- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (11/25)
- Next Post »Reading Classics Together - Redemption Accomplished and Applied (III)
The Manhattan Declaration
- 11/25/09
- 101
Last week saw the release of The Manhattan Declaration, a document crafted by Chuck Colson, Robert George and Timothy George and signed by a long list of Evangelical, Catholic and Orthodox leaders. I have not been able to gauge the interest in the Declaration or whether it has had an immediate impact. But I have seen a bit of buzz about it through the Christian blogosphere. Today I want to address it, even if only briefly.
Here is a brief description of the document:
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
It is, then, a declaration on these crucial issues of the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of religious liberty. Among the more notable signatories, at least to readers of this site, is Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Unfortunately a portion of The Manhattan Declaration site is down now so I cannot refer to the list of signatories to reference other names.
Some Evangelicals have chosen to decline signing the Declaration on the basis that it is a joint statement by Evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox leaders. I am among those whose conscience will not give me freedom to add my name to the 100,000+ who have already signed.
Rather than write a lengthy defense of my refusal, I thought I would direct you to some useful articles.
John MacArthur offers this explanation as to why he will not sign. “It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct ‘communities.’ Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as ‘historic lines of ecclesial differences’ rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity. … [It would] relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time.”
James White writes “There is no question that all believers need to think seriously about the issues raised by this declaration. But what is the only solution to these issues? Is the solution to be found in presenting a unified front that implicitly says ‘the gospel does not unite us, but that is not important enough to divide us’? I do not think so. What is the only power given to the church to change hearts and minds? United political power? Or the gospel that is trampled under foot by every Roman Catholic priest when he ‘re-presents’ the sacrifice of Christ upon the Roman altar, pretending to be a priest, an ‘alter Christus’? Am I glad when a Roman clergyman calls abortion murder? Of course. But it exhibits a real confusion, and not a small amount of cowardice, it seems, to stop identifying the man’s false gospel and false teaching simply because you are glad to have a few more on the ‘right’ side of a vitally important social issue.”
Frank Turk also declines, saying “It assumes a big tent for the definition of what it means to be a ‘believer’, assumes that law is greater than grace in reforming the hearts of men, and provides moral reasoning that those who are unbelievers have no reason to accept — because they are unbelievers. And in making these three items “especially troubling” in the ‘whole scope of Christian moral concern’, it overlooks that the key solution to these moral concerns is the renovation of the human heart by supernatural means established by the death and resurrection of Christ.”
To varying degrees I agree with each of these critiques though on the whole my thoughts line up mostly closely with John MacArthur’s. In my view, this line says it all: “Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel.” It is good to speak of the gospel, but what does the term mean if used by Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox? Each has their own understanding of the term—the term that stands at the very heart of the faith. I just cannot see past this issue.
I see that there is much more to lose than to gain in joining together across these denominational boundaries. I would not and could not sign it.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (101)
Here is Dr. Mohler’s explanation for why he signed the declaration:
“I signed The Manhattan Declaration because it is a limited statement of Christian conviction on these three crucial issues, and not a wide-ranging theological document that subverts confessional integrity. I cannot and do not sign documents such as Evangelicals and Catholics Together that attempt to establish common ground on vast theological terrain. I could not sign a statement that purports, for example, to bridge the divide between Roman Catholics and evangelicals on the doctrine of justification. The Manhattan Declaration is not a manifesto for united action. It is a statement of urgent concern and common conscience on these three issues — the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and the defense of religious liberty.”
Tim,Alistair Begg did not sign and here is why:http://www.truthforlife.org/resources/article/manhattan-declaration/
We posted this on Monday.
Bob
I’m nobody, so my point is fairly non-exciting, but I agree wholeheartedly with MacArthur’s points, maybe because I grew up listening to him on the radio, I don’t know. Anyway, the fact is that joining hands with Catholics and pretending that we’re ok with a few minor differences is throwing a huge bucket of ice water on the white hot coals of the Gospel. It makes my witness weak.
Social justice is important, but as was said, heart change is the only real way to get there in the minds of individual human beings, not ratifying some declaration.
Tim,
Thanks for chiming in on the MD. In my post against signing I tried to lay out just where the theology centers in the document. The main theological position referenced is the Gospel.
