I've read the statement and am impressed. It is very well written, is humble while at the same time boldly stating what it means to be a Christian, reputes, in a civil way, those who seek to twist the faith into something it's not, and is broad enough to allow different Evangelicals to choose how to live out their faith in their communities.

The one criticism I have of it is that it doesn't clealy explain to the average, non-Evangelical reader how Evangelical Christians are different than just plain old Christians. But as the signers said, it wasn't written for these readers. But it would have been helpful to me as an Evangelical to have that spelled out too.

All in all, though, it's well done. I'd be interested in hearing other readers' thoughts.

Posted by: Eric | May 7, 2008 7:39 PM

Jim,

I'm looking forward to seeing how this is received in the broader evangelical community!

Brian Jones
www.brianjones.com

Posted by: Brian Jones | May 7, 2008 9:00 PM

I was impressed by the Manifesto's spirit until I read the ugly lies about a mainline denomination the chief author of the Manifesto (Os Guinness) wrote in the Washington Post : link

It's not just mean, it's ignorant.

Jim Wallis, I'm very surprised you'd want to be associated with those thoughts. Hardly civil. Hardly in the spirit of the Manifesto which calls for respect towards all faiths. Particularly gross misrepresentation of those faiths.

Your thoughts, please.

Posted by: John B. Chilton | May 7, 2008 10:06 PM

Jim,

As always, you make a good case for Christian faith. The problem is our ministries don't. Jesus says people are to "believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves." It's time for Christian ministries to bring to light the miracles God is making happen within them. Doing this not only will help give people a more Jesus-like idea of what we Christians are all about, but it also will generate believers who become ministry supporters -- just what every Christian ministry needs in these tough times.

Now that we've laid out the language, let's get our ministries to walk the talk.

God bless,

Bernice Sanders Smoot
Saint Wall Street

Posted by: Bernice Sanders Smoot | May 7, 2008 11:03 PM

Jesse,

Have you bothered to read the Manifesto? I hardly think what they're advocating is accepting the world's values and "being like non-Christians".

Posted by: Jake | May 7, 2008 11:36 PM

Steve,

Please stop assuming you know who is and who is not going to hell. You are not the judge and you do not have the wisdom to even speculate on it. You don't know who is and is not saved so please don't speculate on such things. Instead follow the most important commandment Love God with all your heart, mind, body and soul and your neighbor. If you do that you will have salvation as Luke 10 preaches.

p

Posted by: Payshun | May 8, 2008 1:01 AM

Jesse, being hated by the world because of Jesus or The Gospel is to be expected.

Unfortunately a very vocal contingent of us behave more like partisans of the Roman Empire than heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Posted by: Lisa | May 8, 2008 1:40 AM

"On the question of public life, the manifesto recognizes that the political categories of left and right simply don't fit religion, and it is a big mistake to try to fit religion into them. The people I meet across the country are yearning for a moral center to our public life and political discourse, with a fundamental emphasis on the common good. They want to understand better the moral choices and challenges that lie beneath our political debates. More and more people want to see a common-good politics replace the politics of individual gain and special interests."

I find this idea is so evident on this blog page. Despite the obvious disagreements and opposing stances on theological and political issues the regulars here more often than not display a togetherness that crosses all party lines and labels. There is a true sense of good- spiritedness that usually expells those that jump in with somewhat of a mean-spirited intention, and I like that as well. I find it very refreshing to listen and learn from such thinkers when so often my day gets consumed with distractions by unsolicited and meaningless conversations with folks that walk through life without ever seeking it's boundries. Thanks guys!!!

Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 8, 2008 7:59 AM

"Have you bothered to read the Manifesto? I hardly think what they're advocating is accepting the world's values and "being like non-Christians".
--My comments had nothing to do with the manifesto--they had to do with the poll Wallis cited. Certainly Christians aren't perfect, but I've never understood the meaning of those kinds of polls. Christians should care how the world perceives them to an extent, but then again, we should not be surprised if we are despised by the world--our values often come in conflict with it. The data Wallis cites seem to be just a reflection of that conflict.

I'm guessing that Wallis cites these data to influence evangelicals to take on his political beliefs (so they will be more well-liked by non-christians), but the assumptions behind this reasoning are flawed.

Posted by: jesse | May 8, 2008 8:35 AM

"too focused on the afterlife"

I never understand this criticism. If heaven is full union with God, and that depends on what we believe and how we act in the here and now, then a strong focus on the afterlife will only lead to a better here-and-now.

As Christians, an emphasis on that eternal union with God is imperative. It's the reason for being holy in life now.

Posted by: Bob | May 8, 2008 9:26 AM

The signers insist, for example, that they are deeply concerned about the “striking intolerance evident among the new atheists” and the danger of a “coercive secularism” that might force religion out of the public square. Adopting the language of right-wing Catholic priest Richard John Neuhaus, they warn against the “partisans of a naked public square, those who would make all religious expression private and keep the public square secular.”

This strikes me as completely bogus. Christopher Hitchens does not have a multi-million-dollar broadcasting empire or an army of devoted Irreligious Left followers. Sam Harris heads no Anti-Christian Coalition with chapters around the country seeking to block religious voters from going to the polls. Religious persons freely speak out on public affairs in this country, and there is no serious effort to stop them.

I’m also concerned about the mindset of the Manifesto signers. In the document, they describe a world with “such evils as genocide, slavery, female oppression, and assaults on the unborn” that “must be resisted.”

Wait just a minute! Conscientious people, whether religious or not, agree that genocide, slavery and female oppression are wrong, but “assaults on the unborn” is an evangelical euphemism for abortion. Blithely listing a woman’s right to end a problem pregnancy as equivalent to genocide or slavery reflects a rather astonishing worldview.

And it’s a worldview that isn’t shared by the majority of Americans (Christian or not), who regularly tell pollsters that they broadly support reproductive choice. (Maybe the Manifesto drafting committee should have included more women. Of 75 signers announced today, only six are female.)

The abortion issue reminds us of the difficulty that sometimes arises when religious voices come to the public square armed only with scriptural mandates that others don’t accept. Manifesto signers think the Bible bans abortion, but many other Christians don’t see it that way. And non-Christians, of course, don’t much care what the Bible says, or doesn’t say, about abortion. How do we discuss issues that intertwine so deeply with religious doctrine in a way that includes everyone?

At a minimum, evangelicals will have to make their case on abortion, same-sex marriage and other issues in language that all Americans can understand – and argue about. It can’t just be: the Bible says, I believe it, that settles it. That might work in a theological debate at an evangelical seminary, but it won’t work in a pluralistic America.

