The Manhattan Declaration

[NaphtaliPress]

Maybe some things in this to consider?

George Gillespie, "Another Most Useful Case Of Conscience Discussed And Resolved, Concerning Associations And Confederacies With Idolaters, Infidels, Heretics, Or Any Other Known Enemies Of Truth And Godliness," A Treatise Of Miscellany Questions (1649)

A treatise of miscellany questions ... - Google Books

 

[Ivan]

I know this is highly hypothetical, but if you (speaking collectively) could abolish abortion in the USA would you team with Muslims (or Mormons, JWs, Catholics, etc.) to do it?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

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

Would that be Bush or Clinton?

Both.

 

[SolaSaint]

I understand the reluctance of some in here to agree with this document and especially to sign it, but where I'm confused is the concern for what is good in the document and not the propossed bad (associating with non-Christian folks). I read Dr. White;s comments and understand his concerns, especially with the recent push for eccuminical oneness. However most of us think nothing of sending our kids to schools that teach not just non-Christian agendas, but anti-Christian ones as well. I'll assume there are many non-church activities we all do side-by-side with catholics and non-Christians without questioning their stance on the Gospel. So why do we get all flustered when asked to side with these same people against the immorality of this evil administration?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

However most of us think nothing of sending our kids to schools that teach not just non-Christian agendas, but anti-Christian ones as well. I'll assume there are many non-church activities we all do side-by-side with catholics and non-Christians without questioning their stance on the Gospel. So why do we get all flustered when asked to side with these same people against the immorality of this evil administration?

I'm not trying to shoot you down or anything. I agree with your zeal for righteousness. But I just wanted to clarify some things. First, most people on this board do in fact think quite a bit about sending our kids to public schools. That's why there are so many home and private schoolers here. Just want to correct a misperception on your part.

Most of us here hold to Reformed worldview. All of life is holy and to be lived in light of the gospel. And our prophetic voice in the culture is informed and founded on this Reformed worldview. Roman Catholicism and EO also have complete world and life views, which are at odds with our own. Yes there is overlap on some things, but the crucial core from which the whole worldviews is built is completely different. That's why many oppose uniting with them. We may agree on these issues, but we don't want to legitimize their false worldviews.


But, moving back to the thread, I think perhaps the crucial question is, do we still consider Papists and EO to be part of the visible Church? And if we still consider them part of the visible church, then why not join them over this matter of common Christian conviction? If we don't consider them part of the visible church, then I don't see how we can join them. Perhaps others can give their input on this...

 

[fredtgreco]

But, moving back to the thread, I think perhaps the crucial question is, do we still consider Papists and EO to be part of the visible Church? And if we still consider them part of the visible church, then why not join them over this matter of common Christian conviction? If we don't consider them part of the visible church, then I don't see how we can join them. Perhaps others can give their input on this...

Patrick,

This is an interesting comment. I don't want to completely derail the thread, but I think my question is relevant. (I have not decided about the Manhattan Statement itself)

If one accepts Roman (or EO, for that matter) baptism as valid baptism, wouldn't that mean that he does consider them a part of the visible church? And if we are willing to consider that level of "unity" or "fellowship" with Rome in a sacrament of the Church, then why would it not make sense to consider unity in cultural matters? As I think about this, I don't see how one could argue out of both sides of one's mouth, to wit: (1) Rome is sufficiently "gospel" or "Christian" to baptize, but (2) not sufficiently "Christian" to speak on marriage (a civil institution ordained by God).

Your thoughts?

 

[kevin.carroll]

I will not sign the declaration. While I appreciate some of its political goals, I am troubled by

1. The weight it gives to human reason as an overarching moral authority, and;

2. It's ecumenism. I am not sure I want to stand shoulder to shoulder with Rome for political ends. The ecclesiastical hazards are too great, in my opinion.

-----Added 11/24/2009 at 09:40:04 EST-----

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?

