To sign or not to sign the Manhattan Declaration(MD)? That… is a good question.
For the most part it seems to have been received on a positive note. There has been some push back though. For example, Albert Mohler felt the need to explain why he signed the MD. Fellow blogger Frank Turk explained why he did not sign. I will attempt to lay out my stance on this document. (Which basically agrees with those in the update below.)
As it is now, I stand more in agreement with Turk. It is not that the MD is not seeking noble causes. Social change is also important and Christians should be involved. In a recent article Obama, abortion, health care, Solomon’s wisdom I said the following.
Of course, simply changing a law will not change someone’s heart. Though laws can make it more difficult to commit such an act. Changing a law could help someone consider what they are actually doing when getting an abortion. There is no harm in pursuing dialogue on such an immoral act via a change of law.
The answer for Christians is, of course, the Gospel of Jesus Christ which does change hearts. Since we live under a form of government that allows citizens to be involved and cause change the right moral thing to do is press on against abortion.
Christians will partner with those whom they do not theologically agree. This could be non-Christians or groups defined as Christian sociologically. These groups may work politically toward certain moral laws that are seen as best for society. For the Christian in these instances the Gospel should always be the grounding doctrine for why they act for such change. However, when Christians get politically involved the Gospel sometimes (many times?) gets blurred. The outside world gets the wrong idea of what is a Christian. There are also times when different groups with different Gospels unite for certain causes which again, in my opinion, blur the Gospel.
This is what I believe the Manhattan Declaration does.
There is an impressive list of religious leaders who have signed. For better or for worse, this should not automatically persuade one to sign. The full document along with those leaders who have signed can be found at The Manhattan Declaration & Signers. I would like to point out a few instances that give me pause in signing that have to do with the Gospel.
The Preamble states.
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 a good position from which to start. It grounds the motivation for such positions in the Gospel. The question becomes as one continues reading – Which Gospel?
Right after in the Declaration it reads.
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.
These three traditions in general do not share a common faith neither historically nor as their current theological positions stand. This statement also lends itself for me to declare, as an individual Christian, not on behalf of my organization, that I have disagreements with statements pertaining to the Gospel in this document.
We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences…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. May God help us not to fail in that duty.
These statements seem to further clarify the attempted unity of different Gospels from which to work. The statements demand a clear definition of the Gospel or there is no real foundation from which to build. The differences also seem to go beyond simple ecclesial differences to foundational differences.
Under Marriage.
Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to “a more excellent way.” As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it.
Another Gospel statement. Whose more excellent way? Which path?
Under Religious Liberty.
The nature of religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself, the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ.
This life and work of Jesus is, again, a proclamation of the Gospel. It demands a clear definition.
Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel.
Fine. We should all proclaim the Gospel. Which one? If these “ecclesial” lines can line up together in the Gospel without confusion then this statement and the others make sense. If not, where does the real agreement lie? My vote based on the way the MD is written brings confusion rather than clarity.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself.
There is no doubt that King was used in a great way for positive political and societal change. The historical record stands. However, when it comes to the Gospel there is another record that stands. King’s own theological writings. For example, a section from Stanford’s King Encyclopedia quotes King.
At the age of 13 I shocked my Sunday School class by denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus. From the age of thirteen on doubts began to spring forth unrelentingly. At the age of fifteen I entered college and more and more could I see a gap between what I had learned in Sunday School and what I was learning in college. This conflict continued until I studied a course in Bible in which I came to see that behind the legends and myths of the Book were many profound truths which one could not escape. [emphasis mine]
In King’s The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus the encyclopedia states.
As he had done in his earlier outline of William Newton Clarke’s An Outline of Christian Theology, King dismisses the conception of an inherent divinity in Jesus and concludes: “The true significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit [of] God.” [emphasis mine]
Those are two examples of King’s theology of which none of the above ecclesial bodies would agree. It is not know whether or not King changed his views later in life to embrace orthodox Christianity. Again, there is no denial of the great moral social and political change King was instrumental in causing. Yet, these historical statements from King deny the Gospel. It is yet another example of blurring the Gospel in this document.
The intention of this post is not to impugn my brothers and sisters in Christ. It is to express another view from one whose conscience says “no” to signing this document. Agree or disagree, I’ve expressed my concerns. If another Christian can sign with a clear conscience they are free to do so. Disagreeing with signing this document should not break fellowship. It should further healthy debate.