The bottom line: The Manifesto will have served a wholesome purpose if it opens up debate within the evangelical community about the proper role of religion in a democratic and pluralistic society. That discussion has been sorely lacking for decades. Where in the world have these Manifesto folks been, and why has it taken them so long to step forward?

But if the Manifesto merely masks a continuing evangelical drive to dominate the public square and legislate a ban on abortion, restrictions on the civil rights of gay people and a church-state relationship where separation is more a façade than a reality, it’s just more of the same-old, same-old.

We’ll be watching carefully to see what happens.

Posted by: The Patriot | May 8, 2008 9:34 AM

Ed,
Your comments to John Chilton are well said. I'd also add that Jim Wallis isn't associating himself with Yates and Guinness's comments on the Episcopal Church simply by co-signing an entirely different document.

Posted by: Eric | May 8, 2008 11:29 AM

"It's not just mean, it's ignorant." John C

I agree with above commenter that Jim W signing of this document has nothing to do with the Falls Church congregation withdrawing from the Episcopal Church. So please don't be tossing charges at J Wallis in that regards--unless you lay out a basis for doing so.

I agree with other commenter that the Os G charges against some Episcopal leadership are serious. And they were made in a serious (not flippant) manner.

I would agree there is overlap between the Os G piece you linked and the critique in this manifesto. If you have issue with the substance of the Manifesto critique, please specify and explain.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | May 8, 2008 11:39 AM

kevin s: "Standing against divorce, sexual immorality, gluttony, anger? That won't help the polling numbers."

You left out greed, sloth, envy, and pride.

More seriously, I think the gap between Jesus and the church perceived by many young (and older) people is only in part due to the shortfalls of the church's performance.

Another major reason is the tremendous ignorance about who and what Jesus was and is. I'm shocked by how people of all political persuasions and theological bents misrepresent Jesus. To hear some talk, Jesus is a dreadlocked revolutionary, others portray a buffed warrior ready to raise hell with the devil. Still others see Jesus as more Buddha than Messiah.

It's up to all of us to make clear to the public that Jesus is Lord of the world, working through us to inaugurate a new kind of kingdom that indeed will offend many Americans, including lots who call themselves Christians. But it also will offer a new kind of life, a citizenship in the kingdom of God, that dwarfs the promise of the American Dream.

Posted by: carl copas | May 8, 2008 12:07 PM

I am not young anymore, but the comments from youth about their perceptions of Christianity echo my thoughts. I am a lifelong Methodist, but stopped attending church 2 1/2 years ago because of those reasons. Let me add that it is my belief that conservative Christians care about one thing - themselves and their faith. You can forget about peace and justice with them. You cannot get more selfish than that. It is also my belief that many love talking about being a Christian, but really do not want to do what Jesus did one bit. It seems that all you have to do is say you are a Christian, but you don't have to be one.

The evangelical word confuses me. I think of wild eyed revivals when I think of that. Can anyone define what an evangelical is?

Thanks,

Stoney

Posted by: William Stone | May 8, 2008 1:14 PM

frankie,
You say that something bugs you about the manifesto and then express concern about how some people on the Sojo blgo act. Please don't confuse the manifesto with how some people here. It appears that the manifesto is meant to bring people together, unlike some of the things said here. But this blog and the manifesto are completely different.

Roberta,
Your concerns about the manifesto don't make sense. There is no mention at all of the government taking over the role of the church in the document. When the document refers to the common good, I'd argue it means our, as Christians, duty to our fellow man. If the document were advocating, as some Progessives do, that the common good is best served by people entrusting a central government with vast powers, I'd share your concerns, but it doesn't.

Posted by: Eric | May 8, 2008 2:08 PM

Stoney,
The manifesto that Jim quotes says:

"Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth. (Evangelical comes from the Greek word for good news, or gospel.) Believing that the Gospel of Jesus is God's good news for the whole world, we affirm with the Apostle Paul that we are 'not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation.' "

That's a pretty good definition.

Posted by: Eric | May 8, 2008 2:12 PM

I appreciate receiving this. One question. ..

Why are there so few female signatores? What does this say about Evangelicals?

Thank you...someone for replying to this question.

George Johnson...a Lutheran

Posted by: George Johnson | May 8, 2008 2:29 PM

George Johnson: "Why are there so few female signatores? What does this say about Evangelicals?"

I wonder about it also. I have no answers but would like to hear the thoughts of others.

Posted by: carl copas | May 8, 2008 3:07 PM

Eric-
I am well aware of Jim Wallis and his Leftist political agenda. That it isn't specifically addressed to the government does not mitigate the rhetoric and it's implications. Those of us with traditional values--the ones that have demonstrated generosity privately--without shows of public declarations of our "noble intents"-- resent the fact that we are portrayed as "uncaring" because we do not suscribe to theories of redistribution of resources that seek to do the Church's work through the compunction of Government taxation. The Church has always been at the forefront of charity and human rights--WE HAVE NOTHING TO APOLOGIZE FOR-- perhaps those who criticize Evangelicals should apologize for mis-characterizing us. It is the Christian Church-- through alms and personal sacrifice of missionaries--that have built churches,hospitals and schools around the world..We have had our martyrs--like Jim Eliot..We do not need lectures from Manifesto writers and those who continually point out the sins and faults of sincere Christians while failing to address the basic need of the human soul of those outside the Church----the need for forgiveness of sin and the message of the Cross.

Posted by: Roberta | May 8, 2008 3:23 PM

As both "liberal" and "progressive," I found much to like about the manifesto, but I do take exception to the characterization of progressives as thinking "the-newer-the-truer" and "the-latest-the-greatest." Either the manifesto's authors have not spent much time with true liberal/progressive Christians, or they fundamentally misunderstand our faith.

Carolyn

Posted by: Carolyn | May 8, 2008 3:35 PM

Carolyn --
Maybe that's what I'm feeling about it -- the labeling can be divisive. Even the "need" to write it either comes from a good place or a superior place, and I will have to figure out where my vote lies with it.

As for the " afterlife" comments...I've heard that all my life. Like, "They're so heavenly-minded that they are no earthly good." I've met many weird Christians who were so into fellowship that they ended up only hearning themselves talk. I've seen them so fixated on "but God's Word will not return void" that they didn't deal with the real parenting issues raising their kids. I've seen the other extreme, where they were so obsessed with their own families that they didn't see their neighbors. I've seen them so overcommitted to church that they couldn't do a single thing fully, but I never met any so wrapped up in the afterlife that they didn't focus on their world.