The problem is not with this administration, but with sin. Only the gospel can cure that, not dubious alliances for political purposes.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

But, moving back to the thread, I think perhaps the crucial question is, do we still consider Papists and EO to be part of the visible Church? And if we still consider them part of the visible church, then why not join them over this matter of common Christian conviction? If we don't consider them part of the visible church, then I don't see how we can join them. Perhaps others can give their input on this...

Patrick,

This is an interesting comment. I don't want to completely derail the thread, but I think my question is relevant. (I have not decided about the Manhattan Statement itself)

If one accepts Roman (or EO, for that matter) baptism as valid baptism, wouldn't that mean that he does consider them a part of the visible church? And if we are willing to consider that level of "unity" or "fellowship" with Rome in a sacrament of the Church, then why would it not make sense to consider unity in cultural matters? As I think about this, I don't see how one could argue out of both sides of one's mouth, to wit: (1) Rome is sufficiently "gospel" or "Christian" to baptize, but (2) not sufficiently "Christian" to speak on marriage (a civil institution ordained by God).

Your thoughts?

Actually Fred, I was hoping to get your thoughts

I haven't decided on whether to sign or not yet either. And this issue seems to me to be the crucial question (at least for me). Confessionally, we do accept their baptism. Hodge even argued that they were somehow part of the visible church. They do profess faith in Christ, they confess with the same historic Creeds (unlike Mormons, JW's etc.), though certainly they have heretical understandings about that profession. We also believe that the visible church is more or less pure, certainly the Papists and EO would be considered much less pure if we consider them part of the visible church at all.

But if we do consider them part of the visible church, and they are basically going to answer these 3 civil questions the same way we would, "what does the Triune God say in the Scriptures," (which they seem to be attempting in this document) I find it hard to refuse confessing this truth with them. It would be a "Christian" confession of the visible church about one of the things that are still pure within it. But if we don't consider them part of the visible church, again I don't see how we can join them. It would be equivalent to joining Muslims or Mormons.

Confessionally, it could go either way. We accept Roman baptism. But we do not allow our children to marry them because they are "idolaters" (perhaps a more relevant WCF chapter for this Declaration?). Anyway, just thinking out loud. I'd appreciate any input. I'm still wrestling with it....

 

[DMcFadden]

Knotty issues . . . all of them!

Francis Schaeffer used to speak of the principle of "co-belligerency." I will work with a Mormon, Papist, and even a . . . Presbyterian (mainline ) to stop a fire, prevent a flood, staunch an epidemic, or advocate for a signal light at a dangerous intersection.

The issue only becomes problematic for me when the "joint statement" incorporates a theological rationale that implies an acceptance of others' errors or involves me in a compromise of truth. So, yes, I would rather eschew some of the high flown rhetoric of ecumenism in favor of more modest language of shared concerns along co-belligerent lines.

Will I stand shoulder to shoulder with other Americans in opposing gay marriage, abortion, and euthanasia? You betcha. Will I enter into long theological declarations with those with whom our disagreements are as profound as are our shared beliefs? Nah.

Packer and Colson worry me at times (this one included). However, on balance, I'm sure glad that they stand in the public square rather than retreating to their study's.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Confessionally, it could go either way. We accept Roman baptism. But we do not allow our children to marry them because they are "idolaters" (perhaps a more relevant WCF chapter for this Declaration?). Anyway, just thinking out loud. I'd appreciate any input. I'm still wrestling with it....

We don't all accept Roman baptism. The RP Church historically did not; and it is now left at the option of the baptizer/baptized as to whether or not to be rebaptized upon conversion (not sure when that was changed). A young man raised in Romanism was rebaptized at his own insistence upon becoming a member of the Colorado Springs RPC in late 2003, shortly before I deployed from Fort Carson.

When we think of the three marks of a true church, how does Rome (or the Eastern churches, for that matter) measure up on any one of them? Especially the right preaching of the Word? If the sacraments are "visible gospel," and the gospel is denied and anathematized by them, how can their sacraments be valid? Is Trinitarianism the only mark of a true church?