Iron sharpens iron.
Update: Others who declined signing
tagged as Manhattan Declaration in Church Issues,Culture
About the author
Mark is a Christian, husband and father. He is a businessman attending seminary in the off hours working on his M.Div. preparing for vocational ministry.
{ 82 comments… read them below or add one }
Next Comments →
Matt, I would actually be more comfortable signing the document if it were just a politically moral stance without blurring the gospel. Then, when someone asked me why I signed I could share the Gospel as the reason.
To get an idea of where your thoughts are, who would be them? What do you mean by partner? What do you think the wrong idea would be?
If you read James White's The Troubling Aspects of the Manhattan Declaration he states.
The comments by Colson and the document itself seem to fall under the definition of “gospel event.” That is basically my objection as (hopefully) is seen in the quotes above.
Could you show how the MD is not laid out as a gospel event?
I appreciate the clarity of your argument… To be upfront, I lean towards agreeing with Mohler.
Let me ask you this; if this document was not supposedly a “Christian/gospel document”, but rather one that included lost people, would you sign it then?
I feel like following the logic of most of the arguments I have heard that don't agree with signing the MD would lead one to reject ever voting for a political party and reject every document that isn't the Bible… This would include the declaration of independence, partnering with anyone that doesn't have your theological convictions.
I understand not signing this document, but the logic is what concerns me. “Dont partner with them, people could get the wrong idea.” Isn't that what has happened with Christians voting republican- “religious right.” People get the wrong idea(thinking we put all our eggs in one basket), but that doesnt make us stop voting…
While I strongly disagree with Catholics and do believe their “gospel” is false, it seems to me that it is no different to partner with them than it is to partner with professing lost people.
In that particular line- “Don't partner with them, people could get the wrong idea” I was quoting your logic and others.. In your case wouldnt it be Catholics? In other ways “them” could be lost people political parties.
“partner”- as in sign a document in order to work with to accomplish a specific goal. example- I wont partner with Catholics when it comes to a “gospel event” but when it comes to signing a political document then I am all for it.
Does that clear things up?
I think Mohler says it best,
“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.”
Is Dr. Mohler correct? Colson was one of the drafters of the MD and said it is a theological doc. The problem is that the “limited statements” speak to the Gospel. The document implicitly finds common ground in the Gospel.
I second the LOL. For different reasons. Isn't is conservatives who mainly argue for original intent? I.e. framers of the US Constitution? “Christian” nation? Etc… I am just pointing out by the words of one of the drafters of the MD just what the intent was.
Also, see Dan's comment below.
lol… Well, I think he is correct.
Part of the problem is people can sign it for 2 different reasons. One person can read it and think, “for theological reasons I can sign this.” While another person says, “while I disagree with some theology, because the action is politically based and not theologically based, I can sign this.”
One person writing it can think, “I am writing a theological document.” While another thinks, “I am writing a political document.” I think we have to consider it political because it is addressing political issues in a political way. It isnt calling people to believe the gospel, its calling people to take action on 2 specific political issues.
Matt, you are still missing the objection. Let's take your example about house building.
Would you hand out a pamphlet about house building that has the Pope's and your picture on it? One that also says something like “Building Homes Together for the Gospel – We will build your home for the Gospel of Christ.” “To schedule your building please call Matt or the local diocese.”
Based on the quotes in my post and the author's words that is what I see as the underlying foundation of the MD.
If we can't even agree what we are disagreeing on then we aren't going to get much further.
Honestly, it doesn't matter in my opinion. It can be the most theologically sound document in the world, but if Catholics have signed it, it's not conducive to good evangelism. Our goal is to reach people with Christ, not good social justice. They are not the same thing.
I'm not saying that they are the same.
Listen, if a catholic want to build a house for a homeless family I am not going to say, “I will not partake because you believe a false gospel.” I would help a lost person! Doesn't Jesus say, “what we do to the least these who do to him?” Did he ever say anything about only doing those things if everyone around is Christian? I think not…
Partnering with catholics to build a house, fight abortion, etc does not make people confused about the gospel… Not partnering with catholics to build a house, my scenario above, just makes us look like an ass and yes, it is a bit pharisaical.