I think most of us have pain visit us so frequently that we tend to forget about the afterlife and have to be reminded of it.

Posted by: frankie | May 8, 2008 3:58 PM

I just started reading this and had to respond immediately. Of course the church has an image problem; it always will. Jesus said that the world would hate us, so why on earth should we care about our “image”? Jesus was arrested, mocked, spit at, and nailed to a cross like a common criminal so that we could be saved. Obviously He cared nothing about His image, and we shouldn’t worry about ours. Our Savior’s earliest followers were beaten, jailed, and run out of town for proclaiming Him as Lord and calling sinners to repentance. So much for their “image.” Even today, Christians throughout the world suffer the loss of their reputations, and sometimes their very lives, for the cause of the gospel. You can bet that Christians in China, Laos, Vietnam, and the Middle East aren’t worrying about their “image problem.”

Yes, Jesus “hung out” with the sinners, but He always, always called them to repentance (“Go, and sin no more”). He loved sinners, but He denounced sin in the strongest terms possible (Matt 5:29: “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.”) If our so-called “image problem” stems from a hunger and thirst for righteousness and a holy antipathy for sin, then I say that’s cause for rejoicing. “Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that his how their fathers treated the prophets” (Luke 6:22-23).

Posted by: Julie | May 8, 2008 4:07 PM

Oh dang! I forgot my notepad. I was going to take down notes on your lecture Payshun. Oh well...

Posted by: A conservative viewer | May 8, 2008 4:33 PM

From the blog post....

But other studies show that when you ask people what they think about Jesus, you get answers like: compassionate, loving, caring, hung out with sinners and poor people, for peace.

It always concerns me when an incomplete picture of Jesus is given. All of these things are true. But they are an incomplete picture.

We don't want to talk about the Jesus that took the cords and used them as whips to drive out the money changers by whipping people. How many of you envision Jesus physically whipping people yet he did.

Or how about the Jesus who said he did not come to bring peace but division and pit family members against family members.

Or how about the Jesus that yelled at Peter to get behind me Satan.

Yes, Jesus was all of those things.

And he was so much more than that too.

Posted by: Keith | May 8, 2008 4:41 PM

Prooftexting indicates, to be sure, that if everyone likes us, we are doing something wrong. But it would be fallacious to conclude from this that if no one likes us, we must be doing something right. Hardly anyone liked the Unabomber, either, but he was hardly a moral paragon.

Personally, I've had my fill of experience with smug abusers of hospitality, who like to be loud, rude, and thoughtless in the name of Christ and then complacently wear the unpopularity that inevitably results as a badge of honor. They do Our Lord no service.

Posted by: Paul Emmons | May 8, 2008 4:55 PM

I think that Christ's message, or gospel, is intended to light the way, or in other words to shape, inform, enlighten and guide us in our journey through life, and to lift our spirits when they need lifting. Jesus himself acknowledged that others had similar messages and further insights, which as long as they did not contradict the core of his message, were equally valid, and he encouraged his followers to go outside scripture and illuminate their understanding of the world through other sources.
Christianity has never rightly been an exclusionary religion, and those who try to make it so, or pretend that it is, are not following the teachings of Christ.

Posted by: eldon rollins | May 8, 2008 5:11 PM

Actually, if we wish to talk about our similarities, self-righteousness and hypocrisy unite all of us -- left, right, conservative and liberal, Christian and non-Christian. If 'you've arrived and I have not,' you're pretty much guilty of it. When we look in the mirror and see it, we have to do something about it. That's about the best we can do.

I agree with Keith -- Jesus clearing the Temple came to my mind too. He doesn't tolerate sin, and really gets angry when people jack with His church.

As for the gripe with mega-churches -- just because they're big doesn't mean they aren't preaching the truth. The Church is supposed to grow. I've been to 3 of 4 of them in my journey, and those I went to were very committed to the gospel. Since I haven't attended all of them (and probably never would go into some of them) I can't speak for all of them.

As for the word Manifesto, it reminded me of Francis Shaeffer's book, A Christian Manifesto.

Posted by: frankie | May 8, 2008 5:18 PM

Many of the messages that take issue with the manifesto seem to believe that it isn't important what the world thinks of Christians. Unfortunately, once that is the mindset it opens the way for obnoxious, foolish and divisive behavior. If you believe you are getting brownie points from the man upstairs for how many people are critical of you, what motivation is there to be fair and loving?

It's no coincidence that one of Ann Coulter's favorite Bible verses is the one about being hated. It's certainly not too much to examine how evangelicals are interacting in the world and attempt to adjust it when necessary.

Posted by: I and I | May 8, 2008 5:40 PM

Jesus does tolerate sin, he does all the time. If he had not tolerated Peter's sin Peter would have died when he got in the way of his Father's will. If he had not tolerated sin then he would have ditched those foolish, and bumbling disciples he picked up. God's grace is bigger than this. He forgives sin and puts up with it. Jesus clearing the temple is about one thing, prayer and man's access to God.

The temple was the only place all people could pray to come to God and that was being denied Gentiles because of greed. When that happens Jesus gets mad. He has no problem with people "jacking" with his church and as a matter of fact he promised all sorts of "jacking" murder, stoning, disrespect... for all who truly follow him.

p

Posted by: Payshun | May 8, 2008 7:13 PM

To those who who believe the world must hate us if we follow Jesus: If Jesus was hated by the world why was he mourned? The ones who hated Jesus, His crucifiers, (the world) were the vested and religious power mechanisms. Jesus was loved and embraced by the majority poor and downtrodden of his day (remember the 5,000 not counting women and children?). Christians are promised persecution from the Beast and the Dragon, neither of which are numbered among the general population.

"But it also will offer a new kind of life, a citizenship in the kingdom of God, that dwarfs the promise of the American Dream."

Posted by: carl copas | May 8, 2008 12:07 PM

Well said, Carl. You left out, "he that sows discord among brothers" (Prov 6:16)

Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 8, 2008 7:59 AM

Hear, Hear, the subsequent post notwithstanding :)

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 8, 2008 8:21 PM

Shadow, the Evangelicals themselves set this tone for the great political divide when they decided to become the GOP avenging angel. They have condemned and marginalized those of us who as Christians believe that GOD is neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Unlike the "Evangeligops", there are Christians who believe that we show our faith by the work of our hands, and not the noise from our mouths.