The Gospel is not spelled out, but, IMO and as I’ve quoted the document, it is pointed to as the grounding motivation. The objections thus far have not dealt with the actual objections using the document itself.
While I love and appreciate Dr. Mohler as an SBCer and Christian, his defense does not answer my objection as clearly as some think. That’s how I see it.
I after reading a couple of the articles against, and Mohler’s defense, it seems to me that Mohler has it right in this case.
“The Manhattan Declaration is not a manifesto for united action. It is a statement of urgent concern and common conscience on these three issues”
I would sign it.
Some would say and I agree that Dr. Macarthur with his dispesationalism is preaching at least two gospels if not another Gospel, so I take his purity of conscience with a grain of salt. These are moral Christian values if everyone would believe them we would live in a better world regardless of religious persuasion. So what is the point? I do respect everyone’s leading of their conscience because they answer to God, but Macarthur’s argument is non-sequitor.
Thank you for NOT signing the MD. I agree with John MacArthur’s statement.
To suggest Dr. Macarthur is preaching another Gospel is scandalous!
John Stackhouse (also a non-signer) also has a useful comment:
http://stackblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/the-manhattan-declaration-a-waste-of-everybodys-time/
I fail to see the point of The Manhattan Declaration. All it states is a few points many people would agree with be they Christian or not. I am sure there would be many Muslims willing to sign this along with people from other faiths. So in the end what purpose does it serve?
The world already knows where religious, heck even non religious “moral” people stand on these point so why have it?
By signing they are not making any statement or judgment about others who would perhaps agree with or sign the statement.If there was a statement that said “I believe Jesus is the Son of God” - would they not sign that statement because some Catholics might also sign it?How do they answer Jesus when they stand before him about what they did with the time he gave him - sounds like one of those ‘foolish arguments’ mentioned in the scriptures.
I suppose for me what sticks out is that this sends a confusing message to the average church attender. I can understand the particulars of this document and make these detailed distinctions (gospel versus social justice issues), but I think the average person will see the headline and think, “Oh good they are all getting on the same page, good for them.”
In a world with so much information coming at us all the time it is important to be distinct and succinct in our message because most people don’t have or give this much time to dig this deep into it all.
Hi Tim,
Unfortunately, I must disagree with you on this one. It is not Colson’s objective to throw Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical under the same tent.
Rather, it seems to me, there is a growing tidal wave growing here in the US, that members of all three of these camps must stand against.
I am disappointed that a few object because they think we might stand under a redefined view of the gospel. Certainly there are significant theological differences in these three camps, but I am afraid the world looks on with confusion as we dicker about justification, when the real subject of this matter is abortion, or religious freedom.
As long as Satan keeps us bickering against one another, then he is free to go about his bidding.
We will likely never produce a document that we could all agree upon, and sign. For heavens sake, we can’t even all agree on the inerrant word of God! Do we think that Colson, or anyone could craft a document that we could all sign?
Colson is asking that we stand against the evil growing in our land.
Come on people, can’t you stand with a Catholic, a Greek Orthodox, a Jew on this matter?
Perhaps, while you are in this tent, you could say…”hey, let’s talk about justification”.
I am deeply disappointed that this division exists, and frankly think it perhaps smell of sanctimoniousness to an onlooking world. We must beware of allowing our views to become so narrow that we perchance become legalists.
Here is my post on this matter: http://bit.ly/4CBkb1
Thanks Tim for taking this on and giving us your viewpoint.
There is a lot one could say.
We see here in certain of these exchanges the classic reformed pietist orthodoxy that has a tendency to stand aloof from modern culture. Whatever one has to say on the subject we all have to come to a conclusion about where the line is to be drawn and in this instance I would support Dr. Mohler’s explanation as a rational reasonable and pragmatic position stepping out in faith. These are very trying even terrible times not just for Christians but also for the elderly and the unborn. There appears to me to be nothing unscriptural about supporting the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and religious liberty. It also seems to me easily defensible to share with those people of goodwill and beneficients of God’s common grace, a common platform in support of these crucial issues. We need to engage modern thought and science seriously and seek for ways and platforms to do so and it is unhelpful for leaders in the Christian community to appear to shoot from the hip so to say and not give respect for the difficulties of coming to a reasonable and faith view on where the dividing line is for engagement in Society.
