<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Evangelical Manifesto</title>
	<atom:link href="http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1057" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/?p=1057</link>
	<description>Stimulating musings on culture, current events and politics.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2010 05:42:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mikerucker</title>
		<link>http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/?p=1057&#038;cpage=1#comment-1119</link>
		<dc:creator>mikerucker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 18:37:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shanevanderhart.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/the-evangelical-manifesto/#comment-1119</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;They may not have mentioned inerrancy, but they do cite the authority of the Bible in faith and practice throughout this document.&lt;/i&gt;

shane that&#039;s the point i was trying to make; sorry if it wasn&#039;t clear (maybe my wife is right - i really &lt;i&gt;do&lt;/i&gt; communicate poorly...).  i believe scripture has great authority, but i don&#039;t base it&#039;s authority on the bible having to be inerrant.

and, again, with creationism, that&#039;s why i was glad they didn&#039;t try to make it or ID or the gap theory or alien seeding or whatever the latest guess is a critical piece needed to stamp someone &#039;Evangelical.&#039;

mike rucker</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>They may not have mentioned inerrancy, but they do cite the authority of the Bible in faith and practice throughout this document.</i></p>
<p>shane that&#8217;s the point i was trying to make; sorry if it wasn&#8217;t clear (maybe my wife is right &#8211; i really <i>do</i> communicate poorly&#8230;).  i believe scripture has great authority, but i don&#8217;t base it&#8217;s authority on the bible having to be inerrant.</p>
<p>and, again, with creationism, that&#8217;s why i was glad they didn&#8217;t try to make it or ID or the gap theory or alien seeding or whatever the latest guess is a critical piece needed to stamp someone &#8216;Evangelical.&#8217;</p>
<p>mike rucker</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lance Gargus</title>
		<link>http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/?p=1057&#038;cpage=1#comment-1118</link>
		<dc:creator>Lance Gargus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 14:16:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shanevanderhart.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/the-evangelical-manifesto/#comment-1118</guid>
		<description>Wonderful post!
Blessings,
Lance
www.lancessoulsearching.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wonderful post!<br />
Blessings,<br />
Lance<br />
<a href="http://www.lancessoulsearching.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.lancessoulsearching.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shane Vander Hart</title>
		<link>http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/?p=1057&#038;cpage=1#comment-1117</link>
		<dc:creator>Shane Vander Hart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 02:32:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shanevanderhart.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/the-evangelical-manifesto/#comment-1117</guid>
		<description>Mike,

They may not have mentioned inerrancy, but they do cite the authority of the Bible in faith and practice throughout this document.

&quot;Jesus Christ and his written word, the Holy Scriptures, are our supreme authority; and whole-hearted devotion, trust, and obedience are our proper response.&quot;

&quot;to be Evangelical is to recognize the primacy of the authority of Scripture&quot;

Regarding creationism - again they refer back to the Bible as the sole authority of faith and practice.  There is very little disagreement that God created, but there is &quot;in-house&quot; debate over new earth vs. old earth vs. God-initiated evolution (which really is held by very few evangelicals).

You are right about evangelism is not mentioned, but I believe the intent of the document is to clarify mainly that we are to be identified theologically, not politically.  I think it was to address our interaction with the world.  In that sense, I believe that it is implied.