Dont come at me with, “preaching the gospel and social justice arent the same thing.” I know this, preach this and live this out. Nothing I have said says otherwise. Please, dont act like myself, Mohler, or any other Christians that think signing this is good dont know the difference between reaching people with Christ and giving people out shirts.
Well, I didn't know I was arguing with you. I apologize for offending. I appreciate also that you live out the difference between the Gospel and social justice. I just disagree. I hope you can be ok with that.
I sure can… If not, I would of been in deep depression a long time ago..lol
(and I apologize for confusion… Due to Marks comment I thought yours was directed at me.)
I don't think MD is an inerrant document. If we wrote it, all of us would have written it somewhat differently. There are certainly things I would have left out or added–but, that doesn't mean it would be better. It is always easier to find flaws in something than to take the initiative to do something. You are free to disagree with MD, of course. Just wanted to put my two cents worth in. If you'd like to read my take see: http://mountain-top-musings.blogspot.com/
Is the Pope as good looking as I am?
Seriously, though, I would not. I dont think that is what the document is doing. I think that is what “Evangelicals and Catholics Coming Together” does, but not this document, necessarily. I could be wrong. There is a reason why I havent yet signed it, but I have no problem with those who are. I dont think people are going to shipwreck their faith or believe a false gospel purely because Mohler signed it.
I am amazed how shallow people are being about this whole issue. It's not like we are planting churches together or anything, we're merely joining together for a limited scope of issues (3 to be exact) for political expediency.
I think reading Os Guiness's Case for Civility (http://bit.ly/4JRtry) would do detractors a lot of good in understanding how their brethren (many of whom are respected leaders even) can, in good conscious, sign this agreement.
Matt you are missing it. The declaration repeatedly dumps all “Christians” in to the evangelical basket. It is not the civil/moral substance of the declaration. It is calling those who are not Christians, Christians. Period.
What if it were a distinctly Reformed document that was open to all signers? The fact is that most of those who signed outside the Reformed camp would not even think of it. So it really is not the substance that is at issue, it is the compromising of the Gospel that is. It doesn't matter that we agree upon abortion, it is that RCC's are not Christians nor are the Orhodox, period, nor many others who call themselves Christian. White makes the good point, can Mormons sign this? Why not? And why didn't it invite all those who are non-othordox in their faith, even non-Christians? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the fullness of the conservative moral majority on line, Christian or not? As far as politics goes, I don't care what the person believes as far as their core faith is concerned. What I care about is if they support my agend, politcally. So why, with this political declaration, didn't the crafters invite all moral conservatives? The point is as Mark said, it is an ecclesiatical declaration and theologically based in ecumenicalism, a throw-back to Hegelian principles of idealism which is still as poisionous today as when it sparked the conflagrations of the Twentieth Century
Wes, I can't believe how shallow you're being, it is like they are trying to plant a new church, a worldwide one. You just can't see it. Think about my question, or maybe let me rewrite the document: We Reformed Believers, even though we reject as non-Christian, Roman Catholic and Orthodox belief, and even though many so called evangelicals are also unorthodox or heretical, we join with them blah, blah, blah…
Would that work?
The declaration does work if the ecclesiastical magic tricks are removed. It is the prestidigitation, that is the problem. We should not be so easily snared into agreeing with the enemies definitions through slight of hand. That is just being stupid.
Yep, but that point needs a bit of sharping as well as some glasses and better reading ability.
“To be upfront, I lean towards agreeing with Mohler.”
Hi Matt,
I also found Scott Klusendorf's article to be helpful.
Thomas,
I'm not missing it. I understand everything you said.
I merely disagree that it “compromises the gospel.” No one is going to believe a false gospel just because Mohler signed this document. Its nonsense to think that people will.
A lady just spilled her drink… A priest helped her clean up the mess.. No worries, I didnt help- I dont want to compromise the gospel.
(yes, this is a joke/shot.) Point being- helping in these matters doesnt compromise the gospel. Even if Catholics call themselves “christians.”
lol…
I totally think it applies. The argument goes, “Partnering with this compromises the gospel.” I just showed that it didn't. If we had both helped the lady we would of both said it was because Christ in us. I would disagree with him in his case, but I would still help the lady. That lady wouldnt believe a false gospel simply because the Priest and I both helped her. Whatever happened to believing in the sovereignty of God?
