namely inerrancy, I cannot join these men with my signature.
Back to the abstract, if this document was presented today as a lone doctrinal statement for an SBC institution, I am pretty sure, it would be changed to affirm inerrancy or another statement would be added. That is exactly what was done with the BFM.
May 10th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
That last sentence should read
“with the addition of the BFM as a statement of accountability.
May 10th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I just read the Evangelical Manifesto and would make a couple of observations.
1) It is NOT the BF&M, the document that expresses our common beliefs. So, the criticism that immersion is not in it is, to me, irrelevant at best.
Is anyone going to deny that there are genuinely evangelical pedobaptists?
2) The absence of definition of a doctrine does not constitute a denial of that doctrine. Inerrancy is not mentioned but there is nothing in this statement that is contrary to inerrancy.
3) There is, in my view, value in defining grounds of belief and cooperation with the evangelical world in general. This document does that.
4) I would write several things differently if I were writing this document, but the only perfect document is scripture and to expect a document to be perfect before you sign on to it seems silly to me.
David Rogers arguments, as usual, carry the day for me.
May 10th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Brother David,
You say; And, it is not about signing on to everything every one of the signers might believe individually. It is about what it actually says. I believe this is where you and I have to part ways concerning this document. Note that I said I could affirm it, but I will not sign it. Why? Because when I place my signature on this document it says I agree with the document in what it says according to my definition, and my definition, because others have signed it, agrees with their definitions. That is why I say this document is double speak.
Blessings,
Tim
May 10th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Robin you said: It seems the battle for inerrancy may still need to be fought.
Robin: I would ask why? This document is saying that while we need to stand for things why does it all need to be a battle? I am asking this again now. Inerrancy is a strong belief for me personally and as David Rogers has pointed out, this manifesto has written it quite adequately in my opinion. I hope those were just words you were speaking Robin and not actual fact on your part. That would be wrong.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Tim: I know you are speaking to David here but may I ask, couldn’t the same argument be made for the BFM?
May 10th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Robin & Tim,
For me, I find it telling that after years of theological hammering, chiseling into shape a sculpture concerning which virtually every evangelical appreciated and accepted about the inspiration of Scripture, we find here those who insist that sculpture is not now necessary.
The newer, improved “Evangelical” has evolved. And with his evolution, his enlightened, superior status has him thinking “Inerrancy” is obsolete. Now, he has come of age when he boldly, confidently declares the “total truthfulness and supreme authority” of the Bible is enough.
What his enlightened, evolved mind unfortunately forfeits during the morphing process is that the “’total truthfulness and supreme authority’ of the Bible” is precisely the description of which the old Moderates argued contra the Conservative Resurgence.
Nor is insisting on Inerrancy being foundational to any understanding of evangelicalism, as your critique rightly posits, an injection of a particularly Baptist squabble into the larger evangelical community as one here has attempted to suggest. Inerrancy is no more a Baptist issue than abortion is a Roman Catholic issue.
It seems to me, we not only are facing a strange reluctance to embrace all that being Baptist means, we also are facing a much stranger reluctance in embracing all that being evangelical means.
Grace, brothers. Keep up the good work here. With that, I am…
Peter
May 10th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Peter: New and improved? That is not at all what this document is saying. As has been mentioned inerrancy is covered in this document to my satisfaction. It has already been shown where and how by others so I’ll not repeat the evidence here. Do you not think however that we need to argue based on truth and not strawmen? In fact this document stresses that we not battle like the world. Can you honestly say that your argument is based on the actual words of the manifesto? If it is, I don’t see it.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Debbie,
It all depends on how one defines what is written – thus the problem with this document. When a document is so vague as to allow multiple definitions that could affirm the same one document – it is not a strong document.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Tim: That is where you and I would disagree. I don’t think it’s vague at all. I see it as pretty straight forward. Could you give examples of how this document is double worded? Where the definitions would be different? I spent two days going through it word by word and didn’t see this at all. Am I missing something here?
