The Manhattan Declaration

Would you sign this?


  • Total voters
    76
Status
Not open for further replies.

SolaSaint

Puritan Board Sophomore
Hi All.

Not sure where to post this, so here goes. Has everyone seen the Manhattan Declaration? It is a gathering of over 140 church leaders from many denominations including evangelicals and Catholics where they have come in unity on several social problems facing America and the church today. It is highly opposed to the current administration and it's attack on Christian values such as pro-life, sanctity of life, pro-marriage and religious liberties. Many good Christian men have signed it like Chuck Colson, Richard Land, Al Mohler, Wayne Grudem and many more. It's a long read but well worth your time, so I've attached the link. Press Kit - Manhattan Declaration Newsroom - DeMossNews.com

What do you all think the repercussions will be for this bold initiative by the visible church? Will it make a difference in America? Will you sign the declaration? Will you uphold what is in the declaration if pressed to do so by the government? This may the very thing needed today from the church to sepreate itself from the world, and return America back to the Christian nation it was founded as. :pilgrim:
 
As I see it the politicians in Washington know how we (Christians) feel, and they don’t care. I would not join an organization under the banner of Christ unless they were all Christian organizations and some of them are simply non-profits (not a church), and others are at best pseudo Christian organizations. There are some names I respect on this list, but not enough to attach my name to it.

I know we don’t need to agree on everything, so if John Macarthur and RC Sproul wanted to form a charitable group for a common cause I would be willing to join, but if it were the Catholic Church and RC Sproul/John Macarthur I would not. I would never link my Church to groups that deny the faith.

Sgt.
 
I was just going to post on this. One of the folks in my church brought this to my attention yesterday. There are some Reformed guys on there like Tim Keller, Bryan Chappel, and William Edgar. I'm still reading through it though. :2cents:
 
It has been circulated in our presbytery by one of our "older" elders (a TE) with the suggestion that we prayerfully consider signing it.
 
I know we don’t need to agree on everything, so if John Macarthur and RC Sproul wanted to form a charitable group for a common cause I would be willing to join, but if it were the Catholic Church and RC Sproul/John Macarthur I would not. I would never link my Church to groups that deny the faith.

Sgt.

:amen:
 
I have read through this thing 10 times now and I cannot reason (pun intended) why orthodox Reformed men would sign it.

-----Added 11/23/2009 at 06:38:34 EST-----

Every time I read this document I find more and more historical inaccuracies in the preamble. Did anyone fact check this thing?
 
I have read through this thing 10 times now and I cannot reason (pun intended) why orthodox Reformed men would sign it.

-----Added 11/23/2009 at 06:38:34 EST-----

Every time I read this document I find more and more historical inaccuracies in the preamble. Did anyone fact check this thing?

What inaccuracies?

And why should Reformed men not sign it?
 
I have read through this thing 10 times now and I cannot reason (pun intended) why orthodox Reformed men would sign it.

-----Added 11/23/2009 at 06:38:34 EST-----

Every time I read this document I find more and more historical inaccuracies in the preamble. Did anyone fact check this thing?

What inaccuracies?

And why should Reformed men not sign it?

For starters in the preamble:
"Papal edicts in the 16th and 17th centuries decried the practice of slavery..."

While "true" the historical fact is that Rome was just as much involved in the enslavement of peoples in this period as the people it supposedly was "decrying".

"In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings and successfully fought to establish the rule of law and balance of governmental powers, which made modern democracy possible. And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement. The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class."

While all of this is in some way "true" it is full of places that it could be torn apart at the seams by the very people to whom this document is trying to "speak".
 
... and return America back to the Christian nation it was founded as. :pilgrim:

Hmmm...I think this statement is highy questionable.

I would admit that the church has not done a great job in recent decades maintaining a biblical prophetic voice to our society and am sympathetic with those who desire to reclaim this.

However, this particular declaration fails, in my opinion

1. Because of its syncretism. Say what you will, but I am thoroughly persuaded that Romanists and Eastern Orthodox (and several suppsed evangelicals named in the signatures) are not and should not be regarded as Christians. The Word of God clearly tells us: "And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD." (2 Chronicles 19.2). How can we expect positive benefit from unholy alliances with the followers of Antichrist and other heretics?

2. For statements such as the following nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.
Christians should know better. Religious liberty is not the right to worship God however one desires. It is freedom to worship God according to his word. It is the plain teaching of Scripture (especially following the patterns of the godly kings of Judah) that idolaters ought not to be allowed to express their convictions publicly, either as individuals or as communities. This statement should not be supported.
 
2. For statements such as the following nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.
Christians should know better. Religious liberty is not the right to worship God however one desires. It is freedom to worship God according to his word. It is the plain teaching of Scripture (especially following the patterns of the godly kings of Judah) that idolaters ought not to be allowed to express their convictions publicly, either as individuals or as communities. This statement should not be supported.

Yes, that section on religious freedom was not worded very well.

But do you disagree with them that "no one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will"?