Posted by: Deborah | May 9, 2008 6:47 AM

Pastor Jeff writes; "To those who who believe the world must hate us if we follow Jesus: If Jesus was hated by the world why was he mourned? The ones who hated Jesus, His crucifiers, (the world) were the vested and religious power mechanisms. Jesus was loved and embraced by the majority poor and downtrodden of his day (remember the 5,000 not counting women and children?). Christians are promised persecution from the Beast and the Dragon, neither of which are numbered among the general population."

Good point!

Reading this and other items on this thread reminded me to look up at the board above my desk and read one of the many quotes that I copied down a few years back.

"It's good to know who hates you, and to be hated by the right people." Johnny Cash

I would probably add that it's imperative to be "hated" for the right reasons as well.

Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 9, 2008 7:42 AM

Paster Jeff, perhaps people "hate" Christians because rather than embracing Jesus' teachings and practicing his principles, they use him as a blunt club to beat them up. Maybe the smug righteousness at being "hated" is ill conceived?

Posted by: Deborah | May 9, 2008 8:18 AM

patriot, I would suggest that Payshun is clearly making the point that Jesus, as with the Father is Sovereign above all else.

Our judgmentalism is so often circumstantial or situationally driven when His was/is value driven. Big difference!

So many of the remarks ie, "stop whining" are so uncalled for. I don't understand what is at the root of your animosity, but I do pray at some point you'll either come to a reconcilation with your issues or simply reslove yourself to treat others more kindly. I say this with the greatest amount of love which most certainly is God's highest gift.

Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 9, 2008 9:17 AM

Assuming he really did say that, rather than one of his admirers, I'd say he meant, "No one comes to the Father [that is, no one KNOWS the Father] except through the values and principles I'm teaching. But no one needs my personification to come to the Father..."

Sorry, but that's simply not true. What Jesus said is exactly what He meant, and the rest of the Gospels bears this out. The Pharisees and religious leaders were certainly dedicated to the principles laid down in Scripture, but they missed the point that God wants our hearts, minds, money and everything else -- that is, a personal, then corporate, relationship -- and the same goes for folks who use religion for the purpose of gaining power and authority for themselves. This is where Christianity differs from other religions; God can and wants to be known, not just talked about. As such, Christianity represents a change in attitude, not simply in behavior, that (spiritually speaking) no one in his own strength can pull off.

BTW, He certainly is worthy of worship, otherwise He would be just like any other man.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | May 9, 2008 10:22 AM

Pastor Jeff: "Well said, Carl. You left out, "he that sows discord among brothers" (Prov 6:16)"

Pastor Jeff, good point. And if I'm guilty of sowing discord, please call me on it, as a brother.

Posted by: carl copas | May 9, 2008 10:45 AM

Carl: I've never seen that in you. I was tagging along in support of your prior statement. "Friendly fire" I guess. Sorry.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 9, 2008 1:07 PM

Let's take a little stroll through the Ten Commandments. For example, MY Bible says:
DO NOT STEAL. (For instance, the Iraqi Nation's resources, funds for the poor, funds for education, funds for infrastructure, funds for the nation's people. This President has pillaged our Nation's coffers to enrich his already wealthy friends and you Evangelicals are in there with him stuffing your pockets too.)
DO NOT MURDER. (Apparently you only mean the unborn, but not Iraqi children already born or American kids sick and dying without health care. It also does not seem to apply to the wrongly convicted prisoners and people tortured to death.)
DO NOT LIE. DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS. Bush (and you sanctimonious Evangelicals
have LIED about the reasons for this War. Have LIED about Iraq's responsibility in the 9/11 attack. Have LIED about the Torture, the Renditions. Have LIED about outting one of our own CIA officers fighting on Our side. The LIES go on and on, but you have decided that this commandment is irrelevant.)

Thank you Deborah for this reminder of US evangelical sin. It restores my faith that there are some Americans who are Christians first and Americans. Most of the British people (even the traditional military families) are ashamed that Blair followed Bush so poodle-like into the illegal invasion of Iraq and thereby increased the suffering of the Iraqui civilian population. Sadly the British military have been imitating US soldiers in Iraq in their intimidation and inhumane treatment of Iraqui prisoners etc but I doubt that either the US or UK forces will ever be found guity of war crimes.

Posted by: Florence ((UK) | May 9, 2008 2:30 PM

"So what do I think Jesus meant when he said, 'No one comes to the Father except through me?' Assuming he really did say that, rather than one of his admirers, I'd say he meant, 'No one comes to the Father [that is, no one KNOWS the Father] except through the values and principles I'm teaching. But no one needs my personification to come to the Father. They can do it any way they like, as long as those values and principles are honored. And to turn my personification of them into the main idea turns ME into just another idol which humans love to prostrate themselves before (it seems to be human nature). And that isn't at all what I came to teach.'"

Wow, talk about a radical interpretation of the text! If Jesus does not desire our worship, he surely would have rebuked Thomas for referring to him as "My Lord and my God" after his resurrection. Jesus also said, "If you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will die in your sins" (John 8:24) and "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" (John 3:17-18). Those who claim to admire the "positive values of Jesus" while rejecting his foundational message of salvation by grace through faith are only deluding themselves. Like it or not, Jesus made very exclusive claims about himself. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, "Either Jesus is God, or he isn't. We can't just call him a good teacher. He didn't leave us that option."

Art, you may have no desire to become a Christian at this point in your life. However, I am praying that Jesus will make himself real to you someday. I pray that you will have power to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge--that you will be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.

Posted by: Julie | May 9, 2008 3:08 PM

Wow -- I didn't know evangelicals got to vote on whether or not we went to war. I would have gone to my polling place had I known.

Julie -
Thanks for the great comments. It's true -- Jesus was either who He says He is, or a great liar -- which would make Him a horrible person.

Posted by: frankie | May 9, 2008 3:48 PM

Hey Patriot,

You first.

p

Posted by: Payshun | May 9, 2008 4:09 PM

Pastor Jeff: "Carl: I've never seen that in you. I was tagging along in support of your prior statement. "Friendly fire" I guess. Sorry."

Pastor Jeff, No need to be sorry. I thought that was what you were doing, though I did worry just a little bit.

And my wife and kids would raise their eyebrows at the thought of me never sowing discord!! :)

Have a wonderful weekend and God bless you.

Sometime I'd like to hear more about your pastoral work.

Posted by: carl copas | May 9, 2008 4:18 PM

"according to you, Jesus would have been a judgemental jerk too."

Jesus could be a judgmental jerk when he felt like it, just ask the tree that was isn't in bloom about that. But Jesus was judgmental, condemning and angry toward religious and societal impression. He was quite graceful toward sinners.

p

Posted by: Payshun | May 9, 2008 5:00 PM

Thanks for your response to my post, Julie.