Matt,
Scroll Up and look at my comment to you that links to Scott Klusendorf's article.
I know this just shows that I wasted my day, but I have changed my mind…lol
I just had the thought, “Would I accept this exact same document if it was with prosperity gospel churches, rather than Catholics?” My immediate answer was *&&$^*#^$(# NO!
Therefore, I realize if I am not willing to unite the term “christian” with them, then I shouldnt be willing with Catholics either. I do think it would compromise the gospel if I united with prosperity gospel preachers, therefore, I see my inconsistency.
lol… This has been fun. Good day people, good day.
Matt,
It is not what some might believe, it is what we believe. We do not believe what the RCC and the Orthodox do and we will be judge by our clarity, not how someone takes what we say. I don't for a minute believe that anyone will believe a false Gospel because Mohler or anyone else signed. But I am concerned that in blurring the distinction we confirm what is not in agreement with Scripture and endorse a false Gospel by negation.
How about my question? Do you think anyone would sign on to an open document that is exclusivistically Reformed who is not reformed ? And do you agree that even as open as this document is, it is exclusive of some groups that are also our allies in the fight for conservative values? And why wouldn't we want them on the team?
And no, Jesus didn't say “what you do for the least of these.” He said “what you do for the least of these, my brothers.” It pays to get it right. Drop the delimiter and you're a welfarite, keep it and you believe in the love of the brethren in fellowship and mutual accountability. And no, I wouldn't help a Catholic build a house for the homeless. Carteesque building programs dis-incentivise the reasons behind self industry.
It is not partnering with those opposed to the Gospel Matt, it is the diminution of the Gospel itself that is at stake. I would have voted for Romney if it had not have been for the fact that he lied to the nation. If I have I would have showed solidarity with him as a Republican, but not as a Mormon. I can partner with him as an American, as a Republican, as a conservative, but in the matters of faith, I can neither honor him as a believer, or join him in his beliefs. The MD, does both.
You've shown nothing.
Are you at the bar again?
I used to witness in bars.
Only for a few hours at a time, but I would leave before I slurred the Gospel or started to not walk in the straight and narrow.
Now, with your last “good-day” post am I to think of you?
I love you man…
An excellent message my pastor preached: “A Rebuke of the Manhattan Declaration Signers,” http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermo…
He also issued this statement:
A Short Statement in Response to the Manhattan Declaration
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.
Ralph Ovadal, Pastor of Pilgrims Covenant Church, Monroe, Wisconsin, http://www.pccmonroe.org/
About all I can say after reading this last comment is the immortal words of General McAuliffe in WW II, “Nuts!” Disagree with the signing–don't sign yourself–I can see someone sincerely taking that view, but popish error and treason? Yet, if you are truly born again, then you are my brother. I acknowledge that, though you will likely brand me of dubious parentage.
People, we better get a clue that this in-fighting is exactly what our enemy wants from us. It is repulsive to me that pastors denigrate others of faith because they don't believe exactly the way they do. That is exactly what the Pharisees did and you will recall that Jesus had some pretty strong words for them! This manifesto is the first effort by the church to address what is going on in our country today by loudly proclaiming that Jesus is Lord and His ways are the right ways and we had better stand up as a God-fearing community before it is too late. I willingly stand with others who have faith in Jesus Christ and I don't care if they are Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Catholic, or any other denomination. I doubt very much that when we stand before Jesus to account for our lives He is going to ask us if we only associated with those who believed exactly the way we did. I went to a very “famous” pastors church for over 10 years and I found it to be the most unloving and ungodly institution I have ever been to. The ugliness of the legalism has damaged so many earnest seekers of Christ. And what do you know, he has come out against this manifesto. May You, O Lord, have mercy on us and on this country. And I ask this is the mighty and powerful name of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen!
I predict that 2010 is Mohler's last year preaching at the Shepherd's Conference, just like you haven’t seen the Ligonier folks since MacArthur's “Self-respecting Premill Calvinist” sermon. One must observe and question the increasingly lonely position of MacArthur within the true Church: that is not a good symptom. Christ’s rebuke to the church at Ephesus seems to apply more and more to MacArthur.