Hope to see you tomorrow night, Patrick.

 

[SolaSaint]

The problem is not with this administration, but with sin. Only the gospel can cure that, not dubious alliances for political purposes.

Kevin,

Thanks for the reply but, I don't think the declaration was meant to be a cure for the sinfulness of our country. It's a proclamation that Christians won't bend a knee to their sinfulness; wouldn't you agree?

-----Added 11/24/2009 at 11:02:37 EST-----

Knotty issues . . . all of them!

Francis Schaeffer used to speak of the principle of "co-belligerency." I will work with a Mormon, Papist, and even a . . . Presbyterian (mainline ) to stop a fire, prevent a flood, staunch an epidemic, or advocate for a signal light at a dangerous intersection.

The issue only becomes problematic for me when the "joint statement" incorporates a theological rationale that implies an acceptance of others' errors or involves me in a compromise of truth. So, yes, I would rather eschew some of the high flown rhetoric of ecumenism in favor of more modest language of shared concerns along co-belligerent lines.

Will I stand shoulder to shoulder with other Americans in opposing gay marriage, abortion, and euthanasia? You betcha. Will I enter into long theological declarations with those with whom our disagreements are as profound as are our shared beliefs? Nah.

Packer and Colson worry me at times (this one included). However, on balance, I'm sure glad that they stand in the public square rather than retreating to their study's.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Confessionally, it could go either way. We accept Roman baptism. But we do not allow our children to marry them because they are "idolaters" (perhaps a more relevant WCF chapter for this Declaration?). Anyway, just thinking out loud. I'd appreciate any input. I'm still wrestling with it....

We don't all accept Roman baptism. The RP Church historically did not; and it is now left at the option of the baptizer/baptized as to whether or not to be rebaptized upon conversion (not sure when that was changed). A young man raised in Romanism was rebaptized at his own insistence upon becoming a member of the Colorado Springs RPC in late 2003, shortly before I deployed from Fort Carson.

When we think of the three marks of a true church, how does Rome (or the Eastern churches, for that matter) measure up on any one of them? Especially the right preaching of the Word? If the sacraments are "visible gospel," and the gospel is denied and anathematized by them, how can their sacraments be valid? Is Trinitarianism the only mark of a true church?

I didn't know that about the RP church. I knew some Southern Presbyterians took that position. I wrestle with those questions to. I do appreciate Thornwell's argument. Could the sacrament be visibly preaching the gospel, even though the church is not? Historically the Reformers and Westminster Divines seemed to think so, or at least the sacrament remained "Christian" enough to be considered legitimate.

Hope to see you tomorrow night, Patrick.

Look forward to seeing you too. And congrats on the new baby!

 

[PastorTim]