And where are they arguing that we have the right to worship "however one desires"? They clearly define "worship God" as the God who reveals himself in Christ, and its a declaration of professing Trinitarian Christians. Certainly we would not agree with how Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches worship, but they are not saying that anything goes.
 
I can understand some of you that have opposed this declaration on reason of not wanting to associate with parachurch organizations and Catholics, but looking past this, can't any of you see the importance of standing against the evil policies of this present administration? There comes a time when we are to do the greater good instead of allowing evil to rule at the sake of siding with those who we disagree on doctrine. We are not siding with them on doctrinal issues, but instead we are standing together in agreement that evil has flourished in America because the visible church has stood still while liberals have pushed their agendas down our throats.

As far as America being founded on Christian principles, I can't believe any reformed Christian would deny this. Just do a study of the early gov't documents and charters. Just do a study on Jonathan Edwards.

-----Added 11/23/2009 at 08:54:52 EST-----


Sorry, didn't see it. Thanks
 
Personally, I feel by attaching your signature to that document you legitimize romes claim as a christian church. The evil we as Reformed Christians ought to be fighting is rome and the perversion of the Christian Church.
 
and return America back to the Christian nation it was founded as. :pilgrim:
America, actually, in separating the church from the state. An undong, as it were, of the Edict of Milan. The church had been intertwined with the state since this time and n the light of the havoc this played with Europe it was the American experiment to seperate them for the first time. America was in no way a Christian nation, albeit it was a nation comprised of Christians.
If we are to affect social change then it must begin with the gospel. The compass that the world views must be affected by the truth of God. It cannot be mandated for His kingdom is not of this world. We shall never be able to legislate Christian ethics. This document is backwards as well politically motivated, albeit well intentioned. The founders had a view of the world that passed through the eyes of God via His Word, thus resting on Christian ethics. We cannot unite faiths that don't agree on fundamental issues on issues of faith. We cannot sign agreements with those whom we disagree. Any effort to do so will result in synchretism, whereby altering the truth of scripture.
 
I agree with Josh on his second point. But not the first.

If one was consistent in point one then you would give up the creeds "because people might think that you agree with Rome".

However I am troubled by the idea that I must defend the rights of non-christians to practice paganism. ( & by "non-christians" I mean people that do not baptise in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit".)
 
The declaration itself doesn't mention the Gospel, it does however mention how far away from truths in scripture, that we as reformed and catholic agree on, that this administration has made as it's platform of reforming America from what used to be a Christian influenced population to one that is now so immoral that it is revolting. I see the majority in here feel that can't sign this due to their disagreement with the Gospel and that is fine, but I'll bet you didn't even read the whole document. That is sad that you are so afraid of being identified with a catholic that you would pass up on something that may be of God.

-----Added 11/23/2009 at 10:52:08 EST-----

Where was this group then when the last evil administration was in operation?

Would that be Bush or Clinton?:rolleyes:
 
Joshua,

What I meant was that one won't sign because of a disagreement with the Gospel view, I worded it poorly, my fault, sorry.

I must ask though, did you read the whole declaration?
 
Here's a portion of Al Mohler's response as to 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.

So Joshua, it's great that you read it, but where did it proclaim the gospel?

-----Added 11/23/2009 at 11:35:44 EST-----

strike my last question Joshua, I just read your earlier post. Sorry again. I see where you disagree on the the general quote of the Gospel in the declaration and that you cannot sign because it doesn't differentiate between RC and reformed. But still the Gospel from either side isn't spelled out.
 
More from Al Mohler:

My beliefs concerning the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches have not changed. The Roman Catholic Church teaches doctrines that I find both unbiblical and abhorrent -- and these doctrines define nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But The Manhattan Declaration does not attempt to establish common ground on these doctrines. We remain who we are, and we concede no doctrinal ground.

But when Catholic Charities in Massachusetts chose to end its historic ministry of placing orphaned children in good homes because the State of Massachusetts required it to place children with same-sex couples, this is not just a Catholic issue. The orphanage could have easily been Baptist. When Belmont Abbey college in North Carolina is told by federal authorities that it must offer abortion services in its insurance plans for employees, this is no longer just a Catholic issue. The next institution to be under attack might well be Presbyterian. We are in this together, and we had better be thankful that, in this case, we are not alone.
 
I have read it, but have not parsed it in great detail.

One thing that strikes me about this document (as opposed to others) is that it seems to say nothing about articles of faith. In that sense it is vastly superior to the Evangelicals and Catholics Together nonsense.

I was also surprised by the number of opponents of ECT, and Reformed evangelicals that signed.
 
So Joshua, it's great that you read it, but where did it proclaim the gospel?
Dear Rick,

It did not proclaim the gospel, nor did I assert that it did. However, the "Gospel" was mentioned, and if it's a document that RCs and the Reformed are supposed to join together on, then there is not an explicit demarcation from the gospel of Rome and the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. So, despite the best intentions of the signers (and believe me, I'm not willing to have evil surmisings towards men such as Keller, Plantinga, Mohler, etc.), it leaves out a needed and sharp distinction between right and Rome. I believe such a demarcation needs to remain emphatically in place. That's one reason why, in good conscience, I would be unwilling (not afraid) to sign it.