It also raises that complex issue of “guilt by association” that seems to be the John MacArthur stance, since he uses words such as “assumed”, “tacitly acknowledged”. I think his comments are extreme and simplistic since they fail intellectually to understand the conflict of conscience that can so easily arise here in deciding how far to engage in culture and society even for the “reformed..
What we want here is grace and love not just in the exchanges but also in respecting the difficulties of conscience here on both sides of this debate. We seek all of us surely justice too for the “weak and defenceless”.
FYI, Tim Keller signed it, so did Wayne Grudem and many other Reformed leaders.
While I respect you all, I think that Tim, Dr. MacArthur and others are wrong. I do not think anyone is going to “led astray” by joining others who call themselves folllowers of Jesus in saying that abortion is murder, marriage should be between a man and a woman and that religious liberty should be protected.
I mean, before we form public policy groups should we give people a test to see if they are doctrinally correct? I think this is really going overboard guys!
As a Master’s College Alumni and former Grace Community Church attender when I lived in So. Cal., I very respectfully disagree with Dr. MacArthur. This appears to be a very clear and concise document that addresses key issues in our nation. Certainly I do not believe that Roman Catholic theology nor Orthodox theology is truly orthodox, however in the very broad sense of the term they fall in the tent of Christendom, any cursory study of church history will prove this point. To give a very basic illustration, if I, a Roman Catholic, and an Orthodox were standing outside a burning building with children caught inside I would work hand in hand with them to rescue the children. Certainly many of you will poke holes in this illustration, and maybe rightly so, but I do not see how seeking to save children, defend marriage, and defend our religious freedom is compromising the gospel. Blessings to all. Now I will go sign the document.
I’ve got to go with Dr. Mohler on this one. I understand the issue of consistency for Pastor MacArthur as he has consistently stood against ecumenicism at the expense of doctrine. But if we going to clarify at what point we don’t agree with someone, is it not also legitimate to clarify what we do agree on? I also have a hard time seeing that this violates any essential of the gospel…it specifically tries to avoid that for the sake of confronting the seismic shift in our culture regarding 3 specific issues. I don’t condemn and I am not “saddened” by the refusal of some to sign this document. But I think the better choice is to sign it!
When i read J-Mac and others, their points make sense, and i tend to agree…but, as TUAD brought to my attention on JT’s blog yesterday:
Scott Klusendorf’s article, http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAC110.pdf
…is very convincing as well.
I completely agree with Dr. Mohler that the Manhattan Declarations is a “limited statement of Christian conviction.” It does not attempt to define what the Gospel or faith is.
To me this is like being in Germany in 1943 and attempting to make a significant public statement to remind and encourage Christians (and yes, some or many non-Christians as well) to take a stand. And basically what you say is that you can’t stand next to someone else and raise your voice to help stopping the trains from going to Auschwitz because you have profound theological differences. I am sure that is a great comfort to the people in the trains.
How does a declaration about1. the sanctity of human life2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.threaten or re-define the Gospel or the Christian faith?
How is that the guys who are not signing this statement, with a few exceptions, nowhere in the public arena and offer a better statement?
Just as with disagreements with biblical interpretations, many people use extra-biblical information to back up their argument, rather than using the Bible as their standard. Everything I’ve read from those who have chosen NOT to sign the declaration (including Tim, whom I respect) are talking about things that are not related to what the document actually contains (extra-declaration).
I signed it because, after reading the entire document/declaration, I agreed with all of it.
I can understand the objections, but think Mohler and a long list of other well respected protestant Christians among the orignal signers got it right.
@ Mark Lamprecht #4 In my post against signing I tried to lay out just where the theology centers in the document. The main theological position referenced is the Gospel.
The Gospel is key in the MD, but it is not the central theological position, and it is certainly not identified as the position from which Orthodox, Catholic and Evangels stand united. The central theological position of agreement In the MD is the God of the Bible as God of the universe:
“We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim onour lives..”
Personally it seems ridiculous to elevate “sanctity of marriage” to anywhere near the importance of “lives of the unborn”.
Christianity (not to mention Christian marriages) will be just fine regardless of what the secular state does or doesn’t allow with respect to same-sex couples.
Total non-issue. I’m actually a little bit disappointed to hear Keller signed, for precisely that reason.
