Yes, you may send me a note.

I will watch for it.

I understand your point better. However, I fear that you over-interpreted my comments. Please reconsider what I said in response to Rick. Here is what I said that prompted your response.

Have you read the documents under question? Any Christian who actually reads the documents that I address on my blog could not endorse those documents without compromising one’s devotion to Christ to one degree or another. Hence, my appeal to believers to steadfast loyalty to Christ. This is very serious. Political correctness is trumping devotion to Christ for all those evangelicals who have endorsed the document.

I admit that my comment may be too brief and depended too heavily upon an assumption that readers might actually read my fuller comments on my blog, to which I gave links. Yet, given the fullness of what I have said in all my comments on Denny’s page, I did not render judgment about the devotion of any single signatory, and particularly not that of Greg Livingstone.

I stand by my comment. I honestly do not understand how any Christian who actually reads and evaluates the documents under question could endorse them “without compromising one’s devotion to Christ to one degree or another.” Because of this, as I explained in my note and explain much more fully on my own blog, “Hence, my appeal to believers to steadfast loyalty to Christ.” I made that appeal on my own blog here followed by another appeal here.

In my second blog entry I quote a letter from a couple who devoted their lives to bringing the gospel to Muslims. They understand the deep ramifications and not so subtle implications of the documents our evangelical friends, colleagues, and leaders endorsed. BTW, one of my uncles went to a Muslim country to serve as a missionary and spent his whole life there. Consequently, I developed a rather keen interest in understanding Islam early in life, an interest that has been sustained.

I also stand by my statement concerning the power of “political correctness,” which I explained rather fully here. I do not know the motivations of each signatory’s heart that prompted them to endorse the letter. I am convinced, however, that it was wrong for all of them to endorse the letter, no matter what explanation each may offer. Can we not say this, given the fact that we can read the document our evangelical friends signed? My judgment is upon the document and upon signing the document. Devotion to Christ is at stake, whether some measure of ignorance or some form of intimidation prompted them to sign.

May the steadfast love of Christ constrain us all to love him wholeheartedly lest we cherish the smile and approval of humans and lapse in our devotion to our Lord and engage in spiritual adultery.

Blessings to all!

You asked, Did you mean or imply that theologians like Gushee, Stott, George and others signed the document without understanding it? Seriously.

Yes, I am serious, because I have examined the document and its accompanying documents carefully. Out of charity and generosity I would rather think that they did not adequately understand what they signed than to think of my friends signing a document that they genuinely understood. For if they understood it adequately, then. . . .

(David Gushee, BTW, is a philosopher, not a theologian.)

Did you mean or imply that theologians like Gushee, Stott, George and others signed the document without understanding it? Seriously.

I was not entirely clear concerning what you intended with your note, and at the same time I did not want to leave the impression that I was ignoring your comment. Hence, I wrote the only thing I could at the moment, simply to thank you.

As for offering balance, as you explain in your last note, it is not clear to me what you want to balance, as though anything were out of balance other than that many evangelicals endorsed a letter to which none of them should have added their names, if they had given much thought to the contents of the letter. By the way, some of the names on the letter are my friends, friends who deeply disappointed me.

I fear that a lot of evangelicals, including my friends, signed the document without adequately understanding what they were actually endorsing. This is one of the problems with signing letters drafted by others, especially others whose agendas are not made transparent.

Once I signed a published letter, endorsed by many familiar names of evangelicals (including John Piper and several friends of mine). Had I known how that letter would become used and for how long it would be exploited, I would never have added my name to it. I signed that letter for my own reasons, not for all the reasons that the letter writer had for writing it and for exploiting it.

As a result, I have a policy that I will not endorse any such letter again, and especially a letter such as is under discussion here.

Which I have a feeling that defining neighbor in that way would be a point of contention that would exclude some from agreeing with it. After all its seems we are the Samaritans of many and many seem to be samaritans to us.

I think John P brings up a good point about love of God. How can you love God unless you believe Him about His Son?

But I have a question to you. I think Piper is right about loving the true God, but what if another document was agreed upon that only stated our unity with islam followers is love of your neighbor. Would you agree to that, do you Piper would agree to that? I would.

Thanks for the space bro. I know your busy but I await your response. Of course my question is for anyone else who cares to answer.

http://missionaryroad.com/2008/01/23/john-piper-video-response-to-a-common-word/

I will definitely link to your site. You have some great resources on here. Let’s keep the wholesome dialogue going on this so that we can spur each other on in grace and truth to fulfill the Great Commission!

Jesus Christ is Lord!

Ken