When I read Tim’s post my first thought was the discussion we have been having the past few months on Universal church and local church which both are in the BFM yet Universal church as I define it(which is all believers all over the world past, present and future as spoken of in Revelation 5:9), yet there are Southern Baptists who would disagree, but we could both affirm the BFM.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Debbie,
As for as the “strawman” goes, Debbie, I’m bored of that being used when there’s no real criticism to offer. I pass.
But for the concession that “inerrancy is covered in this document to my satisfaction”, good: You can have it if you think it’s there.
My guess you haven’t a clue what the Moderates were arguing for during the 80s. Those of us who lived through that mess and attempted to weigh out the costs will not fail to hear the same tired and inadequate language about Scripture and Scripture’s nature once again being resurrected.
With that, I am…
Peter
May 10th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Peter: I am well aware, very well aware. I know you think I come to these discussions uneducated but that simply is not true. I am just not afraid of what they argued. I am comfortable and secure in what I believe. I think the words of this document are being twisted here and I do think it’s unjust. I am not surprised however. Not surprised at all.
I just don’t think everything is a battle, a war, a fight, or even a just cause. I do believe we should stand for what we believe, it’s the way some stand that is the problem and that is what this document addresses, at least in my opinion. We can’t treat these things as if we were at war. Look at the polls of what people think of us. Now some can write that off as that is the way the world is. I think we need to listen. We need to treat unbelievers and those we disagree with more kindly. I talk about myself when I say this. Sharp, harsh words, many of which you use frequently Peter, as well as I have, hurt people. We cannot justify this. This document is telling us to be kinder and gentler, to bring Christ back into the center. To stand for abortion, marriage, against gay marriage, but don’t do it with bullets in our Bible, or hitting people with our Bible. But instead to genuinely love those who are gay, going through marital troubles, thinking about abortion. A love that only God can produce in us. We can’t even take credit for the love. To discuss, but do it with gentleness, kindness, while giving the truth of our convictions. This is something that many are not trained to do. Onward Christian Soldiers is not one of my favorite hymns for a reason.
I and my husband both believe that this document is one of the best we have ever read and that it contains the fundamentals of the faith while reclaiming the word Evangelistic. I agree with every line of this document. If you do not agree, then you are free not to sign it. But to twist the words of this document to unrecognizable as I believe you have done is not only unjust, it’s wrong. I hope people do not just read what I or you or anyone says about the document and take it as the end all. I hope that all read all the pages which are about 20 in number by PDF file and really see what it says before making a judgment.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
One more important point is that we have been used as a political puppet, just as we have used those in the political arena. The document addresses this too, and does it quite well and too the point. What you read is what you get, at least I did when I read it. Bottom line: I liked what I read and was glad such a manifesto what given. I heartily support it.
May 11th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Debbie,
Sometimes you prove what I suspect: you do not read well the comments of others. Rather, you answer back based on other than one’s written words.
I plainly noted, Debbie: “you can have [the Manifesto] if you think [Inerrancy's] there.” Why you would posts as if I am attempting to persuade you otherwise is incredible.
Take it; sign it; support it; memorize it; teach it; post it on your blog; adopt it as your faith statement of your blog; copy/paste it in comment threads; hand it out in SS classes; adopt it at your church, your women’s Bible Study, your home; ad infiinitum, ad nauseum.
I hope that is broad enough to be clear that I am not attempting to persuade you not to accept the manifesto.
Now that that is clear, to even suggest that I have “twist[ed] the words of this document to unrecognizable as [you] believe [I] have done” is, in your words, Ms. Kaufman, “not only unjust, it’s wrong.”
I suggest you deal with precisely what the brothers say here.
I trust your pastor preaches well today. With that, I am…
Peter
May 11th, 2008 at 8:11 am
As I had original thought from reading the EM, Bock has given more evidence of the intent for the cause…….
Bock says….”Rather than simply dragging out the old labels and category concerns (liberal; conservative; centrist; Catholic; atheist; too ecumenical sounding, like the Evangelical and Catholics Together document; not enough women nor ethnics), can we ask what in the document is a problem or what is well said? Is it really a key concern to ask who was initially asked to sign a document that invites anyone to sign? Should we not ask instead if one should sign anew on to such an array of commitments? Should we not ask why or why not sign? Can or should one as a believer-citizen today engage with conviction for one’s values without doing things that fuel the present cultural war? Is this question worth asking and pondering?