Thanks and I'm OK with that. God Bless!
 
I think the very beginning of declaration speaks clearly as to who is standing together..it's NOT organizations...

So I guess I'm not understanding where anyone would be in agreement w/ "Rome" if they signed this declaration..

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities.
 
Rev. King stated:

"2. For statements such as the following nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.
Christians should know better. Religious liberty is not the right to worship God however one desires. It is freedom to worship God according to his word. It is the plain teaching of Scripture (especially following the patterns of the godly kings of Judah) that idolaters ought not to be allowed to express their convictions publicly, either as individuals or as communities. This statement should not be supported."

I'm not sure I understand. Wasn't Judah a theocracy? America isn't a theocracy, but I'll assume you are not speaking about America but instead the invisible church, is that correct?
 
I've been thinking about this since I saw all the hussle and bussle about it last week and I thought James White had some wisdom on this and said this better than I could:

The Troubling Aspects of the Manhattan Declaration
from Alpha and Omega Ministries,
The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James White


Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo*destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti*life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

These words conclude the Manhattan Declaration, promulgated November 20, 2009. There is much in this document that any serious-minded Christian not only can agree with, but simply must agree with. There is no question that the forces of secularism are moving quickly, under the guise of "social advancement" and "equal rights," to attack, denigrate, and, in their highest hopes and aspirations, relegate the Christian worldview to the trash heap of history. Evil men, and women, hold positions of power in Western societies, and since it is inevitably true that the Christian witness enrages those who love the darkness (John 7:7), they are doing all they can to subvert and silence that witness which so exposes their consciences. The general statements of the document relating to life, abortion, marriage, sexuality, and religious liberty, are well stated and timely. There is something reassuring in realizing that the concerns we have had are shared across a broad spectrum.

But there are a number of troubling things that I cannot get past in examining this document and considering its implications. When I see some of the leading ecumenists in the forefront of the documents' production, I am made uneasy, and for good reason. Great damage has been done to the cause of Christ by those who have sought to promote the Kingdom by compromising the gospel, the only power given to the church that can change hearts, and hence change societies. By relegating the gospel to a matter of opinion and difference, but not something that defines the Christian faith, these ecumenists have left their followers with a cause without power, a quest without a solution. And though their open-mindedness fits better with our current post-modern culture, from a biblical perspective, they have truly betrayed the apostolic example.

This document presents as Christianity ostensibly based upon bare Trinitarianism. I listened to Chuck Colson speak on the Hugh Hewitt program this afternoon. He made it very clear that this is, in fact, a theological document, despite the assertions of others that it is not. He was asked why Jews, Mormons, and others, were not invited to sign the document. He said they were not asked because this is a specifically Christian statement, quoting from the Christian scriptures. Once again we are led to the inevitable conclusion that "Christian" then is "Trinitarianism plus agreed upon historical truths such as the crucifixion and resurrection, but, most importantly, without any gospel content." It does no good to muddle this discussion with "Well, what about the medieval church" questions, since we are talking about a day and age when the issues are well known. We are not talking about a dark period of biblical ignorance. There is more light available today than ever before. And for many, the gospel is simply no longer part of the "non-negotiables."

But I am left confused by the inconsistency of the document. Mormons are not invited. Understandable, given that the LDS faith is the most polytheistic faith I've ever encountered. Trinitarians only need apply. I can fully understand that. So...why are we told toward the end of this Declaration that Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote from an explicitly Christian perspective? A brief visit to Martin Luther King's writings will reveal he was hardly orthodox even using the limited definition utilized by this Declaration. For example, writing in a paper while in seminary, Martin Luther King, Jr. said:

The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadaquate. To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental. To invest this Christ with such supernatural qualities makes the rejoinder: "Oh, well, he had a better chance for that kind of life than we can possible have." In other words, one could easily use this as a means to hide behind behind his failures. So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied.

So why put forth King as explicitly Christian, but not invite the Jehovah's Witnesses, who would "quite readily deny" the deity of Christ as well? Perhaps a document that identifies Papal actions as explicitly Christian actions can be excused for its inherent self-contradiction.

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.

This takes me back to my original response to the ECT document when it first came out. I have seen so many re-organize their priorities in light of having made "common cause" with those who have a false gospel all in the name of doing social good. I am glad Rome retains elements of God's truth and morality. But when did being good or moral bring one salvation, as if anyone is every truly good, or truly moral?

These are the matters that truly concern me about the Manhattan Declaration. Why does God have the right to determine human sexuality, marriage, and to define life itself? It all goes back to the gospel, does it not? If we are going to given a consistent, clear answer to our culture, we dare not find our power in a false unity that overshadows the gospel and cripples our witness.
 
Last edited:
I have read it, but have not parsed it in great detail.

One thing that strikes me about this document (as opposed to others) is that it seems to say nothing about articles of faith. In that sense it is vastly superior to the Evangelicals and Catholics Together nonsense.

I was also surprised by the number of opponents of ECT, and Reformed evangelicals that signed.

My thoughts exactly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top