n response to questions which I have received as to whether I will sign this declaration I offer these thoughts. A few days ago many leaders of American churches (Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical) completed and became signatories to a document entitled "The Manhattan Declaration". This declaration speaks to the sanctity of life, the dignity of marriage between man and woman, religious liberty, rights of conscience and the need for social change on these matters. The points made on these matters are such that any Christian can, and must agree with, and they are also ones that I find myself passionate about , however they must be declared secondary to the gospel itself. This document does not do this.
Firstly, the signatories to this document (many of whom I respect greatly) do not even agree as to what the gospel is. By finding some neutral ground by which they can agree relegates it to a matter of opinion and not the very thing that defines our faith. This thereby renders us a cause without any power because the gospel is the power to change lives, and as such can change societies. To imply that the secular world has the power to advance on the kingdom of God is to speak of the sovereignty of God in an untrue light. We are to be reminded of when Elisha believed he was the only one left who followed God and how he was sternly shown him that God, himself, had reserved those who were His (1Kings 19). Jesus is on His throne and reigning over His kingdom, which is found within and without the kingdoms of this world. The powers of this world only have the power over those in God's kingdom, thus the kingdom itself, that is given them from above. (cf. John 19:11)
Secondly, to attempt to further merge church and state by mixing faith and politics is a proven disaster. In 313 AD, with the Edict of Milan, Emperor Constantine of Rome began to merge the church and the state, an act which proved detrimental to both. With the passage of time came synchretism, the blending of beliefs. To maintain peace the church needed to evolve into an institution that was more palatable to more people. As it gained more power with the people it become virtually indiscernable from the state and even exercised more authority over both. The history of Europe is packed with the bloody struggles between the church and the state. It was the Reformation and a return to biblical standards that dismantled this relationship. Learning from the history they were escaping, the puritans came to America to establish an experiment whereby the church and the state would be entirely different institutions, to truly establish a New World. You cannot legislate ethics, for those very ethics will be determined by the legislators. The church's failure to remain true to its task, and stay out of the state's business, is what has allowed the ethics to deteriorate. By mixing roles it has done neither well. We, as prophetic voices to the people, by the power of the gospel, can determine those ethics whether the state is in agreement or not. Our kingdom is not of this world. To attempt to synchretize the gospel itself by joning those who disagree together on some "common" ground only does the work of the state by taking away the power of the gospel. Any attempt to merge the church and the state will only destroy and corrupt the church. They are too closely tied already whereby creating churches that look more American than Christian. The full seperation of church and state is the ideal that forged this nation and is critical to the success of both.
Thirdly, the document opens early on with a declaration that it is by "trinitarian" Christians. Rightly so, the writers had a deep sense of the importance of defining Christianity, but in an effort to include those they needed to effect influence they did so simply along the lines of belief in the trinity. Interestingly enough, this was the issue of the Council of Nicea's role in defining Christianity, also a work of Emperor Constantine in 325 AD. They also cited Martin Luther King, Jr and his work, one who claimed that "to say that the Christ...is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental". He does not meet their own criteria, yet again, his name works in merely looking for those who can effect influence. I must reiterate that it is the true gospel alone that can effect influence.
Charles Spurgeon once said that "To pursue union at the expense of truth is treason to the Lord Jesus". Following this I must answer the initial question with an emphatic NO. How can I be a signatory of an an agreement with those whom I do not agree with on many core foundational Christian teachings, mainly that of what is the gospel itself. I urge those who are passionate on these matters to rely upon the heavenly power of the gospel by proclaiming it, rather than on the power of the state. If we do our part in this, we can, and will, change the world. We've done it before.

 

[Romans922]

If you are in the PCA, don't worry about this declaration, just continue favoring the PCA's support of NAE.

 

[greenbaggins]

I cannot sign this document, as much as I am in sympathy both for the majority of what it says, and also what it is trying to do. This quotation alone would nix the project for me:

Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good.

This is way too vague to be of much help. What is the Gospel of costly grace?

Now, against those who would say that this document would throw us together with Rome doctrinally, or even with regard to ambiguity, I would respond by saying that this is not a churchly document. The document itself makes quite clear that the signatories are not speaking for their respective organizations. Theoretically, then, with respect even to the point raised above, one could sign it in the sense of retaining one's own understanding of what the phrase "Gospel of costly grace" means. Undoubtedly, that is what many have done. However, because the relationship of the Gospel to these three particular social issues is not spelled out, I cannot agree with all of it. At the very least, the document is vague in a place where it should have been clear. It could easily, for instance, have included something like this: "We believe that the Gospel has implications for these social issues, even though we do not agree on the substance of the Gospel among ourselves." This could have alleviated much of the discomfort that I'm seeing among PB members, and I bet PB'ers aren't the only ones.

 

[steadfast7]

How about looking at this issue sociologically/psychologically ... just for a moment.

Imagine 90% of Orthodox Trinitarians in America sign the document in agreement to what it basically is, not a document speaking primarily of unity in theological traditions, but as a document speaking out against the encroaching secularism of the state. 10% refuse because they want no association with another group in the fold.

