RE: [asa] An Evangelical Manifesto

Hi Dave:
 
I took the “Steering Committee” as the committee and only saw three or four, pardon me. That included only these that I could see had credentials:
Timothy George; Dean, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University
John Huffman, Pastor, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach, CA, Chair, Christianity Today International
Rich Mouw, President, Fuller Theological Seminary
David Neff, Vice President and Editor in Chief, Christianity Today Media Group
Then there are also:
Jesse Miranda, Founder & Director, Miranda Center for Hispanic Leadership, Vanguard University
Richard Ohman, Businessman
Larry Ross, President, A. Larry Ross Communications
Dallas Willard, Professor of Philosophy, University of Southern California, Author
Os Guinness, Author/Social Critic
Heck, any of us could fit on that list, and maybe should have. Still, I agree that it is probably a step in the right direction. My guess, though, is that they regard it as a finished piece of work such as the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which unfortunately is etched in stone and long outlived relevancy, and not a living document subject to revision.
 
Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
 <http://www.historicalgenesis.com> www.historicalgenesis.com
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 9:58 AM
To: Dick Fischer
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] An Evangelical Manifesto
 
Dick said: I also noticed that only about three of a rather short list of committee members had any credentials to speak of.
 
I respond: You need to read that list again. When you have Richar Mouw, Timothy George, Os Guiness, and Dallas Willard on the steering committee, and Miroslav Volf, Mark Noll, Alvin Plantinga, J.P. Moreland, David Gushee, Darrell Bock, Justo Gonzalez, Kevin Vanhoozer, Amos Yong, Ron Sider, and Jim Wallis as charter signatories, you've got some major credentials floating around.
 
Again -- is anyone likely to agree with the whole thing? No. Do all of the people above even agree on exactly what it means? Probably not. But jeesh, if we can't recognize some positive affirmations when they happen, what are we doing here but grumbling and whining to each other?
 
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
 <http://www.historicalgenesis.com/> 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 <http://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.