The language of the document does seem to hold Catholic and Evangelicals as being on equal footing as believers. To those outside the church, which appear to be part of the document’s target audience, this can lead to confusion (e.g., how many have heard statements like “I know what you believe; I was raised Catholic” … I fear the wording in this document would only reinforce this idea in non-believers).
From another perspective, I am unclear what the ultimate purpose of the document is and what its framer’s intend to come from its widespread acceptance.
I see the hubbub in the Christian blogosphere (bubble?) over this statement as distracting from the point. How many nonbelievers do I know have heard of this? None. How many are going to be convinced to not have an abortion or change their beliefs on same-sex marriage by yet another proclamation? None.
I think our efforts toward saving the unborn/preserving the sanctity of marriage are much better spent by volunteering at a Crisis Pregnancy Center and sharing the gospel with unbelievers. I just truly do not see what, if anything, this declaration actually accomplishes, even though I agree with its points.
Jesse Taylor, #16: “As a Master’s College Alumni and former Grace Community Church attender when I lived in So. Cal., I very respectfully disagree with Dr. MacArthur. … Blessings to all. Now I will go sign the document.”
Amen, Jesse Taylor.
Brian Current, #18,
I’m glad to have brought Scott Klusendorf’s article to your attention and for your prayerful consideration.
David Porter, #13: “I am deeply disappointed that this division exists, and frankly think it perhaps smell of sanctimoniousness to an onlooking world. We must beware of allowing our views to become so narrow that we perchance become legalists.”
I agree David. And the division that’s caused by those sanctimonious Protestants who are angry with the Protestants who have affirmed and signed the Manhattan Declaration is harming the Witness of the Gospel.
Here are the notes from David Porter’s post titled “Dr. Wayne Grudem: Confronting John MacArthur and Cal Thomas on “Do Evangelism, Not Politics.”
MacArthur believes that “The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels”. 1) Does he therefore think that the formal anathema of Galatians 1:8-9 applies to the evangelical signatories?2) Will he refuse to speak anymore at conferences where the heretics Keller, Mohler, at.al. are involved? Wouldn’t his participation with them in future events be an avowal of brotherhood with those who avow brotherhood with purveyors of different gospels?3) If others who continue to associate with these traitors to the Gospel (Dever, Carson etc.) don’t stop their association with them shouldn’t they be lumped in with those who distort the Gospel?
To sign or not to sign: I have 3 questions - Is it a sin? Does one offend or betray the one true God?? Does this lie in the area of Christian liberty???
Enyinna Okorafor, #28,
IMHO, I think it falls in the area of Christian Liberty. One thing that I’ve noticed so far is that *NONE* of the folks who support the Manhattan Declaration have condemned those who don’t support the Manhattan Declaration.
But I have seen some folks who reject the Manhattan Declaration condemn those Protestants who have signed and supported the Manhattan Declaration.
I am encouraged to see Tim Challies, John McArthur, James White and many others speak out against this document that explicitly call non-Christians Christians. This is concerning to me that many respected Christians would sign a statement that strikes against the gospel. That said, for all of you Christians out there, dont just criticize those who would sign such a document….get out there and act to end abortion for it is your moral duty as a Christian.
I have found this comment by Professor Francis Beckwith:
“Here’s what MacArthur writes:
“Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel.”
Can you imagine if he had said this, instead:
Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to rape, torture, and theft and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel.
MacArthur, though a decent man with his heart in the right place, does not seem to understand that “the Gospel” is more than merely getting people into heaven. It is about loving one’s neighbor as oneself, and that requires a concern for the moral ecology of one’s community, since that community, whether we admit it or not, has the power to shape Christian culture and its influence on the wider culture. Consider this example. As a Christian, I have an interest in making sure that the Church’s children grow up to be loving ambassadors for Christ, living holy lives. But that task, that hope, becomes more difficult when they are surrounded by, and saturated in, a wider culture that opposes that hope. To put it another way: it may be the case that the children of one Christian will never have to sit through hours of indoctrination in a public school. But other Christians’ children will. Yet, it the latter children may grow up to date the former children
Shameless plug: I have a book coming out in March with InterVarsity Press-Politics for Christians: Statecraft as Soulcraft-which addresses these and other concerns. See http://tinyurl.com/yhw4o3b”
“I have seen some folks who reject the Manhattan Declaration condemn those Protestants who have signed and supported the Manhattan Declaration.”