I interpreted what Jesus said according to my own spirit, which I believe is God-given, for it expands me into Life. All any of us can do is "interpret" (which is how the Bible came about) and I prefer my interpretations to open me up more and more to Life, not to gain me access to some members-only eternal country club.

When arguing literal scripture with me, keep in mind I wrote, "Assuming he really said that, rather than one of his admirers . . ." I don't take anything in the Bible as the literal word of God, since I believe people wrote it according to their spiritual needs (or, at times, their spiritual terrors), and then claimed God's dictation. I've experienced some parts of the Bible as very inspirational while I've found other parts spiritually deranged. (For some examples of that, see Bishop John Spong's, "The Sins of Scripture.")

In any case the "God" of Christianity (which, I believe is so far distanced from the real Jesus as to be unrecognizable to Jesus) lost me a long time ago when it consigned all the beautiful people of other faiths to "eternal hellfire." It turned your God into the commander of a concentration camp, with a 24/7 never-ending crematorium. Even the Nazis weren't able to go that far.

Enjoy your God, Julie, but don't expect others to not see the contradiction in the love Christianity offers and the beyond-Nazi terror it threatens, both at the same time.

Posted by: Art | May 9, 2008 5:59 PM

O.K. so why are there not mainline institutions represented as signers of the manifesto--such as Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School, Andover Newton, Union (NYC), Union (Richmond, Va)etc. Perhaps we need to rethink the meaning of inclusiveness.

Posted by: Jim Morrison | May 9, 2008 10:42 PM

"O.K. so why are there not mainline institutions represented as signers of the manifesto--such as Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School, Andover Newton, Union (NYC), Union (Richmond, Va)etc. Perhaps we need to rethink the meaning of inclusiveness." Jim

The writers were clear they represent themselves--not all Evangelicals nor all Christians.

"You need more dialog with those you call "liberal revisionists." The way you describe them does not fit the folks I know whom you seem to put into that category. For example, where is your recognition of the faithfulness of those who hold to the Christus victor sense of how Jesus has saved us?" A Wayne Schwab

The point of the document is a statement about Evangelicalism. It uses 'short-hand' to differnetiate some basic ways they understand their Evengelicalism to part ways with other veins of the Church. "Short-hand" inevitably becomes a poor statement of what it references--but the point of the document is not an explanation of that, but of their definition of Evangelicalism.

I am always dumbfounded when one group of people say, "We are writing to explain what we mean;" and a host of voices complain that they don't mean it, that they hold the wrong view, that the document doesn't represent them, that someone else should have written their views, etc.

Why aren't there more female signors? I don't know. They didn't say they were writing to represent all Evangelicals; nor all men and all women. They are who they are. They didn't ask me, my sister, my mother, or my daughter. They are who they are. Evangelicals have a mixed history in terms of whether women fulfill roles as theologians, pastors, organization heads, etc.--but at the end of the day it is mostly men--likely explaining why there are not more females signing. Why not take the document for what it claims to be and respond to it as such?

If you want a different document or a different group of people writing it--------is there something stopping you?????

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | May 10, 2008 8:46 AM

In any case the "God" of Christianity (which, I believe is so far distanced from the real Jesus as to be unrecognizable to Jesus) lost me a long time ago when it consigned all the beautiful people of other faiths to "eternal hellfire." It turned your God into the commander of a concentration camp, with a 24/7 never-ending crematorium. Even the Nazis weren't able to go that far.

Understand that God is holy and cannot tolerate sin -- it that weren't the case there would be no need for Jesus to go to the cross. And BTW, He Himself talked more about hell than any other subject.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | May 10, 2008 2:01 PM

"Unless they were making money in the House of God . Then I would not want to be in his way . Quite the temper actually over certain things . "

It's called righteous anger. This incident was the perfect example of the clash between Kingdom of this World and the Kingdom of God.

It is also something we should think very carefully about whenever we see the Kingdom of God being commodified.

Posted by: squeaky | May 10, 2008 5:03 PM

"The writers were clear they represent themselves--not all Evangelicals nor all Christians."

Well, the document begins thusly:

"An Evangelical Manifesto is an open declaration of who Evangelicals are and what they stand for."

It then invites other evangelicals to join, implicitly accusing those who do are not signatories of confusion and consternation. They also refer to themselves as a "representative group".

As such, the one man's opinion argument doesn't quite carry here. It is not clear at all to me that the signatories wish simply to represent themselves.

"I've experienced some parts of the Bible as very inspirational while I've found other parts spiritually deranged. (For some examples of that, see Bishop John Spong's, "The Sins of Scripture.")

Well, that Bishop Spong finds the scriptures deranged is unsurprising. Have you, by chance, encountered the myriad refutations of Spong's teaching?

But yes, you will find that a wrathful God will render the Nazi party as a mere blemish. I am sorry this troubles you.

Posted by: kevin s. | May 11, 2008 12:21 AM

I'm not a capital-E Evangelical, but rather an ELCA Lutheran. I'm quite glad to see Evangelicals who don't hold the Dobson or LaHaye line stepping forward.

They've been there all along, at no point less than 1/4 of Evangelicals and usually about 1/3. But the right-wing ran the "Christian" media, the secular Left only wanted to hear about public do-goodism not about the rest of following Christ, and they were too level-headed to attract the general media which goes where the fighting is. (Now, they're getting press as they should have all along -- now that they make 'Manifestos' and are seen as fighting back.)

I want Evangelicals to be who they are, to assert their beliefs. It's not Nazi to do so -- don't heed those who tell you otherwise. That's what having different voices is all about -- assert and speak, forcefully but not by use of force, and hopefully listen. (Nobody does a good job of listening nowadays. Art and his seculars are just as bad at it as anyone else.)

I just hope that the progressive Evangelicals stay open to possible solutions from capitalist Christians (they're sometimes right, and know a thing or three about effectiveness). The crucial issue is not progressivism vs. capitalism, but how one takes whatever ideas there are and applies them to the task of ending poverty and bringing about peace -- a task that Christ calls us all to in the Gospels.

Posted by: Bob Longman | May 11, 2008 5:51 PM

Hi Eric,

Thanks for your comment. Your point is well-taken, and I respect what you're saying. So let me explain how I came onto your site, and why I felt moved to make the comments I did.

First, I'm definitely not trying to pick a fight. I respect and support everyone's right to believe as their spirit guides them, as long as it doesn't guide them to harming themselves or others.

