Re: [asa] An Evangelical Manifesto

Here's a response by James K.A. Smith of Calvin College, whose work I really
appreciate:
http://www.generousorthodoxy.net/thinktank/2008/05/an-evangelical.html

I think Smith articulates well some of the concerns Dick raised.

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
wrote:

> It struck me as an overly condemning opinion as to what liberalism can
> lead to as opposed to a more benign characterization of liberal theology as
> an honest attempt by sincere Christians to divide the word with a view
> toward reconciling the words of Scripture with what is now an abundance of
> scientific evidence. I also noticed that only about three of a rather
> short list of committee members had any credentials to speak of. And
> where is their feedback form to allow for refinements from critics? Any
> "kissing Judases" got anything to add, you "sorry capitulators," you :>).
>
>
>
> Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
>
> Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
>
> www.historicalgenesis.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Merv
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 08, 2008 8:01 AM
> *To:* Dick Fischer; asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] An Evangelical Manifesto
>
>
>
> Dick Fischer wrote:
>
> Any comments on this part?
>
>
>
> Evangelicalism should be distinguished from two opposite tendencies to
> which Protestantism has been prone: liberal revisionism and conservative
> fundamentalism. Called by Jesus to be ―in the world, but not of it, Christians,
> especially in modern society, have been pulled toward two extremes. Those
> more liberal have tended so to accommodate the world that they reflect the
> thinking and lifestyles of the day, to the point where they are unfaithful
> to Christ; whereas those more conservative have tended so to defy the world
> that they resist it in ways that also become unfaithful to Christ. The
> liberal revisionist tendency was first seen in the eighteenth century and
> has become more pronounced today, reaching a climax in versions of the
> Christian faith that are characterized by such weaknesses as an exaggerated
> estimate of human capacities, a shallow view of evil, an inadequate view of
> truth, and a deficient view of God. In the end, they are sometimes no longer
> recognizably Christian. As this sorry capitulation occurs, such ―alternative
> gospels represent a series of severe losses that eventually seal their
> demise:
>
>
>
> First, a loss of authority, as sola Scriptura (―by Scripture alone‖) is
> replaced by sola cultura (―by culture alone); Second, a loss of community
> and continuity, as ―the faith once delivered becomes the faith of merely
> one people and one time, and cuts itself off from believers across the world
> and down the generations; Third, a loss of stability, as in Dean Inge's apt
> phrase, the person ―who marries the spirit of the age soon becomes a
> widower; Fourth, a loss of credibility, as ―the new kind of faith‖ turns
> out to be what the skeptic believes already, and there is no longer anything
> solidly, decisively Christian for seekers to examine and believe; Fifth, a
> loss of identity, as the revised version of the faith loses more and more
> resemblance to the historic Christian faith that is true to Jesus. In short,
> for all their purported sincerity and attempts to be relevant, extreme
> proponents of liberal revisionism run the risk of becoming what Søren
> Kierkegaard called ―kissing Judases – Christians who betray Jesus with an
> interpretation.
>
>
>
> Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
>
> Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
>
> www.historicalgenesis.com
>
> While the general concern seems sound enough, it is still ... very
> general. The criticized extremes are not specified. They are only labeled
> as "exaggerated", "shallow", "inadequate", and "deficient". So of course
> then, by definition, they are not where a Christian should be, but we are
> still left wide open to decide what views or camps merit those words and to
> apply them to whatever other category of thought we wish to criticize.
>
> Also, do participants here advocate "sola Scriptura" ---or do we rather,
> as it seems to me, advocate more of a Scripture interpreted by the help of
> other tools such as the wider body (the Church), and even nature (the two
> book model)? Which is NOT, to my thinking, the same as diminishing the
> authority of Scripture to a level below those other things, but rather,
> recognizing that our interpretation of it can never happen in a vacuum, and
> it is unhealthy to try and pretend so.
>
> --Merv
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.