The manifesto simply says emphatically, “Yes.” So that is the point. Pause and ponder anew what we evangelicals are truly called to do–and pray it be done with a balance that honors God, reflects the gospel, and loves our neighbor, even in the midst of serious debate. Is that point worth reaffirming with a signature no matter where we are on the evangelical spectrum? Is it? In other words, to reflect or not to reflect, that is the question.”
I’m glad to see Dr. Bock trying to give some context to the intent. It should be helpful as people consider working with or not working with each other. I’m glad Ed Stetzer has posted Dr. Bock’s comments.
Blessings,
Chris
May 12th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Dr. Mohler has an excellent analysis of the Manifesto at his blog. Almost as good as Robin’s! Great job here, my brother!
Sola Gratia!
May 12th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Scott
Maybe I missed something. Mohler’s way out did mine.
Thanks for the nice words though.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Brother Robin,
Your analysis was actually more specific than Al’s…..and I think I can agree with both of your concerns.
Al said…
“But when the Manifesto presents a theological definition of Evangelicals, it turns out to be a rather minimal definition. Evangelicals, the document asserts, “are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth.”
And then he said further,…
“Those are wonderful words filled with Christian content, but they are also words that would be claimed by many who would never claim to be Evangelicals. The definition is just not sufficient. ……. (summary) In the end, I must judge “An Evangelical Manifesto” to be too expansive in terms of public relations and too thin in terms of theology. I admire so much of what this document states and represents, but I cannot accept it as a whole.”
It sounds like Al wants more specific definition…. as all Christian leaders should demand. I can see why these authors of the EM are moving the direction they are….and with that I am pleased. I deal with them in the ETS. I would not see any need to sign on to the document,… not that it presents anything that I am against, ….and I think it presents many things that need to be heard, but I am eager for the next release that moves even closer to the real evangelistic revelation of scripture and the gospel.
Thanks for the post Robin,
Blessings,
Chris
May 13th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I think the point that David Rogers and Dave Miller and Chris Johnson and others have missed is this: Once upon a time inerrancy was one of the defining concepts of what it meant to be a late-twentieth-century American evangelical—the first doctrine anyone would mention in any “evangelical” document. What, for years, was the sole theological stackpole of the Evangelical Theological Society? Inerrancy.
And inerrancy’s absence from the statement is something akin to the absence of a statement about collective bargaining in a manifesto from the Teamsters. Such an omission would suggest that the Teamsters are becoming something that they have never been before—abandoning former emphases to pursue other things. Yes, for the National Rifle Association not to say anything about collective bargaining would communicate absolutely nothing about whether the NRA believes in collective bargaining, but it would have an entirely different significance coming from the domain of Hoffa.
I suggest that my hypothetical is precisely analogous to the inability to employ the word “inerrant” or one of its derivatives in a purportedly evangelical document.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Brother Bart,
I am not sure if I have missed the truth about inerrant after all. Once upon a time (0-100 AD) it was actually truth as in John’s gospel. Inerrancy is a good word,…it is a word that describes what we believe the bible is….it is descriptive and makes sense to us….but the bible didn’t seem to care to use our word to defend what is revealed.
Holy Scripture did use “truth”.
John 1:1-14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) He was in the beginning with God. (3) All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (4) In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. (5) The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (6) There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. (7) He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. (8) He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light. (9) There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. (10) He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. (11) He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. (12) But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, (13) who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (14) And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 14:5-7 Thomas *said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” (6) Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (7) “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”
I actually prefer the word “Truth”, yet I think I may understand the reason that “inerrant” was introduced to try and clarify the politicized definition in American Evangelicalism. Maybe the Baptist has coined a better or more accurate word than “Truth” …possibly “inerrant?” Truth seems to be the better choice for me at this point because it rules out error, even though I do agree that the bible is inerrant as well.
Blessings,
Chris