Concerns - Part II

Like I said before, I have read the summary, but not the full document of the “Manifesto”. But I went to the “Talk about it” page to see what others had to say. Some of the comments from various people illustrate/define my concerns:

First, what some have said in support of the manifesto:

“Thank you so much for much wisdom of the Manifesto. I pray that hearts will lean towards more love/mercy then judgement(sic) and laws.”

“The relativism expressed, i.e. tolerance for diversity, and the notion of a open plaza for public discourse permitting the rational and the faithful to congregate is a powerful notion.”

“Glad to see secularism beginning to stem inside religious community.”

I hope those statements scare you the same way they scared me. Why is there a need for mercy if we are not first condemned by law and justice/judgment? Read Romans 6-8, especially 7:7-12. “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law…So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good.” (I could go on, but I will stop.) So, secularism has found a place inside the religious community, eh? Well, it doesn’t fit in my Bible.

Now here are some comments in criticism of the “Manifesto”:

“Why were polarizing left leaning evangelicals like Brian McLaren (to call him an evangelical is charitable) and Jim Wallis asked to sign this, while prominent right leaning evangelicals left out of this process?”

(A very good question…Brian McLaren is a big spokesperson for the emerging church movement.)

“it tries too hard to appease the sophisticated unbeliever (many of whom identify themselves as Evangelical), and fails to draw the firm lines so sorely needed in church circles.”

“Holiness - not one mention about Holiness - which we are called to in Jesus Christ. The glaring issue with the Church today is there is no talk about Holiness or Sin - which the Gospels, and letters spent more time talking about than anything else.”

“I applaud the effort to "re-reform" the church - but this looks like more a change to meld with today's culture than no - as the manifesto states” [“than not”- is what is meant here]

“It seems to me that it is an impossible document. We don't want a naked square or a sacred one; we can't be liberal or fundamental; etc., etc., etc. The trick there is picking the middle ground. They appear to have left too much space and not enough at the same time.”

Some eye-opening objections there. Those all speak for themselves, but this next one is interesting. This person signed the Manifesto, but apparently has some reservations.

“However, I have some issues with this manifesto, and so I suppose, with Evangelicalism: 1. I think right belief is emphasized way too much. "Believing" in the Greek has connotations of trusting and faith, and intellectual belief is only a small part of it. Over-emphasizing belief is, I believe, a modernist, culture-based, reactionary distortion of Christianity. 2. The manifesto says Evangelicals want to respect all varieties of belief, Christian or non-Christian, and decries people who believe their way is the only way and try to coerce people to believe like them. Maybe Evangelicals don't want to coerce people, but in the beliefs section, the manifesto states strongly that Jesus is the only way to God. How can a person be so absolutely sure that she is right and still be open-minded and respectful? I tend to agree with Brian McLaren, who I paraphrase here, as saying "I am sure I am wrong about some of the things I believe most strongly." Wouldn't a little more skepticism be a healthy thing for Evangelicals, in order to be more open-minded and respectful? Moreover, you can grow a lot by being open to diverse opinions and recognizing that you may be wrong. Also, the belief that Jesus is the only way would tend to connote that non-Christians are going to hell. Is that what Evangelicals believe? If so, how is telling people they're going to hell if they don't believe like you spreading Good News and not coercing them?”

It sounds like this person has already aligned their thinking with the emerging church, but their criticism of the manifesto’s statements actually causes me to look more favorably upon it.

Well, now I need to read the document in its entirety, but what I have seen so far provides much food for thought. I welcome people's comments on this.