A statement to sign...

(David) Evangelicalism's perfervid heart pulses with non-binding statements signed by non-ecclesiastical authorities: the climate yesterday, the essence of the Gospel the day before that, the real status of Israel before God last month, the meaning of manhood and womanhood last year....

Today it's how we should get along with Muslims. Tomorrow, who knows? The only thing certain is that with tomorrow's dawn will arrive another piece of Evangelical pablum to which significant signatories will have added their agreement.

Oh, another weighty Evangelical statement on an important issue of our time? Nahh. Just a Hot or Not test for mid-tier Evangelical celebrities. Am I alive? Yup, read my name in print today. Hot? Well, I was just asked to sign another statement. How hot? At least a 6: CJ signed it too.

It's been this way for decades, to our shame. Year after year of meaningless statements, each statement dwarfed by the list of signatories appended to the end. Don't think it's the statement that matters. The thing that really matters is the signatories. They got asked. They live. Their stock's still afloat.

Comments

Hey, this is great; I can disagree with my brother. These statements do too matter. They demonstrate once again, for anyone who's not been listening for the past thirty years or so, that Christian colleges like Wheaton have presidents and chaplains and profs who sign statements like this, and that sending our daughters and sons off to get the evangelical pedigree might be riskier than their matriculating at the state university. Jonathan Edward's father knew better and, rather than send his son to Harvard, enrolled him in the new work of reform known as Yale, today. Such statements also show us we shouldn't send Operation Mobilization our church's missions money, particularly if it's for an OM work in the Islamic world, without scrutinizing the work carefully and making sure it's not characterized by the syncretism of this statement. Finally, that we shouldn't subscribe to "Christianity Today" and think we're getting Christianity today. What a dumbhead my brother is, saying these statements don't matter. But I do love him.

Ah,yes ,nothing like a good document to sign to boost one's sense of being part of the herd. I signed one once and got a boat load of grief (in the form of anoynomous hate mail) for it from folk who were convinced that I was militant anti-semitic for not being a dye-in-the-wool premil-pretrib dispy. More recent items include the 'Word made Fresh' document calling for theological tolerance that made a sudden appearance just before the ETS was to address the status of Open theists like Clark Pinnock and John Sanders. Then along came the 'Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together' petition , urging more doctrinal magnanimity with in the ranks just as the issues surrounding the Federal Vision and the New Perspectives on Paul were making headway in conservative Reformed circles. So whither its conversations/dialogue with Catholics or Mormons or Muslims or whatever, these kind of things appear to be designed to give everyone the sense that despite our fighting fundamentalistic roots we are really peace loving souls who positively loath theological controversy-but what follows in their wake? You got it- a storm of controversy!

I have just come from a Fundamentalist list which looks and sounds remarkably like this one. Would it be fair to call the PCA the fundamentalist wing of the broader Presbyterian & Reformed tradition?

Ross, I've responded to your inquiry with the post, "Is the PCA fundamentalist?"

Dear Tim, If you and David are going to disagree could I make a request? For safety's sake would you please ask everyone on this Blog to find a place of safety? Let me suggest to everyone though, find a place to hide where you can still watch, this can be very entertaining. I am popping popcorn and am printing souvenir booklets which will be available for a small charge after we clean up the rubble. Love, Gary

Add new comment