None of the three that Tim quoted condemned anyone, so I wonder to whom you are referring. Can you actually quote someone condemning signers? Not someone who simply disagrees, who says it’s a bad document that no Christian should sign, but actually condemning the signers. Let’s limit that to normal, reasonable people, not crank watchbloggers with reputations for spouting off, too.
I consider the Manhattan Declaration a mostly good document that probably will have mostly good results. But the most problematic characteristic of the document, its affirmation that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are Christians, is significant enough to convince me to not sign it. For a fuller explanation of my reasoning, if anybody is interested, see the comments section of the thread here.
I want to respond to some representative comments in this thread.
David Porter wrote:
“I am disappointed that a few object because they think we might stand under a redefined view of the gospel. Certainly there are significant theological differences in these three camps, but I am afraid the world looks on with confusion as we dicker about justification, when the real subject of this matter is abortion, or religious freedom….I am deeply disappointed that this division exists, and frankly think it perhaps smell of sanctimoniousness to an onlooking world.”
And Nicodemus wrote:
“There appears to me to be nothing unscriptural about supporting the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and religious liberty.”
The document is primarily about issues like abortion and homosexuality, but it also refers to Catholics and Orthodox as Christians. It does so in a way that suggests the Christian nature of Catholicism and Orthodoxy in general, not just some individuals within those groups. (I argue for that conclusion more fully in the thread linked above.) And it refers to those Catholic and Orthodox as believers, suggesting that they aren’t just part of a historical Christendom, but rather are part of the church as defined by Biblical standards. I consider Catholicism and Orthodoxy to be modern equivalents of the Judaizers. I doubt that Paul would have worded an agreement with the Judaizers in the manner in which the Manhattan Declaration is worded.
The most problematic elements of the document could easily have been avoided. Whose fault is it when a controversy that could so easily have been avoided wasn’t? Men like Chuck Colson and Timothy George have known for a long time that affirmations of the Christian status of Catholicism and Orthodoxy would be objectionable to many Evangelicals. Why did they include such comments in the document?
Regarding David Porter’s comments about what the world will think, I doubt that the world approves of Paul’s reaction to the Judaizers. Celsus, a second-century critic of Christianity, criticized Christians for being too divisive and suggested that even the differences between Christianity and Judaism aren’t of much importance. Many people in today’s world claim that there isn’t much of a difference between Christianity and Islam or Christianity and Judaism, for example. Why can’t we be more united with Muslims and Jews and stop arguing with them? The world often doesn’t exercise much discernment on issues of unity. Jesus and the apostles didn’t meet the world’s standards on such issues, and neither should we.
Truth Unites… and Divides wrote:
“I’m glad to have brought Scott Klusendorf’s article to your attention and for your prayerful consideration….And the division that’s caused by those sanctimonious Protestants who are angry with the Protestants who have affirmed and signed the Manhattan Declaration is harming the Witness of the Gospel.”
I don’t know whether you’re including me among “sanctimonious Protestants who are angry with the Protestants who have affirmed and signed the Manhattan Declaration”. I’ve explained, at two blogs you read (Triablogue and Between Two Worlds), what I think is wrong with the document, and you haven’t interacted with what I said at either place. Klusendorf makes some good points, and I agree that it’s acceptable to work with Catholics and Orthodox in some contexts. I often vote for them when they seek political offices, I recommend some of their books and other material they produce, I consider it acceptable to work with them on issues like abortion and homosexuality, etc. But the Manhattan Declaration does more than that. It seems to affirm the orthodoxy of those two groups. Even if some or all of the signers didn’t intend such an affirmation, it’s the most natural way of reading the document, for reasons I’ve explained above and at the other two blogs. Men like Chuck Colson and Timothy George ought to have known better than to have worded the document as they did. Some of the critics of the document have been overly negative about it, but the primary blame has to be laid at the feet of men like Colson and George. The most problematic aspects of the document could easily have been avoided.
Thanks for your post, Tim.
However, I must agree with Mohler on the fact that there is not theological ground at stake. These are 3 issues that deal with human conscience…
David Kjos: “Can you actually quote someone condemning signers?”