What will the world think?
"Ain't that something, for once the Christians agree about something. Wait a sec ... what's up with them? Aren't they Christians?"
"Yeah, but they disagree with some of the others on matters of doctrine"
"But don't they agree with the stuff the document was talking about?"
"Yeah, they pretty much do."
"Oh, so they agree about some things in private, but they don't want to be associated with one another in pubic."

In my humble opinion, the world doesn't care about the finer points of theology and our family squabbles, but it is interested to see whether we, who believe in a Tri-une deity, will even attempt to demonstrate what that might look like in society. I think there are enough verses in the bible to support the idea that Christians should, in some ways, be mindful about how the world views us when they look at us, especially when it comes to unity.

What does it look like when Christians refuse to demonstrate their agreement on things that they DO agree on, because of the things they don't agree on? According to this rationale, would you refuse to sign the Nicene creed, because that would lump us together with Rome and the East?

 

[jogri17]

I would sign my name without hesitation along side of the most evil and vile heretic as long as the statement was not about theology but about taking action. That being said as a hopeful future pastor I could not in good conscience sign it because that would violate my vocation as being an ambassador of the Kingdom of God in a special way. If you have a secular vocation (as Colson, Packer, etc... do) then it is acceptable but if you are a pastor then I think getting involved in politics (of either the left or right) is a confusion of the two kingdoms.

 

[gene_mingo]

I know this is highly hypothetical, but if you (speaking collectively) could abolish abortion in the USA would you team with Muslims (or Mormons, JWs, Catholics, etc.) to do it?

That and more. I would stand with anyone of any religion to end abortion, but I will not affirm them as my christian brothers in order to show solidarity.

-----Added 11/24/2009 at 03:51:52 EST-----

In my humble opinion, the world doesn't care about the finer points of theology and our family squabbles, but it is interested to see whether we, who believe in a Tri-une deity, will even attempt to demonstrate what that might look like in society. I think there are enough verses in the bible to support the idea that Christians should, in some ways, be mindful about how the world views us when they look at us, especially when it comes to unity.

In my humble opinion, I don't care what the world thinks of me. My concern is how God views me.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

This document purports to be Christian, and yet Christ doesn't get a mention until the 9th paragraph. They spend all that time talking about themselves.

I parsed that far, and I quit. There are so many questionable statements on just the first page. Beside the questionable historical statements already mentioned, there is the "progressive" political and social "achievements" that are simply assumed as positive developments, with no discernable nuance.

But in the end, it is the "common cause" religion--which is indiscipherable, deliberately so--that means I cannot in good conscience publicly align myself. Why is this necessary anyway? Do we not already publicly stand for righteousness? Why is it necessary to affirm a common confession, especially one that is so vague it cannot speak of the Law of God ("thou shalt not kill"), but instead resorts to loose statments regarding the positive value of the "image of God"?

And if it is a creed of sorts (it is), then it needs clarity, not vagueness as to the foundation. Neither Christ, nor his gospel is foundational to this document. But rather, the works of people called Christians, regardless of their fidelity to the Christ of the gospel.

 

[ADKing]

Those who are truly concerned, as I believe we should be, to bring the claims of God's word to bear on our nation would do well to study documents in which this was done well in the past. The Covenanters in the UK and our own country have left us a great legacy. For an American Covenanter, check out the newly published: Politcal Danger

Political Danger

We need to address or society from a distinctly and self-consciusly Christian perspective, recognizing the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ. Anything less is attacking the symptoms and not the cause, in my opinion.

 

[WAWICRUZ]

JMac has also declined on the document: The Manhattan Declaration

Where the Gospel is not preached, no Christian unity is to be had.

 

[Kaalvenist]

I didn't know that about the RP church. I knew some Southern Presbyterians took that position. I wrestle with those questions to. I do appreciate Thornwell's argument. Could the sacrament be visibly preaching the gospel, even though the church is not? Historically the Reformers and Westminster Divines seemed to think so, or at least the sacrament remained "Christian" enough to be considered legitimate.

