The Manhattan Declaration

[chrisnu]

I'm sure you've heard of the Manhattan Declaration by now. If not, it's a political manifesto of sorts which states three things, on which Catholics, Orthodox and Evangelicals agree, for the most part:

1) abortion = wrong,
2) same-sex marriage = wrong,
3) religious liberty = important.

 John MacArthur's explanation of why he cannot sign it greatly upset me:

http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4444

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.

A different gospel? Really? I guess my father (who is stridently prejudiced against Catholics) was really the wrong person to bring this up with, because that is also what he believes: that the Catholics believe in faith by works. I had to point out that they do not:

"If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."
-Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Canon I

However, Catholics do believe that works are necessary for salvation, in that they are a necessary result of salvation. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think that's something with which most Protestants would disagree (that works will always be evidence of saving faith).

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

Well then, I guess that I cannot call myself an evangelical because I disagree with you. Sorry, John.

While I can understand the sentiment behind the Declaration, I'm not going to sign it because I think it's rallying against an imaginary enemy. Is the Church being forced to accept or participate in abortion or gay marriage? This continues to raise the question of why the government is involved in anything called marriage in the first place. I still believe that engaging in this culture war distracts the church from its real purpose, which is reaching people and transforming lives with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is that good news which will change people, not trying to enforce laws which help them sin less.

[spacebrat311]

Agreed. Did you really expect something different from John MacArthur though?

I have my own reasons for inability to sign, most of it relating to the fact that I think it is missing the point as well.

[chrisnu]

I've been thinking about this a little more.  The reason why I will not sign is that it's trying to get to the government to be obedient for you. Basically, what this declaration is saying is "we aren't going to compromise on issues where we're not currently being forced to compromise, and don't you dare try to pass any laws that would try to do so, because we signed an imaginary piece of paper." God forbid that the obedience of Christians in the US would actually cost them something.

[bloop]

Read the declaration, read this.  Not signing.

[chrisnu]

Read the declaration, read this.  Not signing.

Who signed it that raised a red flag for you?

James Dobson and Jerry Jenkins would do it for me, personally.

I also found it interesting that the declaration only mentions Catholics, Orthodox and Evangelicals. I guess members of mainline denominations need not apply. I think Thomas Oden was the only religious leader signatory from a mainline, and he's definitely a conservative.

[Vlad!]

I've been thinking about this a little more.  The reason why I will not sign is that it's trying to get to the government to be obedient for you. Basically, what this declaration is saying is "we aren't going to compromise on issues where we're not currently being forced to compromise, and don't you dare try to pass any laws that would try to do so, because we signed an imaginary piece of paper." God forbid that the obedience of Christians in the US would actually cost them something.

I agree with this paragraph pretty much in its entirety.

If there's one criticism I have of my church, it's that some members tend to follow along the same lines as MacArthur's statement, assuming that they have the One True Interpretation on lockdown and other churches are full of lost sinners and deluded nonbelievers. However, my reason for feeling contempt about this declaration is less about its claims of Christian solidarity and more about the inherent worthlessness of Internet petitions and declarations in general.

One thing that concerns me a little bit is that by making this declaration, the signers are implicitly creating a line of demarcation. If you don't believe in one of the tenets in their little manifesto, can you really even call yourself a Christian? I certainly hope so, since my feelings on homosexual marriage are a little mixed (I oppose homosexual marriage, but since I oppose state-recognized marriage of all sorts than I don't think my feelings are in any way aligned with the signatories of this declaration), and I wouldn't want to be branded apostate on that account (what happened to things like wholly dedicating ourselves to God, loving others fully and unconditionally, and acknowledging Christ as the sole source of salvation? It seems like they're overlooking the really big issues of Christianity in favor of the hot-button topics of the day).

[bloop]

Who signed it that raised a red flag for you?

James Dobson and Jerry Jenkins would do it for me, personally.

I also found it interesting that the declaration only mentions Catholics, Orthodox and Evangelicals. I guess members of mainline denominations need not apply. I think Thomas Oden was the only religious leader signatory from a mainline, and he's definitely a conservative.

The culture warriors and Republichristians will do it to me every time, and all the notable ones are there.

[Simon]

It seems like we are in general agreement. I wouldn't sign it either.

It presumes an "us" and a "them." Where "we" have exclusive claim to Christ. I think it is always a bad idea if you think you can own Christ. This case especially (personal) because I am probably not one of "us."

MacArthur makes some decent points, but he seems to be against the declaration as a practical strategy. He is right that it distracts from what Christianity is actually about, but he also seems to think it might be a good idea if it included what he considers "the Gospel" and had a less confrontational attitude. I find this ironic considering his ending comments on Charles Colson which imply that he (MacArthur) does not think the Apostles or Nicene Creeds communicate what Christianity is about. It seems he is not against creeds, just as long as they are his creeds.

Creeds were never meant to work alone, and this declaration is far from a Christian creed.

This declaration strikes me as an attempt to breath new life into fundamentalism (hence the phrase "fundamental truths), which I had been hoping would die a quiet natural death. I am surprised by the prominence and diversity of the names on the list; I find it frightening. A professor from my university is on that list (of course it is only one). The president of Fuller is on the list. There are important-sounding names of the RC and the Orthodox on the list (they surprise me not because of the stance, but because of the fundamentalism). It is of note that there is a (and that it is only one) name from outside of the United States. This may be far from being able to claim the views of the majority of Christians, but there are an important few on the list. I don't think this is a step in the right direction of Christianity discovering how it should relate to contemporary culture.

[murlough23]

1) Not convinced in all cases. Though rare, I can conceive of cases where it's either mother dies or baby dies. I'm still opposed to abortions being available across-the-board, but would rather work to reduce unwanted pregnancies and make options such as adoption more readily available to help counteract the need for abortions.

2) Not convinced at all. Still wrestling with this one.

3) Sure; I'm for religious liberty, but need a better understanding of what it means. Seems a bit disingenuous to blow smoke about this idea when members of one religion or basically seeking the liberty to limit the liberties of members of another religion.

So yeah, I'm not singing off on any Manhattan Project or anything.

"Now we are all sons of bitches."

[spacebrat311]

Good quote.