I will not be signing "Our Confession of Evangelical Conviction"

. . . and my reason may not be the most obvious one

It’s really not news anymore. A group of self-identified “evangelicals” issuing a “confession” of their “convictions” has become so commonplace that news of yet another such “Confession of Evangelical Conviction” ought to invite little more than a collective yawn.

Once upon a time, the word “evangelical” (or, more formally, “Evangelical”) actually did carry with it the connotation of specific convictions concerning Christian belief and practice. Today, however, it is a term that identifies no Christians in particular, merely any of a number of subsets of Christians in general who trace the origins of their faith somewhere outside conventional mainline Protestantism. In a democratic society such as America, strong convictions on moral and social issues once naturally led evangelicals to vote en masse for those political candidates who shared, at least outwardly, their conservative principles. As the bold colors distinguishing right from left faded, over the years, into pale pastels (to borrow Ronald Reagan’s famous phrase from 1975), however, conviction gave way to pragmatism and pragmatism to outright accommodation. Crafting a “Christian” case for supporting candidates whose beliefs and values are antithetical to evangelical conviction has become something of a cottage industry over the last decade, fueled by an understandable disdain for morally dubious candidates who exploit evangelical fears but fortified by an inexcusable abandonment of principle in order to garner respect from the anti-religious elite circles of society.

Into this present milieu comes this latest “confession,” presenting “evangelical conviction” in the palest of pastels and the subtlest of nuances. Of the seven “convictions” delineated in the statement, none are in any way objectionable and all are, on the surface, non-controversial in traditional evangelical circles.

ONE: We give our allegiance to Jesus Christ alone.

TWO: We will lead with love not fear.

THREE: We submit to the truth of Scripture.

FOUR: We believe the Gospel heals every worldly division.

FIVE: We are committed to the prophetic mission of the Church.

SIX: We value every person as created in God's image.

SEVEN: We recognize godly leaders by their character.

So, what is the problem? Well, the devil, as the saying goes, is in the details. Following the standard form of a confessional statement, for each affirmation there is a corresponding rejection. Here, the statement flounders by employing straw men, sweeping generalizations, and just plain hypocrisy. It is all too easy, particularly in the age of social media, to point to isolated incidents of fringe religious figures making an idol of a political leader, misquoting Scripture to support a morally tenuous position, and claiming divine sanction for ungodly acts of violence and destruction. But such fanatics are likely to have more in common with those signatories of this “confession” who have taken the title of “Apostle” (more about that shortly) than with the mainstream evangelicals to whom the “confession” is ostensibly addressed.

One particular “rejection” stands out in putting the hypocrisy of the “confession” on display for all to see.

We reject any attempt to divide the Church, which is the Body of Christ, along partisan, ethnic, or national boundaries, and any message that says it is God's desire for the human family to be perpetually segregated by race, culture, or ethnicity is a rejection of the Gospel.

Really? Does this constitute repentance on the part of Beth Allison Barr, Kristin Du Mez, Scot McKnight, Jemar Tisby, and probably numerous others among the signatories for all the divisions they have brought upon the Body of Christ over the last decade and a half (or more) through their promotion of various forms of Critical Theory and other poisonous heresies? I don’t think so, and that brings me to the main reason I will not be signing this “confession.” Its substance is weak and ambiguous, to be sure, but my biggest issue is the names of those who have already signed it.

An important factor to consider when deciding whether or not a document is worthy of your support is the company you would be keeping if your name were affixed. The aforementioned signatories are only a few of the bad actors who have endorsed this particular statement. In addition to their obvious theological shortcomings, one may rightly question their willingness to be associated with fringe characters who presumptuously take the title of “Apostle.” Upon first glance, I see at least three signatories using that moniker and I am quite certain that not one of them has been in the presence of the Risen Christ in order to be appointed to the office. This suggests a very careless lack of discernment on the part of the organizers of this effort that undermines the credibility of both the “confession” and all of its signatories in a way that ought to be considered, among genuine evangelicals who have not abandoned their convictions, permanently disqualifying.