Does anyone know anything more about this Evangelical Alliance report?
Ad`ver`sa´ri`a
n. pl.
A miscellaneous collection of notes, remarks, or selections.-
Recent Comments
-
Does anyone know anything more about this Evangelical Alliance report?
n. pl.
A miscellaneous collection of notes, remarks, or selections.
Alastair's Adversaria 
What the freak? I would’ve thought that was an Onion or Lark News spoof…I wish it was!
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Nonviolent subversion, confrontation and martyrdom – all these can and should be ‘used’ (if the situation warrants – I don’t think we’re there yet, certainly not in Australia), but violent revolution?
I’d want to see more in context before passing judgment. In this day and age, we need to brace ourselves for just about anything when the word “evangelical” is mentioned. (And I would nevertheless call myself evangelical without hesitation.) There is an appropriate time for Christians to take up the sword — that much is clear. So extreme pacifism and nonviolence such as that practiced by the Amish is not a mature, faithful response to the dictates of scripture. But at just about any point along the spectrum, from the Amish to the neocon evangelical who thinks we should have nuked every Islamic population center into smithereens yesterday, it is easy to find positions that are not biblical. So, I am inclined to expect that the report has some serious flaws. But I would still want to see the entire report rather than someone else’s summarized interpretation of what it says.
I found it interesting that the preists in Acts were concerned not to arrest Peter because they feared an uprising from the people.
I would be surprised if the report is as bad as the article seems to suggest. I would not expect that sort of material from the Evangelical Alliance, for all of its failings. However, as the title of my post claims, the signals are confusing. Clarification would be helpful.
The full text of the report can be found here. Without reading the whole thing, I have scanned the section dealing with ‘violent revolution’ (pp.121ff.) and, I am pleased to say, it seems quite a bit more balanced than one might expect from a reading of the newspaper article, even if one might not entirely agree with what is being said.