Because I'm very socially-conscious, I received material from Sojourners. I find its agenda appealing, so I keep reading it. I'm fully aware that it's based on the message of Jesus to extend our hearts and help "to the least of us." Even though I'm not a Christian, I've always been extremely moved by that (though, of course, Jesus isn't the only source for that message).

I do have difficulty accepting the Evangelical position though (as opposed to the Christian position I just mentioned--and, yes, I know some or most of you would say they're a package deal). I know the basis for it: the Biblical command to go into the world and make disciples for Jesus. But nevertheless . . .

Anyway, that’s why I’ve been posting here. Keep in mind, this blog wasn’t about “A Christian Manifesto,” it was about “An Evangelical Manifesto.” Which means it involves two parties, not one: those who are trying to make disciples, and those who aren't yet disciples. Thus, even though I'm a non-Christian, I feel I have a place in this dialogue because I represent the second party, by Evangelism’s own terms.

I thought, as such, that my remarks might be insightful to you as to why you're not reaching certain people. I must apologize here because my later responses have taken more of a tone of one-upmanship, which was definitely not my intention. Often, blogs can get that way, which, of course, doesn't excuse me.

I'm not trying to say that Christianity is "wrong." For instance, when I said "Thanks for confirming that the God you worship is an Uber-Nazi"--I meant just that: the God which that particular person worships, as shown by his comment, certainly sounds like one. I didn't mean every version of the Christian God. I’m particularly fond of the Quaker version (but then, who isn’t?).

I don't know which God is "right" or "wrong." I can only follow the guidance of my own spirit, and encourage others to do likewise (I believe that’s how God talks to us). But as soon as someone tells me they've got the one and only Truth and I don't—plus which I’ll be consigned to eternal torment by none other than God Itself if I don’t listen to them--well, that makes it dialogue time for me. My impression of Evangelicals in general is that they're not interested in dialogue at all, just in presentation. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected.

In any case, that's how I wound up here, and why I started posting my comments. Again, my sincere apologies for letting my tone slide into one-upmanship, for that isn't dialogue either, just presentation. I promise that, if I do post anything here in the future, it won't happen again.

Finally, so you don’t think I'm averse to Christian texts, there's a verse in one of the Gospels that resonated so deeply with my spirit that it's become my words to live by. Unfortunately the Gospel in question is a Gnostic one (Thomas), so it never got into the New Testament. But I pass it on anyway, to show that I'm not trying to tear Christianity down: "And Jesus said, If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you." (Verse 70)

Art

P.S. - Thanks also to Pastor Jeff for his very appreciated remarks.

Posted by: Art | May 11, 2008 7:41 PM

"I meant just that: the God which that particular person worships, as shown by his comment, certainly sounds like one. "

Do you ascribe divinity to the Nazi's judgment? If not, then the Uber-Nazi line makes no sense. I was making a distinction on order of magnitude, not commenting on God's moral clarity.

Posted by: kevin s. | May 11, 2008 9:55 PM

This is a dialog that I have been waiting for!
Some observations:
(1) Notice the anger that PERCEIVED
differences between "liberals" and
"evangelicals" still generate even though
these differences vanish when the true
text is analyzed. WE ARE CONDITIONED TO
BE AT ODDS, AND OUR DIFFERENCES ARE
MANUFACTURED.
(2) The single issue that has polarized all
people of faith is abortion. In the
view of some, it must come first. In the
view of others, that single issue has made
it possible to create a political climate
AT ODDS WITH SOCIAL JUSTICE AND THE
TEACHINGS OF CHRIST.
QUESTION: What steps can we take to begin mending
fences and working toward an America that Jesus would approve of?

ONE IDEA: The whore of Babylon is greed. Let's start a political conversation about national greed.

Posted by: Patsy | May 12, 2008 5:17 AM

Regarding abortion, I think D.E. Sharp said it exactly right: no one, no matter how pro-choice they are, finds the idea of killing their baby attractive. They do, however, find it--in their present state of thinking--somehow necessary, for one reason or another.

Speaking as a pro-choicer (though not a woman), I'd say the anger and even outrage pro-choicers feel toward anti-abortionists is the latter's assuming that, based on their own beliefs, they can dictate what a woman can do and not do with something going on in the woman's own body. We've all seen the bumper sticker, "Keep your laws off my body." We've never seen a bumper sticker saying, "Keep your laws off the pleasure I get at the thought of killing my own baby."

So, since D.E. Sharp asked for input, here's my own contribution to limiting abortions. First, if you're anti-abortion, don't ever proclaim your reasons for it (the Bible; etc.). That will do absolutely NOTHING to make your case or change things with the woman involved, if she doesn't share your views. It's really enough that you feel it would be wonderful if her baby didn't have to be destroyed.

Second, since we can assume the woman is not "turned on" by the idea that she'll be actually killing her baby, ask her, in as loving a way as possible, what are the circumstances in her life which make it seem a necessity. (Here, too, don't try to offer her Christianity--or anything else--as "the answer" to all her problems. Just LISTEN. And I don’t mean the kind of “listening” where you’re waiting for her to finish so you can then offer “the Answer.” I mean just listen—period.)

If you're able to gain her trust to the point where she confides honestly in you, you can then suggest that there might be other possibilities for resolving her problem without taking the life of her baby. Offer to explore these with her. Use brainstorming, and consider her input as valuable as yours. She might be amazed at how many alternatives she and you can come up with.

Once again, do NOT try to offer anything outside of that. Your goal is to save a baby, not make a convert.

Later on, should your relationship with her develop into a mutual friendship, by all means share your own spiritual beliefs (she may be very interested at that point). But, just as with the abortion talk, keep it at, "This is what means a lot to me," not "This is what YOU should/must do."

In any case, if you want to cut down on abortions, stop praying for it (if God wants them cut down, don't you think God can do that all on Its own?), stop shouting accusations (they only reinforce the "accused's" own feelings) and stop picketing. Even if Wade vs. Rowe is overturned, do you really think abortions will decrease? Did drinking decrease during prohibition?

Instead, develop a respectful attitude toward the people you're trying to help reach mutually-agreed-upon goals, while always allowing them the full integrity of their own being.

Anyway, that's my input. Hope it helps.

Posted by: Art | May 12, 2008 12:05 PM

Oops! In case no one caught this yet, I messed up the quote by C.S. Lewis that I attempted to paraphrase (I think I mangled it instead because it didn't make much sense). Referring to the claims of Christ, Lewis said something like this: "Jesus is either the Son of God, or he is a liar. We can't just call Him a good teacher. He didn't leave us that option.