It should have greater mention however.  It isn&#039;t a perfect document, but it was a document that I felt I was able to sign even though it doesn&#039;t entirely define who I am as a Christian.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike,</p>
<p>They may not have mentioned inerrancy, but they do cite the authority of the Bible in faith and practice throughout this document.</p>
<p>&#8220;Jesus Christ and his written word, the Holy Scriptures, are our supreme authority; and whole-hearted devotion, trust, and obedience are our proper response.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;to be Evangelical is to recognize the primacy of the authority of Scripture&#8221;</p>
<p>Regarding creationism &#8211; again they refer back to the Bible as the sole authority of faith and practice.  There is very little disagreement that God created, but there is &#8220;in-house&#8221; debate over new earth vs. old earth vs. God-initiated evolution (which really is held by very few evangelicals).</p>
<p>You are right about evangelism is not mentioned, but I believe the intent of the document is to clarify mainly that we are to be identified theologically, not politically.  I think it was to address our interaction with the world.  In that sense, I believe that it is implied.</p>
<p>It should have greater mention however.  It isn&#8217;t a perfect document, but it was a document that I felt I was able to sign even though it doesn&#8217;t entirely define who I am as a Christian.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mikerucker</title>
		<link>http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/?p=1057&#038;cpage=1#comment-1116</link>
		<dc:creator>mikerucker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 02:08:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shanevanderhart.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/the-evangelical-manifesto/#comment-1116</guid>
		<description>i like the document - a lot.  and i&#039;m enjoying reading the various opinions here and there around the web.  i had some hesitations and misgivings before reading the document, but i&#039;m actually quite impressed and invigorated after taking in the whole of what it addresses.

one of the things i like is that the authors have chosen &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; to list creationism and inerrancy as non-negotiables. for the first, there&#039;s very little biblical justification anymore behind whatever the latest flavor of anti-natural-selection dessert is being served up; for the latter, somehow we can admit that we can&#039;t prove the existence of God, but goshdarnit we have a golden egg this unprovable God laid right here.  still, some people hold to these positions; so be it.  there&#039;s simply too much of a tendency to add items to the ever-increasing laundry list of ideas and doctrines to which we have to pledge allegiance before we&#039;re allowed into the room marked &quot;Christian.&quot;

nothing&#039;s going to please everybody, and there are a few things i object to.  for instance, i don&#039;t agree with this statement: &lt;i&gt;We Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally.&lt;/i&gt;  Jesus&#039; message uses &quot;action&quot; verbs: teach them to DO as I have commanded you, LOVE God and LOVE your neighbor, by this will all men know ... if you LOVE one another. any theology that defines us must have feet.

i did, however, like these words:  &lt;i&gt;We are also troubled by the fact that the advance of globalization and the emergence of a global public square finds no matching vision of how we are to live freely, justly, and peacefully with our deepest differences on the global stage.&lt;/i&gt;  somehow, we&#039;ve got to figure out how we&#039;re going to peacefully share the same bathroom over the next few decades in our ever-shrinking world.

one interesting thing: maybe i missed it, but there doesn&#039;t seem to be a great emphasis on &lt;i&gt;evangelism&lt;/i&gt; in this &lt;i&gt;Evangelical&lt;/i&gt; Manifesto. do you think that was intentional? i didn&#039;t see a single chick tract referenced in the bibliography...

more than anything, i find myself motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece - that it isn&#039;t yet another &quot;here&#039;s everything we&#039;re &lt;i&gt;against&lt;/i&gt;&quot; rant but an effort to make the gospel again a message of &lt;i&gt;good news&lt;/i&gt;. imagine that - the gospel being &lt;i&gt;good news&lt;/i&gt;. American Christianity has lost this defining characteristic that once served it well.

perhaps one unintended benefit of the proposal is a clear opportunity to take this EM (Evangelical Manifesto) and align it with the other EM (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&amp;location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FEmergent-Manifesto-Hope-emersion-communities%2Fdp%2F080106807X%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1210257943%26sr%3D8-2&amp;tag=mwc04-20&amp;linkCode=ur2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Emergent Manifesto&lt;/a&gt;) and finally have all our EM &amp; EMs in a row without demonizing the other side.

one can only hope...

