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

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

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.

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

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.

If you had one member in your church that made $1,000,000 and one that made $220,000 and both gave $30,000 to the church, which would you rather be the example to the rest of the congregation (without getting into the biblical responsibility of tithing because I know that someone would say that there is no biblical mandate for the local church to give 10% to the SBC). I believe (my own opinion which sometimes isn’t a very good one) the Pres. of the SBC should be an example for the rest of the pastors in the SBC to follow in every area: missions (Dr. Hunt is), evangelism (Dr. Hunt is), doctrine (Dr. Hunt is), and giving to the Cooperation of Southern Baptist Missions (Dr. Hunt ???). If every SBC church earmarked around 87% of their missions givings the SBC would collapse quickly.

Sorry if I wasted any of you good follks time with this comment, but it has been killing me to get it out there…and now I’m done. Feel free to tear it apart of need be.

One would be Dr. Cox’s church, from a just under $3 million budget. If FBCW gave just 6.7% (half of the percentage of North Metro) they would give $1.2 million. If FBCW gave the same percentage (13.4) that would be $2.5 million, if they just gave 10% it would be $1.8 million. Do you see the difference? CP is the fuel that makes the convention run. I love to hear Dr. Hunt preach, and I am sure that he does a lot of good things. But there is a big difference between his 393k and his buddy from 49 miles down the road’s 393k. Think what would happen if every church gave just 2.2% to CP. It’s scary.