Grace and peace,
Julie

Posted by: Julie | May 12, 2008 1:12 PM

I have only read some of the Coming of the Cosmic Christ. The premise and the theology about that the Cosmic Christ are spot on. I am not sure if Fox is a hypocrite. I think I will have to go read the article for myself. If you liked Fox I recommend Thomas Merton, Evelyn Underhill, Howard Thurman, Thomas Keating, Thelma hall, Abraham J. Heschel (Hebrew mystic all Christians should read,) Murray Bodo, James Harpur's Love Burning in the Soul: The Story of Christian Mystics, from Saint Paul to Thomas Merton.

p

Posted by: Payshun | May 12, 2008 2:20 PM

I and I writes: "Or, a biblical author may have attributed sayings to Jesus that he didn't really say, along with those that he did say. In Christ's time (and for centuries before) it was very common to embellish historical narratives."

According to the findings of the Jesus Seminar committee there is a tremendous difference in what we have traditionally considered words of Jesus (red lettered writings) and what they found to be consistent with the language of historical Jesus of Nazareth. It's been awhile since I read their findings, but I think they rejected nearly 40% of "Jesus' words" in the New Testament as being actual quotes.

Although I may disagree with the summary findings of their study it has changed my level of confidence in the exactness of the language used in the N.T.

Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 12, 2008 2:37 PM

d.e. sharp: "According to the findings of the Jesus Seminar committee there is a tremendous difference in what we have traditionally considered words of Jesus (red lettered writings) and what they found to be consistent with the language of historical Jesus of Nazareth. It's been awhile since I read their findings, but I think they rejected nearly 40% of "Jesus' words" in the New Testament as being actual quotes."

d.e., the Jesus Seminar has been subjected to withering scholarly criticism over the past few years. I'd suggest the work on the reliability of the gospels done by Darrell Bock, Craig Blomberg, N.T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, Gregory Boyd and Paul Eddy (see esp. Lord or Legend?), Daniel B. Wallace, Robert Bowman, J. Ed Komoszewski, and others.

Posted by: carl copas | May 12, 2008 3:28 PM

Carl you're absolutely correct about the criticism they've recieved yet I don't know that they were completely off-base with how they went about defining the variances in the language as it was written. I believe there was some value to their findings simply out of respect for the sincerity and professionalism of some of those that worked on their project. I don't see their project in the same light as many see the Shroud of Turin for instance. I will most certainly review the work of the scholars (many whom I respect immensely) that you suggested. Thank you for the references!

Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 12, 2008 3:45 PM

Art,

I appreciate your response and share your reasons for frequenting this blog (it’s definitely not my blog, at least not more mine than anyone else’s here). And, again, I want to make clear, I’m not trying to drive you from the blog or even this particular commentary on the Evangelical Manifesto.

In your original post you wrote that “the problem isn't with Christianity's image, but with one of its foundational precepts.” Maybe you meant to say “Evangelical Christianity’s image”. But even still, the belief that God will judge all men and women at some point in the future and some sort of punishment will result isn’t limited to Evangelicals. As you said, it’s a foundation of the Christian faith. I certainly would never sit here and say “person A is going to be judged and punished and person B is going to be rewarded.” I wouldn’t presume to know that with certainty.

I encourage your criticism of the tone that is often associated with the expression of the belief of a judgmental God; I often find it unhelpful, particularly depending on the audience. But you weren’t just criticizing the tone, but the message itself. To call a judgmental God an Uber-Nazi, with all the baggage that term carries, definitely sounds like “fighting words”. The message of a judgmental God is a foundation of Christian belief. That’s why I questioned your purpose.

As for your comments on the abortion debate, I think your comments are very wise. I've noticed a change in attitude among many of the abortion foes, and it's for the better.

I, too, welcome you to the blog and hope you stick around.

Eric

Posted by: Eric | May 12, 2008 5:08 PM

the holy rollers and the n.r.a.took down the g.o.p. keep them away from barak!

Posted by: marshall | May 12, 2008 8:32 PM

Thanks, Eric, for your input.

Again, the version of God I would consider an "Uber-Nazi" is one who would inflict eternal (or even temporary) torment on a living being, all in the name of "perfection." My standard regarding the God I can believe in has always been, If it would be terrible for ME to do a certain thing, why would it be okay for my God to do it? I don't believe there could ever be that double standard, because I come from God, however imperfectly.

Back to my "Uber-Nazi" terminology, I still believe it holds up, and here's why. The Nazis didn't torture and kill people primarily for what those people did or didn't do--they tortured and killed them based on who those people WERE, regardless of how good or bad they might have been. If you were an Aryan, you were automatically "saved." If you were a Jew or Gypsy or homosexual or physically deformed or mentally challenged, etc., you were automatically condemned.

I'm sure you see where I'm going with that. I admit the analogy isn't a total fit, since any non-Christian can choose to become a Christian and be saved, whereas no one in the Nazi era who wasn't Aryan could somehow become Aryan (except through false papers).

Still, I feel the energy underlying each scenario is the same: overwhelming terror, and the avoidance of it by whatever means is required.

I understand that Evangelicals see the situation from an entirely opposite perspective: that God is so good because It provided us the means to escape such terror. I respect that point of view, yet I can't help wondering what on earth (and all points beyond) does God have to do with terror in the first place?

Anyway, as I said in an earlier posting, I wanted to give input from "the other side of the table." I agree this is your site, and I welcome being told at any time, "Thanks, but we think we'd rather move on." I'd honor that with no hard feelings, and disappear.

So it's your call. In any case, I've enjoyed the exchange and wish everyone well.

Posted by: Art | May 12, 2008 9:22 PM

eric, i affirm a judgmental god, but probably not in the same way you do. i do not think anyone is going to hell after the die, i do not believe in that kind of judgment. but i do think how we act, individually and corporately, while we are here matters & that this faith tradition (most especially jesus & the prophets) speaks to the god of israel not looking kindly on forgetting the least of these among us, likewise for our own judgments on others (these are the two points on which jesus invoked god's judgment). judgment is a metaphor for life apart from fully in tune with god, our punishment is the privation, the void we may not even know we carry. & judgment is also a metaphor for the consequences of living life outside the commandments of doing love & justice - personally people suffer the consequences of poor choices, corporately, we all suffer the consequences of injustice (eg - poverty breeds crime). it is a critique, from the bible of the god we worship who our texts tell us is decisively on the side of the down-trodden. we have much to hear about divine judgment as citizens of a very greedy and self-absorbed culture and citizens of the american empire.