Wow, what a sad, sad line of posts. The Gospel will never need my defense, the unborn babies do. Whether you sign or not, few of these comments give me cause for hope of help from this corner of the world in taking practical action to make a difference in our generation.
Don,
Don't be a fool… These comments dont say much to you at all. Don't pretend the people here “don't take practical action to make a difference in our generation.” Your heart is quick to judge and it is pharisaical. You have no idea what I, and others, here have done to advance God's kingdom in our generation. Or what we have done “practically” to make a difference. I for one, have worked for and volunteered at multiple Crisis Pregnancy Centers, I have helped raise money to fight abortion, I have given money to fight abortion, I have taught abstinence and STD awareness in urban settings, and I could go on and on… I would bet that for my age, I have done a heck of a lot more than most people and here you come in like the “holier-than-thou” guy trying to judge people because of a few comments on one comment thread.
You want to see something that should give you little hope in making a difference in reaching our generation? Go look in the mirror. I know some of these men personally and I know their hearts, you are absolutely clueless about us and here you are judging. It is the pharisaical heart that gives us little reason to hope.
You are correct. I don't know the things any of you have done. I only know what you sound like in this thread. Maybe that will be useful to you in how you choose to write in a forum that is open to all without the benefit of knowing your background.
As to my being a fool, holier-than-thou and pharisaical … you seem to know more about me than I do about you.
I find this dialogue very invigorating. I have not signed the MD, because I need some time to fully digest it before I decide what to do. This thread has given me lots to chew on!
I heard Colson on the Hewitt Show and I have to say that I didn't hear him casting the MD as a creed or confession, as theological definition. He compared it to the Barman Declaration of 1934, which is in the PC(USA) book of Confessions (improperly so IMO, but that is another matter). Colson said that the MD is the chruch saying there is a line that we won't crosson three cultural issues. It should be noted that a plurality of America would not define any of these issues as key cultural issues. But for Christians, they often are. Our theology informs (or it should) all of life, and so we can't help it when we Christians bring God into any discussion. To that extent it is theological, in much the same way speaking is about inhaling oxygen and exhaling CO2.
There is (barely I will admit) enough common gound with RCC and OC theologically to make a positive stand in favor of these specifica cultural values.
One final note. I lean toward being reformed, I like TULIP and am bid on God's Soverignty. I marvel at folks who, despite claiming they accept the concept of total depravity, insist that they know unequivocally the absolute truth about God's nature. That their human system (which is what Reformed or any other theological structure is) is THE TRUTH. That notion borders on a form of Tyranny that is worrisome. For me, I am increasingly convinced that the glass I see through is much darker than I thought, and that I don't really have the answers, and that I must rest in the fact that God does. Afterall, the faith I have is not my own, but was given to me.
Partial excerpt from comment #80 here:
“Are you at peace with the Protestants who support the Manhattan Declaration or do you condemn them?”
Unsurprisingly, there are Protestants condemning Protestants in the blogosphere. To wit:
(1) “As Christians, we can not be signing documents that claim that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox individuals are Christians. All of the evangelical leaders who signed this need to unsign it and proclaim that the signing communicates the lie that these other religions are Christians. I am deeply devoted to the pro-life cause and I regularly call other Christians to do the same, however this document pits that cause against the gospel. Our pro-life activism is commanded by God, but is not separate from the gospel, it needs to be informed by the gospel and for the gospel!”
(2) “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.”
Well, there you have it. As Frank Turk said in comment #2: “[D]o you think publicly renouncing the document obscures the Gospel?”
I think these condemnations obscure the Gospel.
Joy, I have to agree with Dennis below. I'm not ready to throw these folks under the bus. I'm ready to publicly voice my reasons with reasons why. To hopefully persuade them to see that the objections have to do with the Gospel. And to do this reasonably in love with patience.
The good thing about disagreeing as such is that if we keep pointing to the Gospel it has a chance to actually be heard.
Mark,
Thanks for not throwing me under the bus–or consigning me to hell. For a minute I thought I had taken the mark of the beast (no pun intended, Mark).
There are some Christian leaders who've spoken against signing the #mdec MD. They are (with links) Alistair Begg, John MacArthur, RC Sproul, and James White. Even the worlds most famous Christian blogger Tim Challies has decided not to sign.
