I don’t think it’s possible to speak for evangelicals so a statement about evangelicalism isn’t possible. The reason I don’t that is possible is because evangelical is not an affiliation, it’s a descriptive term. We don’t belong to evangelicalism; it only describes a set of beliefs that fit some people. And even then, it’s rather narrow in it’s theological application. It doesn’t describe a system of theology, only a cluster of beliefs. We don’t join evangelicalism; the term only describes us if the shoe fits.

Full blog entry…

LOL! No Grammar checker!!

Evangelical =

Conservative
Republican
Anti-Abortion / Pro Life / Clinic Bombers
Angry White Males
Backwoods
Uneducated

This is much of what people see on the TV.

As I have written before here, the Bible tells us that the world will hate us because they hated Jesus too.

Unfortunately we are hated for many political and social reasons and not from the biblical reasons of balanced demonstration of our love for each other and compassion for others, while also pointing out injustices and sin in the world. We radiate hate and anger and not as much radiating Christ.

There is a balance of being salt and light in there somewhere, and that doesn’t not mean rubbing salt in wounds, or using laser light to burn people.

I am not a fan of labels anyway. I personally cringe when called a Baptist or Republican as I do not fall in lock step with any group, but serve where God has me to be.

There’s my 2 cents if anyone is buying it.

An Evangelical Response to “An Evangelical Manifesto”

Very well said Hugh. I think that’s what I was trying to get at but didn’t, at least not as well as you did!

And the standard one uses to do that would be?

I don’t assume there is a God because we have a perfect document from Him, I assume we have a perfect document from Him because there is a God (Who is perfect and cannot lie).

As far as our experience, R.C. Sproul says it better than I can:

“One of the most dangerous things you can do as a Christian is to determine your theology by your experience”

There is nothing intrinsically good or noble about “experience” in and of itself. It must be measured against a standard to determine if it has any worth. Joseph Smith and Mohammad each had an “experience” with “god” but both were dead wrong and have led millions into eternal damnation.

Would you say that the Bible makes objective claims about reality? If so, to what extent do you think those claims are true?

i think that’s my argument, not yours. if your faith is built on an inerrant bible, then it’s misplaced. your faith should be based in no small part on the God you’ve seen at work in your own life and in the lives of others. scripture plays a part, reason plays a part, experience plays a part - the stool has several legs because it would fall with only one. the challenge is to find the proper balance, not to err fully in the direction of only one.

to assume that there is a God because we have in our hands a perfect document from Him is to say that God had been unknown to Joe Everyman Human until the invention of the printing press and the Protestant reformation.

luckily, God didn’t wait until you and Larry came along to ask permission to work in the lives of the people He created.

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

Evangelicals adhere fully to the Christian faith expressed in the historic creeds of the great ecumenical councils of the church, and in the great affirmations of the Protestant Reformation, and seek to be loyal to this faith passed down from generation to generation.

I believe this would include Sola Scriptura. This is also addressed on pages 8 and 9 describing the slippery slope of Liberal Revisionism:

First, a loss of authority, as sola Scriptura (”by Scripture alone”) is replaced by sola cultura (”by culture alone”);

To Larry’s point, what “good news” do we have if the source of that news is wrong? Think about it.

i am glad they chose not to say that creationism and inerrancy were non-negotiables. for the first, there’s very little biblical justification anymore behind whatever latest flavor of anti-natural selection is being put forward; 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. kind of stupid when you think about it … not that thinking is a pre-requisite of course in any of these endeavors.

more than anything, i was motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece - that it wasn’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 ever since it embraced the neo-con’s Jesus bobble-head doll.

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