Posted by: nad2 | May 13, 2008 12:24 AM

art, i think we do the scriptures & ourselves great disservice when we say the scriptures are the factually inerrant word of god. for starters, which scriptures? the ones brought together & voted upon by the counsel of nicea, or do we include thomas, the gnostics & others who did not fit the narrative of the majority agenda of the counsel? what about the apocraphal books included at nicea that the protestants booted from the good book during the reformation (yet remain in the catholic bible)? what we have is a compilation of letters & stories, written by people in response to their interactions & experiences of god, & through our passing them on & the resonance of the heart of their message they have become sacred. sacred does not mean factually inerrant. there are both countless facts & theologies in the bible that contradict one another, starting "in the beginning" w/ 2 creation stories that don't line up. this, to me, is perfectly fine, no mental gymnastics required here, just a different way of looking at things. we need to be asking "what does this story mean? what did it mean to the people who wrote it, & what does it mean for us today," not "did this really happen?" i think truth beyond factuality is a foreign concept to the majority consciousness in this faith, thus it adheres to factual belief because it sees no belief as the only alternative. there is opportunity here to say "no, look at the parables, no one is requiring they be factual accounts for their truth to permeate our beings. likewise for poetry, art, & music. we are talking about god & eternal truth!!! fact-based language is simply incapable of adequately conveying what we mean, so we tell stories that get much closer to what we mean. stories have the capacity to pierce the soul in ways fact-based affirmations simply cannot. let's look again at our sacred texts & focus on what they mean. they are so much richer when we look at them this way" & when we get to a story that doesn't jive with the god of love & justice we worship (like jesus in revelation) or when we see things that are sexist or racist, we use the hearts & minds god gave us to say they are the result of the human authors, not of divine inspiration.

Posted by: nad2 | May 13, 2008 11:02 AM

To NAD: Excuse the pun but you're definitely "preaching to the converted" with me in everything you said.

To Pastor Jeff: Thanks for the good wishes. I do have one little qualm regarding the Evangelical part. To illustrate that qualm: last year at Ramadan, Yahoo had its usual slide show of "Ramadan Around the World." Though I've never been drawn to Islam as a religion, I'm always drawn to the human face, especially when it's spiritually engaged. So I went through the photos (there were nearly 500!) and many of them showed, at prayer and with family and friends, absolutely gorgeous facial expressions of love, joy, devotion--all the very best human emotions. To use that old, but always worthy, cliche, when I looked at their faces, I saw God.

My point is that any hereafter in which I might meet you, much as I'd love to--if they're not there too, then I won't be either.

As for your question, what does a Jew think Rabbi Jesus was saying about the afterlife (I assume you meant me, because I am a Jew), I must confess I don't have knowledge of everything Jesus said on the subject.

I do know the traditional Jewish position, though: don't focus on the afterlife. It's what we do here on Earth that's important. We're here now, so let's concentrate on that. Let's all live righteously together, Jew and non-Jew equally, and let the hereafter take care of itself.

(By the way, for those who might not be aware of it, Jews have never been proselytizers because we believe EVERYONE "has a share in the world to come," depending only on their righteousness, never on their affiliation. So there's really no point in becoming a Jew--it won't get you to any higher place than you could reach by your own actions.)

This all resonates totally with me, and so I live it. I'm reminded of something Jesus said that also resonates totally with me: "The Kingdom of God is within you." That sounds to me like just another way of stating what Jews believe about the hereafter. As well as the verse I quoted in an earlier posting from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas.

Again, Pastor Jeff, I'd love for us all to meet in the hereafter, and I thank you again for your always warm and gracious words.

Posted by: Art | May 13, 2008 2:28 PM

Art: I did not know you were a Jew. Thank you for your perspective. It was just as I had thought. Now, if we "evangelicals" could re-examine Jesus' teachings in the light of Jesus' frame of reference,we might get somewhere near to the place where a Jew can visit Muslim websites and long to spend eternity together with them. I think you may have something there, Art.

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 13, 2008 4:15 PM

Funny you should mention that, Art. Our association (some call it a denomination), ABCUSA, just released a dark skinned rendition of Jesus in it's latest PR posters. Nobody has mentioned it in our 90% white, rural church, but then again maybe they think He's somebody else. Stop by your local American Baptist church if you want to take a look. I'd love to see what you think. Hope to chat with you on other threads soon.

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 13, 2008 10:12 PM

Thanks to both of you. This is all really great stuff and I'm learning a lot. I'll certainly look into the things both of you mentioned.

Posted by: Art | May 13, 2008 11:54 PM

Art and Nad,
Here’s what Jesus says on the subject of judgment:

“Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.”

“I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.”

This certainly sounds like more than just the “void we may not even know we carry” or the consequences of poor choices. It sounds like there is definitely some sort of punishment that awaits those who do not follow His commandments and a greater reward for those who do. If you all want to refer to this as Nazi-esque, go ahead. But your issue is with Jesus, not evangelical Christians.

Jeff,
If you want to believe that merely following the social teaching of Jesus is what makes one a Christian, that’s fine. But please don’t tell non-Christians that is all that makes someone a Christian. One also must recognize who Jesus was – the Light of the Word, the Son of God, Savior of all mankind, the Messiah. Following Jesus’ social teaching is important, but it’s not all that’s required to be a Christian.

Posted by: Eric | May 14, 2008 4:41 PM

Art,
I understand the complexity of your position. I believe the Bible is inerrant but the problem is not with the Bible but with our sinful nature and willingness to keep God's commandments. A lot of confusion comes from Satan himself, who seeks to cloud the truth and distort the gospel.

The fact is, we were all born in sin (Psalms 51:5) and need a savior. The laws that we use to condemn each other were intended to lead us to Christ.

I believe if we truly knew Christ and believed the bible, we could change how the world preceives Christians and shine like a light on a hill, the love of Christ. And since the time is so short, we need to do so with more and more urgency.

We need to repent from our idleness and prove our love is real but our actions. As Jesus said, "By your love for one another people will know you are my disciples..."

Be blessed.

Anthony
gospelism.org

Posted by: Anthony | May 20, 2008 12:07 PM

Dear Jim,

I wholeheartedly agree with the manifesto and especially many of your points in the book, The Great Awakening....great job. by the way, I was at Trinity way back in the dark ages when we lived in the campus dorms...

Keep caring the torch for truth....

Bill Cummins

Posted by: Bill Cummins | October 8, 2008 3:39 PM