Yes. Here’s a pastor: “The Manhattan Declaration is an ungodly manifesto, contemptuous of the blood and righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is an ecumenical treatise, complete with a Romish gospel and shot through and through with popish error. Those evangelicals who have authored this document and who have led the way in signing it show themselves to be in rebellion to God. It is, in their case, a brazen manifesto of treason against the Lord Jesus Christ. And they are not friends but rather are enemies of Christian liberty in that they disobey and provoke the Author of liberty with their spiritual fornication, even wresting His word and corrupting His blood-bought church. It is the biblical duty of all faithful Christian pastors to stand against the evangelical authors of the Manhattan Declaration and all evangelicals who sign it or promote it in any way. Such betrayers of Christ and His church must be separated from and called to account by all faithful Christian ministers and people.”
Dear Jason Engwer,
No, I do not include you as a sanctimonious Protestant.
Truth Unites:
Yes, I’d call that condemning. However, I googled your quote and visited the source, and if that guy qualifies as “normal, reasonable people,” then you must live in an interesting world!
Please help me understand what there is to lose.
This document unites people on three basic biblical principles. It does not try to define “believer” or preach the gospel. Does that make it wrong? Is it better to stand by and watch our rights be taken away and say nothing? Isn’t this just what we have done wrong in this country in the past 50 years - say nothing?
I am encouraged and grateful that people who claim Christ as Savior can unite for the betterment of society regardless of their doctrinal differences.
Jesus said, “If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.” Mark 3:25 We must strive to unite the House of God in America, not divide it - or even define it. Let’s leave the defining to God and put on our armor instead.
My own comments are published at:http://everydaychristian.com/blogs/post/5622/
The list of original signers include prominent evangelicals like: Peter Akinola, Randy Alcorn, Leith Anderson, Kay Arthur, Joel Belz, Bryan Chapell, James Dobson, Wayne Grudem, Tim Keller, Duane Litfin, Herb Lusk, Josh McDowell, Al Mohler, Marvin Olasky, J.I. Packer, Neal Plantinga, Dennis Rainey, Ron Sider, Joni Erickson Tada, and Ravi Zacharias…
Definitely an issue of Christian liberty…
36. Truth Unites….In all fairness if you are going to quote someone acknowledge the source: http://www.pccmonroe.org/
Yes, as David alludes to the quote comes from a church which has a particular focus. It is not my responsibility to tear down any brethren from that church - maybe they have some blind spots in their theology etc (don’t we all!). My responsibility is to treat them as brothers and sisters in the Lord. Pilgrim’s Covenant Church obviously see it as a clarion call for reformation for all evangelical protestants to ‘come out from amongst them and be ye separate’.. so be it.
As to the Manhattan Declaration … signing of protestant-roman catholic-orthodox….. In the ‘world’s eyes’ - we are ‘Christian’. Are there Christians - men and women of faith within all these ‘churches’… only God knows. My ‘gut’ feeling is that across the ‘boundaries’ - yes there are men of women ‘of faith’ in Jesus Christ as their saviour. Do each understand that justification is through Christ alone, by faith alone.. probably not… yet the fact remains that within the various arms of Christendom there are people of faith…
Karyn Brownlee: “Please help me understand what there is to lose.”
Concerned Women of America wrote about what there is to lose:
“One signer of the Manhattan Declaration is a man who has already paid the price for following his conscience. Walter Hoye, an evangelical black pastor in Oakland, California, was jailed for holding a sign at an abortion clinic stating “Jesus Loves You and Your Baby. Can We Help You?”
At least two people cannot sign the document because they lost their lives for their Biblical beliefs. Jim Poillon was shot and murdered, targeted because he held pro-life signs in public. Mary Stachowicz shared the Biblical view on homosexuality to a homosexual co-worker. He brutally beat and murdered her.
I have also signed, knowing that the threat to our freedom is quite real. Twice, I was sentenced to six months in jail for simply praying on public property near an abortion clinic. One of those times included a condition. The judge stated that I could be released from jail if I promised not to do it again. As the Manhattan Declaration eloquently puts it, I cannot comply.
In a speech to conservative leaders in 2008, I pointed out how current legislation on abortion, homosexual rights, freedom of speech, if passed, will lead to religious oppression. My experience proves that our freedoms are precarious. The opponents of life, marriage, and religious freedom intend to silence Biblical beliefs.”