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
&lt;a href=&quot;http://mikerucker.wordpress.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mikerucker.wordpress.com&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i like the document &#8211; a lot.  and i&#8217;m enjoying reading the various opinions here and there around the web.  i had some hesitations and misgivings before reading the document, but i&#8217;m actually quite impressed and invigorated after taking in the whole of what it addresses.</p>
<p>one of the things i like is that the authors have chosen <i>not</i> to list creationism and inerrancy as non-negotiables. for the first, there&#8217;s very little biblical justification anymore behind whatever the latest flavor of anti-natural-selection dessert is being served up; for the latter, somehow we can admit that we can&#8217;t prove the existence of God, but goshdarnit we have a golden egg this unprovable God laid right here.  still, some people hold to these positions; so be it.  there&#8217;s simply too much of a tendency to add items to the ever-increasing laundry list of ideas and doctrines to which we have to pledge allegiance before we&#8217;re allowed into the room marked &#8220;Christian.&#8221;</p>
<p>nothing&#8217;s going to please everybody, and there are a few things i object to.  for instance, i don&#8217;t agree with this statement: <i>We Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally.</i>  Jesus&#8217; message uses &#8220;action&#8221; verbs: teach them to DO as I have commanded you, LOVE God and LOVE your neighbor, by this will all men know &#8230; if you LOVE one another. any theology that defines us must have feet.</p>
<p>i did, however, like these words:  <i>We are also troubled by the fact that the advance of globalization and the emergence of a global public square finds no matching vision of how we are to live freely, justly, and peacefully with our deepest differences on the global stage.</i>  somehow, we&#8217;ve got to figure out how we&#8217;re going to peacefully share the same bathroom over the next few decades in our ever-shrinking world.</p>
<p>one interesting thing: maybe i missed it, but there doesn&#8217;t seem to be a great emphasis on <i>evangelism</i> in this <i>Evangelical</i> Manifesto. do you think that was intentional? i didn&#8217;t see a single chick tract referenced in the bibliography&#8230;</p>
<p>more than anything, i find myself motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece &#8211; that it isn&#8217;t yet another &#8220;here&#8217;s everything we&#8217;re <i>against</i>&#8221; rant but an effort to make the gospel again a message of <i>good news</i>. imagine that &#8211; the gospel being <i>good news</i>. American Christianity has lost this defining characteristic that once served it well.</p>
<p>perhaps one unintended benefit of the proposal is a clear opportunity to take this EM (Evangelical Manifesto) and align it with the other EM (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&amp;location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FEmergent-Manifesto-Hope-emersion-communities%2Fdp%2F080106807X%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1210257943%26sr%3D8-2&amp;tag=mwc04-20&amp;linkCode=ur2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325" rel="nofollow">Emergent Manifesto</a>) and finally have all our EM &amp; EMs in a row without demonizing the other side.</p>
<p>one can only hope&#8230;</p>
<p>mike rucker<br />
fairburn, georgia, usa<br />
<a href="http://mikerucker.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">mikerucker.wordpress.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shane Vander Hart</title>
		<link>http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/?p=1057&#038;cpage=1#comment-1115</link>
		<dc:creator>Shane Vander Hart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 16:37:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shanevanderhart.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/the-evangelical-manifesto/#comment-1115</guid>
		<description>Just sent you an e-mail, and am looking forward to hearing from you.  I hope all is well with you and Lindsey in DC.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just sent you an e-mail, and am looking forward to hearing from you.  I hope all is well with you and Lindsey in DC.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Noah Braymen</title>
		<link>http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/?p=1057&#038;cpage=1#comment-1114</link>
		<dc:creator>Noah Braymen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 13:20:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shanevanderhart.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/the-evangelical-manifesto/#comment-1114</guid>
		<description>Unfortunately I don&#039;t agree with all of it (I do with most of it), so I didn&#039;t sign it.

Email me and I&#039;d be happy to chat w/ you about why;^)

In Christ,
Noah</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unfortunately I don&#8217;t agree with all of it (I do with most of it), so I didn&#8217;t sign it.</p>
<p>Email me and I&#8217;d be happy to chat w/ you about why;^)</p>
<p>In Christ,<br />
Noah</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
