tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443579080104189937.post1972264743584707626..comments2009-10-12T01:55:34.328-07:00Josh Gelatthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09647646162506627232noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443579080104189937.post-12644567032808069142008-05-09T18:30:00.000-07:002008-05-09T18:30:00.000-07:00Mike, I was being sarcastic. <BR/><BR/>You are right though, the only Biblical evidence for creationism is limited to, well, the Bible but since you seem to dismiss inerrancy as well you certainly can feel free to cast aside literal creationism.Arthur Sidohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03848508095612688493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443579080104189937.post-65909846521279449892008-05-09T15:42:00.000-07:002008-05-09T15:42:00.000-07:00anonymous,<BR/><BR/>yeah, i guess my comment did come across that way, didn't it ... really didn't mean it to. thanks - a lot of times the things we post come across differently than they would if we were sitting in a room adding a little good-natured ribbing to the discussion. i believe that a lack of thinking often is a badge worn on both sides as we talk to labels and generalities and make statements that will make good sound bites but don't have a lot of truth in them.<BR/><BR/>my intent really was to say that there's this ever-growing laundry list of things we're expecting people to swear their allegiance too before we graciously grant them our approval as "Christians." and neither creationism nor inerrancy are non-negotiables - they are topics to discuss and reach a workable agreement about, or they may be topics we just agree to disagree on.<BR/><BR/>sorry if i was 'disagreeable' in the process...mike ruckerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09921322553025339949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443579080104189937.post-15625728712223133092008-05-09T15:03:00.000-07:002008-05-09T15:03:00.000-07:00Mike, <BR/><BR/>Are you implying that one cannot be a thinking, intelligent Christian and believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture?<BR/><BR/>Are you further implying that those who believe in creationism are also Christians who are not thinking or intelligent?<BR/><BR/>From what I know of Josh, he believes in both quite strongly--as do many of the leading Evangelical theologians of the past and present.<BR/><BR/>Why is it that every emergent or emergent-sensitive person styles himself as being more intelligent that all the rest of evangelicalism? Along with many other traits, they share that similarity with the old classical liberals who viewed themselves as the intellectual elite.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443579080104189937.post-47762044991733801012008-05-09T10:25:00.000-07:002008-05-09T10:25:00.000-07:00Mike,<BR/><BR/>I believe you did misread the Manifesto on the inerrancy issue. They did affirm that, though perhaps not as tightly as the Chicago Statement crowd would like. But certainly the Manifesto expresses some form of inerrancy.<BR/><BR/>As for creationism, one wouldn't expect them to take a stand on that issue in this type of document.<BR/><BR/>The Emergent Manifesto is a different beast entirely. Though it has similarities, it also has significant differences - such as an utter failure to articulate a Gospel anywhere remotely similar to the New Testament. <BR/><BR/>It is significant that no emergent leaders were asked to be charter signatories (though, Wallis did make the cut).Josh Gelatthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09647646162506627232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443579080104189937.post-26739980676805463242008-05-08T22:12:00.000-07:002008-05-08T22:12:00.000-07:00Josh,<BR/><BR/>I was proud to see your name on the list! Though you may not agree with every little nuance (which I don't either...who does?), you still stepped out, took a stance, and signed it. I admire that and wish more of the reformed evangelicals were like you in their thinking (and reading!). You did the right thing brother.<BR/><BR/>PS - I, too, see Dobson not signing it as a big plus (as well as Land, Colson, Mohler, etc).Lukehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10462492727350793432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443579080104189937.post-3709029948805978842008-05-08T08:20:00.000-07:002008-05-08T08:20:00.000-07:00nice analysis.<BR/><BR/>i confess that i had some hesitations and misgivings before reading the document, but was actually quite impressed and invigorated after taking in the whole of what it addressed.<BR/><BR/>i am glad they chose not to say that creationism and inerrancy were non-negotiables. for the first, there's very little biblical justification anymore behind whatever latest flavor of anti-natural selection is being put forward; for the latter, somehow we can admit that we can't prove the existence of God, but goshdarnit we have a golden egg this unprovable God laid right here. kind of stupid when you think about it ... not that thinking is a pre-requisite of course in any of these endeavors.<BR/><BR/>more than anything, i was motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece - that it wasn't yet another "here's everything we're <I>against</I>" rant but an effort to make the gospel again a message of <I>good news</I>. imagine that - the gospel being <I>good news</I>. American Christianity has lost this defining characteristic ever since it embraced the neo-con's Jesus bobble-head doll.<BR/><BR/>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&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FEmergent-Manifesto-Hope-emersion-communities%2Fdp%2F080106807X%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1210257943%26sr%3D8-2&tag=mwc04-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325" REL="nofollow">Emergent Manifesto</A>) and finally have all our EM & EMs in a row without demonizing the other side.<BR/><BR/>we can only hope...<BR/><BR/>mike rucker<BR/>fairburn, georgia, usa<BR/><A HREF="http://mikerucker.wordpress.com" REL="nofollow">mikerucker.wordpress.com</A><BR/><BR/>p.s. i view dobson's refusal to sign it as a big plus...mike ruckerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09921322553025339949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443579080104189937.post-46415103820172445582008-05-08T07:51:00.000-07:002008-05-08T07:51:00.000-07:00Last I heard is that Dobson had not signed the document, though I'm not even sure it was presented to him. My guess is that he would be in disagreement with the last few pages of the document--as I am. But, since political involvement is what he is all about, I sense it would be enough for him to reject the Manifesto.Josh Gelatthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09647646162506627232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3443579080104189937.post-85067761148828312912008-05-08T04:16:00.000-07:002008-05-08T04:16:00.000-07:00How can it be an evangelical manifesto if James Dobson didn't sign it?Arthur Sidohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03848508095612688493noreply@blogger.com