Does the bible promise “religious freedom” in a society?
Sounds like the signers and some responses value “THEIR” freedoms, more than THE LORDS GLORY!
That, my brothers and sisters, is idolatry. It;s no wonder the Lord is taking it away. If you are His true child, be glad and rejoice, it will be for the Glory of God and the good of His children.
“We Christians” “As Christians”? Signing a document with apostates is acceptable for the common good? Last I checked, our Sovereign Lord is in charge and expects us to hold the line of the Gospel, not confuse or compromise it by validating Roman Catholics and their heretical teachings. Please, this is simple. Tim, MacArthur and James White are right on. Mohler, Grudem, Chapel, and Keller validated every apostate that signed that document to the undiscerning in the faith and confused the unbeliever. “We” says it all. Please. I can’t sleep I’m so saddened by it.
Renee 42. Please read the declaration. The ideals contained within it are surely God’s ideals - for the sanctity of life, marriage and for the glory of His name amongst the nations.
The smugness, the self-congratulatory, sanctimonious arrogance that I read in the linked posts by Christian leaders and most of those posting here leaves me speechless.
Big fish in thousands of very small ponds pompously arguing over ever-diminishing points of theology while accomplishing, well, absolutely nothing, while holding themselves out as the only “true” Christians. Jaw-dropping self delusion.
This is ridiculous. I will never support Al Mohler. Signing your name to what is presented to the world and church as a Christian call to justice is ridiculous to put it mildly. Perhaps I don’t know him as well as others, but I think Mohler has been overly praised. This was the same man involved in Justice Sunday; this was a horrendous event, or series of events, which took place in a church and in which a zealous Roman Catholic was invited to participate. And I think it may have been Mohler’s own home church. Ironically, I think it’s called Highview Baptist Church Also, he is part of the Focus on the Family board, another group of people that incorrectly go about getting involved in politics. I would have an easier time signing an orthodox confession of faith with a pro-choice Christian than this ridiculous statement.
Had it been a secular document, calling on the secular world to some standard, I wouldn’t mind. Christians can, as members of a secular society, participate in civic affairs. But people in their positions as Christian leaders, like Al Mohler, should be ashamed of themselves. Calling a world who is lost to a better way of living or to justice is foolish. The church calls people to repentance and faith in Christ, not to justice, however noble the cause may be. The church calls upon it’s members to live lives worthy of their calling. But I guess we should no longer expect much from Southern Baptist. They went from preachers of theological liberalism to preachers of political conservatism.
I would rather see abortion and euthanasia freely practiced than compromise in even signing a statement that is presented as a Christian declaration with someone who is part of church that has anathematized the only gospel that saves. “Followers of Jesus Christ”, please. I guess Al Mohler is so smart, he knows that this statement means somethings else other than people who believe they are disciples of Christ.
I think a remedy for this foolishness might the type of two-kingdom teaching espoused by some Christians like Michael Horton and David Van Drunen. I think there may also be a new book out titled Dual Citizens.
Karyn Brownlee wrote:
“This document unites people on three basic biblical principles. It does not try to define ‘believer’ or preach the gospel. Does that make it wrong? Is it better to stand by and watch our rights be taken away and say nothing?”
And Jenny wrote:
“The smugness, the self-congratulatory, sanctimonious arrogance that I read in the linked posts by Christian leaders and most of those posting here leaves me speechless.”
Karyn, I’m glad hat you want something to be said on such issues. That’s good. I agree with you. But the opponents of the Manhattan Declaration cited by Tim Challies haven’t argued that we shouldn’t say anything. And the Manhattan Declaration isn’t the only means by which something can be said.
James White, for example, has been addressing issues like abortion and homosexuality for a long time. He’s written a book on homosexual issues, he’s debated men like Barry Lynn and John Spong on the subject, he’s written and debated on abortion, he often writes about issues of religious liberty on his blog, etc. He also works with Catholics and other non-Evangelicals in contexts in which that sort of cooperation is warranted. Take a look at his background and his current schedule. White doesn’t argue that we should “say nothing”. He’s said, and done, a lot about the subjects addressed by the Manhattan Declaration.