Aside from the other sections of the Confession already mentioned, I would also refer to Chapter 25, Section 5:

The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will.

I've always understood this to have at least partial reference to the Romish church (hence frequent reference in Puritan days to the "Romish synagogue," etc.).

It should also be noted that the Scottish General Assembly received the Westminster Confession of Faith, not as replacing, but in addition to, the Scots Confession of 1560 -- to which they were and are still bound, according to the terms of the National Covenant, or Second Scots Confession:

Article XVIII. Of the Notes, by the which the True Kirk is Discerned from the False, and Who shall be Judge of the Doctrine.

Because that Satan from the beginning has laboured to deck his pestilent synagogue with the title of the kirk of God, and has inflamed the hearts of cruel murderers to persecute, trouble, and molest the true kirk and members thereof, as Cain did Abel; Ishmael, Isaac; Esau, Jacob; and the whole priesthood of the Jews, Christ Jesus himself, and his apostles after him; it is a thing most requisite that the true kirk be discerned from the filthy synagogue, by clear and perfect notes, lest we, being deceived, receive and embrace to our own condemnation the one for the other. The notes, signs, and assured tokens whereby the immaculate spouse of Christ Jesus is known from that horrible harlot, the kirk malignant; we affirm are neither antiquity, title usurped, lineal descent, place appointed, nor multitude of men approving an error; for Cain in age and title was preferred to Abel and Seth; Jerusalem had prerogative above all places of the earth, where also were the priests lineally descended from Aaron; and greater multitude followed the scribes, Pharisees, and priests, than unfeignedly believed and approved Christ Jesus and his doctrine; and yet, as we suppose, no man (of whole judgment) will grant that any of the forenamed were the kirk of God.

The notes, therefore, of the true kirk of God we believe, confess, and avow to be: first, the true preaching of the word of God, into the which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles do declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, which must be annexed unto the word and promise of God, to seal and confirm the same in our hearts; last, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God's word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed, and virtue nourished. Wheresoever then these former notes are seen, and of any time continue (be the number never so few, about two or three) there, without all doubt, is the true kirk of Christ: who, according to his promise is in the midst of them: not that universal (of which we have before spoken) but particular; such as were in Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, and other places in which the ministry was planted by Paul, and were of himself named the kirks of God.

And such kirks we, the inhabitants of the realm of Scotland, professors of Christ Jesus, confess ourselves to have in our cities, towns, and places reformed; for the doctrine taught in our kirks is contained in the written word of God: to wit, in the books of the New and Old Testaments: in those books, we mean, which of the ancient have been reputed canonical, in the which we affirm that all things necessary to be believed for the salvation of mankind are sufficiently expressed. The interpretation whereof, we confess, neither appertains to private nor public person, neither yet to any kirk for any preeminence or prerogative, personal or local, which one has above another; but appertains to the Spirit of God, by the which also the scripture was written.

When controversy then happens, for the right understanding of any place or sentence of scripture, or for the reformation of any abuse within the kirk of God, we ought not so much to look what men before us have said or done, as unto that which the Holy Ghost uniformly speaks within the body of the scriptures, and unto that which Christ Jesus himself did, and commanded to be done. For this is a thing universally granted, that the Spirit of God (which is the Spirit of unity) is in nothing contrary unto himself. If then the interpretation, determination, or sentence of any doctor, kirk, or council, repugn to the plain word of God written in any other place of scripture, it is a thing most certain, that there is not the true understanding and meaning of the Holy Ghost, supposing that councils, realms, and nations have approved and received the same. For we dare not receive and admit any interpretation which directly repugns to any principal point of our faith, or to any other plain text of scripture, or yet unto the rule of charity.

