Truth:

Remember that the Manifesto is addressed to people on the right through to the left. It asks for reflection. The goal and intent was not to name names, but to set forth the values and then let people examine themselves to see where they fit. They were invited to sign on, if they shared the combination of values (truisms?) the manifesto states. We shoudl not sin. That is a truism in one sense, but one worth embracing.

As for the judgment about "strawmen," I will allow others to make that assessment as well. We are stating a value that I do not believe is a truism. The presence and intensity of a cultural war is something everyone sees and discusses. What is more difficult to determine is where the blame lies. The hope and prayer behind the manifesto is that a responsible self-examination might lead us to ask where this has been contributed to by evangelicals in ways that do not reflect biblical values. There are numerous times when people among us have argued the right case in the wrong tone, have imputed knowledge of motive when they do not know it, have placed the worst spin on the cause for a move when that is not known etc. Part of the point is our spiritual responsibility to take such a look.

This is not a document that wants to step back from engagement and disagreement, as some have reported and as perhaps your posts imply. Our public dialogue will be about positions that are opposed to view held by others and there division results. However, we should be careful (in fact it is a morally important) to engage in a manner that balances truth, integirty, and love. Please do not hear this as saying many who contend for key issues about the right to life (or sense a call to single issues) do not do this. That is not the point either. It is that if we overstep in terms of tone, it is important to look in the mirror and assess. A second point about the manifesto often not heard by those most passionate about a single issue is that others who calibrate the priorities differently than those tied to specific issues may well do so out of just as deep a biblical and spiritual well as those led to treat a single issue. That, of course, is part of the public square discussion.

I have engaged in the public square now for several years on topics where the exclusivity of Jesus is rejected, arguing for his uniqueness. That divides. But I try to do so in a manner that allows my case to be clear and yet to be careful to keep the issue on the table and not engage in disrespectful exchanges. If I overstep, the manifesto applies to me. It is with that personal self-reflection that I signed on. To me that is a worthy value to have as I engage in what I know will be contentious topics.

As for Luther and Athanasius, for all they did that was right and God honoring with respect to truth, that does not mean we also cannot learn from their mistakes as well. It is that nuance of contending for truth but doing so well, by loving those with whom we contend (a teaching of Jesus) that the Manifesto is seeking to attain. Truth is not only about content. It is also about the style of engagement.

dlb

By the way, if I were to sign on with a moniker it would be disciple (a learner) who desires to pursue truth, reflect it whereever it leads in mind and practice, and remind myself that learning continues until He returns. A truism and/or the core of discipleship?