Tuesday, May 13, 2008

The beginning of a civil conversation?

Yesterday Albert Mohler explained at some length why, although he found much to agree with, he could not sign the "Evangelical Manifesto." He concluded:
In the end, I must judge "An Evangelical Manifesto" to be too expansive in terms of public relations and too thin in terms of theology. I admire so much of what this document states and represents, but I cannot accept it as a whole. I want it to be even more theological, and to be far more specific about the Gospel, I agree with the framers that Evangelicals should be defined theologically, rather than politically, culturally, or socially. This document will have to be much more theological for it to accomplish its own stated purpose.

Now, perhaps we Evangelicals will all gain by a civil conversation about this Manifesto that calls for civility. That at least would be a good place to start. [the column]
Today, after an interview with Os Guinness, one of the authors of the document, on his radio program, Mohler continues:
Evangelicalism is an on-going project and a movement marked by a seemingly permanent identity crisis. We should be thankful for any opportunity to clarify the issues at stake - especially when we agree that Evangelicals should be defined theologically, above all.
An Evangelical Response to "An Evangelical Manifesto", "An Evangelical Manifesto" - Continuing the Conversation

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are moderated. I will gladly approve any comment that responds directly and politely to what has been posted.