There seems to be a growing list of others who will not sign. I'm not sure why, but it seems that some of those who are pro-MD have trouble showing grace to those opposed.
Bobby, I agree there will always be dissent. We are sinners. This is why we need to seek to promote the Gospel together. That's why I and others are not signing the MD. The other issues you mentioned seem to have more to do with disagreements over implementing sharing the Gospel rather than the definition itself.
glawccs said,
Right, which is why there are those who will not sign. When it comes down to it those Protestants like Dr. Mohler are not one of heart and soul with many of the other signers as seen in his article defending his signature. That is, he admits that Rome's Gospel is false.
Hey–we all need grace! I am a signer willing to extend grace to those who are not in hope that they will grant me the same.
I agree with the fact that grace on both sides needs to be extended. There are good reasons to sign and not sign this document. for the time being, I have chosen to not sign. That does not mean that I do not feel passionate about the issues addressed in the document. However, I feel equally strongly that it is a slippery slope to think that we are doomed as the church if the government does not legislate Christian morality. If they don't, then we stand. If they throw us in jail, then they throw us in jail. Thanks for this post!
Here's my two cents: The Manhattan thing, like Sweet/Viola's Manifesto or the GCR et al, are human efforts. Efforts to find common ground, a starting place, a few sentences we can gather around to express a common good, theme, issue, perspective etc.
They inevitably show how utterly deeply divided we are. We have no common ground, period. Even if you say Jesus is our common ground many will quickly jump to box it in, “Is your Jesus my Jesus?”, etc. There is no greater symptom of our brokenness as a Body than the next Manifesto we write… some will sign on some will dissent. That's who we are.
glawccs, I'm not bitter. Also, why am I singled out as one causing division? What if I am correct and it is those who do not fall in-line with me in standing for the Gospel who are causing disunity?
In Acts chapter 4 Luke wrote these words, “The multitudes of believers were of one heart and one soul.” Acts chapter 4. And then he said a little later in that same chapter, “As a result of that unity they had power and great grace was upon them all.” The multitude of believers were of one heart and one soul, they had great power and great grace. Power and blessing are related to unity.
Jesus, of course, made priority out of the unity of the church and so does the Apostle Paul. It is a great concern to his heart and thus he writes these opening four verses in the second chapter. “If therefore there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there's any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit intent on one purpose. Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself. Do not merely look out for your own personal interest but also for the interest of others.
I've already replied to that. It is posted above and I don't endorse it. If all you want to do is cause division here then leave. Stop trying to connect dots where they don't go together. You want to persuade me or others who consciencely will not sign then deal with our objections please.
Because Christ has encouraged you, exhorted you, helped you, faithfully come alongside to enable you. because all of Christ's love and tender mercy and pity and sympathy and grace and forgiveness and care and comfort has been bestowed on you, be of the same mind. In other words, having received so much from Christ, can you not give back that which is dear to His own heart? He who prayed in John 17 to the Father about the church that they may be one, desires unity in His church. But you must see disunity and a bitter spirit, you must see your antagonism to the unity of the church as a direct act of defiant rebellious ingratitude to the Christ who has given you everything and to whom you desire to render nothing. And you must see it for what it is. It is a sin against a relationship, not an ethical code. It is a sin against Christ.
Glawccs, did you have in mind comments like the following?
“Short Statement in Response to the Manhattan Declaration
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.
Ralph Ovadal, Pastor of Pilgrims Covenant Church, Monroe, Wisconsin, http://www.pccmonroe.org/
Actually, I think the opposite is true. Those anti-MD seem to think that those for it are “compromising the gospel”.
Wrong. I'm simply showing you that it is *some* of the anti-MD folks who are the ones causing division. Can you at least admit that?
I have not seen those folks until Joy and then you posted their words. I still don't know what your source is. Based on the quotes you and Joy have provided I admit those words could be divisive. I would say the majority of anti-MD folks are not doing this. Again, I've not seen them until you've spread them around. It is not the main position of those dissenting.
Making a case that Protestants signing the MD may blur the Gospel does not show a lack of grace. It's the name calling, condemnation and charges of division that does so. Making a case to sign or making a case not to is fine. Those of us who hold to sola fide and sola gratia, etc. will still be united in the Gospel. Those who do not will still not be fully united regardless of which document is signed.
Next Comments →
{ 6 trackbacks }