Uncompromising Christians are not welcome!
This “[Evangelical] Manifesto” is full of contradictions. While its authors claim to trust the Bible, they flout God’s warnings. They claim to exclude no one, yet they redefine and “repudiate” fundamentalists. They claim to speak for themselves, but their message demands global transformation and prophesies disaster if not obeyed. They claim to follow “the narrow way,” but they call for a broad, interfaith “framework” (new rules) for participating in the “public square” without offending anyone.
By whose authority did the steering committee draft this new social contract? It’s not Biblical! Though it tells us that the Gospel freed us from legalism, it imposes man’s rules and restrictions on God’s people! That’s legalism!
“An astonishing and horrible thing has been committed in the land: The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule by their own power; And My people love to have it so. But what will you do in the end?” Jer. 5:30-31
What is “Common Good” in a Pluralistic world?
The list of names on the Manifesto’s Steering Committee and its “Charter Signatories” suggests that this document is a collective effort of Evangelical leaders. But the primary author seems to be Os Guinness. His 2008 book, The Case for Civility: And Why Our Future Depends on It, is simply a more detailed version of the Manifesto’s agenda. We find countless repetitions of phrases such as “common good” in both book and Manifesto.
This “common good” must be negotiated in a “Public Square” — a global arena where people share their views. To keep their debates “civil,” they must learn to appreciate pluralism and seek a “common life” compatible with all beliefs and lifestyles. Peace and unity must be forged through a collective “framework” that provides the social rules for “living together with our deepest differences.” The Manifesto summarizes the challenge:
“…what we as Evangelicals lament in the culture warring is not just the general collapse of the common vision of the common good, but the endless conflict over the proper place of faiths in public life, and therefore of the freedom to enter and engage public life from the perspective of faith. A grand confusion now reigns as to any guiding principles….”[1,p.16] Click here to read this entire article and for access to links and citations.