The last portion of Article 29 of the Belgic Confession, "Of the Marks of the True Church, and wherein She Differs from the False Church," is here quite appropriate, as well, as it refers directly to the Romish church:

As for the false Church, she ascribes more power and authority to herself and her ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit herself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does she administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his Word, but adds to and takes from them, as she thinks proper; she relieth more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those, who live holily according to the Word of God, and rebuke her for her errors, covetousness, and idolatry. These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.

The thing that tended to confirm this position for me was the fact that, as an Historicist, I understand the Revelation to describe the true church under the figure of a pure, virgin bride; and the Romish church under the figure of the filthy, Babylonish whore. Regardless of the eschatological opinions of those on this Board, it is incontestable that this was the opinion of all of the Protestant Reformers, and of virtually all Protestants until the 19th century.

Simply put, the bride and the whore are two entirely distinct entities. They cannot be confused one for another. How can their sacraments be confused?

Look forward to seeing you too. And congrats on the new baby!

Thank you! Laura is still recovering... Olivia was a little over 11 lbs, so she had to be delivered by Caesarean. Her baptism will be the Lord's Day after next.

 

[historyb]

I signed it yesterday

 

[awretchsavedbygrace]

The Manhattan Declaration


Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009




(By John MacArthur)


Here are the main reasons I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration, even though a few men whom I love and respect have already affixed their names to it:


• 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. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.


• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously. 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.


• Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.


• The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.


• This is neither a novel approach nor a strategic stand for evangelicals to take. It ought to be clear to all that the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless Faith. I stand by what I wrote then.


In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly 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. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.


John MacArthur

 

[Reformed Rush]

My wife and I will not sign this declaration, for we refuse to associate ourselves with the programs and efforts of the Roman Catholic Church, in any way.

 

[SolaSaint]

Thanks for that post Julio, I respect John MacArthur a lot and I see he has placed the same concerns about the Gospel in his response as many on the PB have. I already signed the declaration and have no remorse for doing so, but I do respect what you all have said and I feel I should press on with a more respectful view of the Gospel in the future. Thanks for all the helpful replies and please bear with me as I grow in Christ in a reformed way which is new to me.

 

[john_Mark]

I did not sign it. Nor do I believe I will.

 

[Herald]

I will not sign it. The most effective way for the church to oppose evil in the world is walk in the Spirit, and for ministers of the gospel to preach the gospel in power and truth.
That said, I do pray that God uses the Manhattan Declaration for His purpose, just I pray He uses all means and methods to glorify Himself, but I will not be tendering my signature to this document.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I really like John MacArthur, and have learned a great deal from his teaching and commentaries. I respect his views on the Manhattan Declaration (posted above), but it seems his main objection is that it is too broadly ecumenical and not Gospel-centered. I agree with both of those comments, but are they grounds to reject the document as a whole? The purpose of the Manhattan Declaration isn't to proclaim the Gospel directly, but to use the Gospel as a foundation for addressing these social issues. The assumption of the document is that the Gospel is the focus of our lives. It seems the point of the MD is simply to affirm truths that should be obvious in the Bible.

I don't really have a problem with those who sign it or those who don't. I'm just not sure I follow MacArthur's logic regarding the lack of Gospel presentation, since that wasn't the purpose of the paper....

 

[Herald]

I really like John MacArthur, and have learned a great deal from his teaching and commentaries. I respect his views on the Manhattan Declaration (posted above), but it seems his main objection is that it is too broadly ecumenical and not Gospel-centered. I agree with both of those comments, but are they grounds to reject the document as a whole?

2 Corinthians 6:14-15 14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?

Why would I muddy the definition of the gospel by joining with others, through my signature, that deny the biblical gospel? No. I would rather preach Christ from the pulpit. That does not mean I would not sign a biblically based document that calls on our nation to repent and believe, but I've yet to see such a document.

I don't really have a problem with those who sign it or those who don't. I'm just not sure I follow MacArthur's logic regarding the lack of Gospel presentation, since that wasn't the purpose of the paper....

Then the purpose of the declaration was faulty. The church does not exist to proclaim moralism. It exists to proclaim repentance and faith in Christ alone.