But he’s also said and done a lot about the doctrine of justification through faith alone. If you want to know where James White and other critics of the Manhattan Declaration are coming from, read Luke 18, Acts 15, 2 Corinthians 11, Galatians, and other portions of scripture that address justification and condemn false gospels, even false gospels coming from an angel or angelic men (2 Corinthians 11:2-15, Galatians 1:6-9). If you disagree with those who see Catholicism and Orthodoxy as modern equivalents of the Judaizers, then say so and explain why. But don’t respond to them as if they’re motivated by wanting to “say nothing” about social issues or motivated by “smugness” and such. You’re misrepresenting them, and you’re neglecting the gospel-centered issues that are at the heart of the dispute.
It saddens me greatly that Tim and others are so forthrightly set against supporting this declaration - feeling that your denominational distinctives (however valid) take precedence over matters of justice and righteousness. Is this truly what the Lord wants of us? Though I applaud and support your strong stand for the gospel, I suspect that Amos would weep at the desperately self-righteous pride and principals being expressed here - and even Pilate and the Pharisees of Jesus’ day would stand over in judgement against us as they see us washing our hands and turning away from the needy….Here in the UK and Europe, the three concerns of the Manhattan Declaration are more than just future dangers - they are real and current threats to the very expression of our faith, TODAY. Laws are currently passing through our Parliaments which (if ennacted) will effectively forbid us from making ANY public mention of our scriptural positions in regard to marriage and gender etc, on the pain of very serious penalty. Indeed, even the normal rules of proof are being turned on their head - if accused of ‘giving offence’ by what I said, then I would have to prove that the accuser was NOT offended! In other words, we will lose all means of defending ourselves and our faith against determined assault.Aside from the single phrase that McArthur takes exception to, there is surely not a word in the declaration that you could not support? Personally, the truths embodied in the Declaration are now so vital to the future of a fair and just society that I would be happy to sign them alongside non-believers or members of another faith entirely.Those of you in North America are uniquely cocooned against the reality and strength of the growing worldwide attack now being made against any expression of the Christian faith. Even for you, though, persecution will not be that far off. You need to wake up and ‘smell the coffee’ before it is too late.
I think in order to speak to a society that doesn’t know what truth is, we have to come down, and speak to them. I agree with Dr. Moehler’s position that this is a “limited statement.” We do have to draw a line in the sand, and say enough is enough. I’ve been reading Francis Shaeffer’s “Mark of a Christian.” In it he addresses a couple of points that are important, John 13:34-35, and John 17:21. We’re all familiar with them, but the point of his “final apologetic” is that we have to show the world that Jesus and God were one, we have to show the world that we Christians are have to be one with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, so that the world may believe. We can argue the details of religion with each other in civil discourse, and deal with heresy when needed, but I can’t even begin to explain Jesus’ grace given freely to us, to someone who doesn’t even know the truth. I can however tell these unbelieving people that this is where I draw the line. Granted, some will never believe, and its those people we have to stand against. I pray that all Christians someday will be John 17:21, so that those in the world whom God has chosen will be drawn to that light on the hill. Come Lord Jesus…
To add to my comments about “conscience” and “guilt by association” earlier.
It is obvious and understandable that the use of the word “Christian” both in the context of and as defined by the document itself does not equate to a description that it means those who are “justified by faith and by faith alone” and nor is there anywhere in the document an analysis of the rightness or otherwise of such a doctrine or even of Caholic or Orthodox doctrine. To further incorporate the scruples and conscience of those signing it, at the start it distinguishes this generic reference to Christians graphically by referring to
Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians.
In fact the use of the word Christian generally in Society is not in my view regarded as describing this narrow sense (not narrow in that I do not believe it to be true) and therefore most people will understand it in this general sense. Surely then this is consistent with all that it sets out to achieve and is therefore honest. It is the coming together of a group of people who in this generic use of the word Christian (that most people in Society would understand if they understand anything about Christianity) believe in these key and important issues.
In any event, even Paul opens the way for us to consider that maybe any risk of dilution of the message is at times as a result of a difficult balancing act that he himself recognised and respected. He is not “per se” tainted in other words by wrong doctrine just because he serves the person or with the person who does not agree with him.
1 Corinthians 8, verse 19. ” For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more”.
So too,
2 Timothy 2, verse 18. ” God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: ” The Lord knows those who are his”, and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”