Nov
27
2009
Re-Visiting The Manhattan Declaration
Earlier this week I, along with a lot of other bloggers, made mention of the Manhattan Declaration. I am usually hesitant to jump on board with these sorts of proclamations: 1) because I fear they accomplish less than we think, 2) because no one needs my name to make these things significant, and 3) because I’m always leery of missing something. For example, I liked the Evangelical Manifesto when I first saw it, but then after reading some of the commentary I thought, “Wait a minute, this may not have been the sort of document I thought it was.”
Well, I confess I didn’t see the controversy coming with the Manhattan Declaration. My initial plan was to ignore the Declaration altogether, but then a friend of mine encouraged me to mention it. So I read over it and thought, “This sounds good. These are three important issues. A number of men I deeply respect have signed it, and defended doing so (Al Mohler). I can as well.” Since then, there have been a number of critical responses from other evangelicals I respect (for example, John MacArthur, Alistair Begg). The issue is whether in signing The Manhattan Declaration–a joint statement about life, marriage, and religious liberty issued by Catholics, Orthodox, and Evangelicals–we are giving tacit approval to the gospel preached in those churches. Does the Manhattan Declaration operate with the implicit assumption that Catholics, Orthodox, and Evangelicals all share a common faith and are in agreement on the essentials of the gospel?
Who’s On First?
The first thing to do in trying to answer that question is to take a step back and make clear that the debate going on in the conservative reformed blogosphere is primarily about, or at least should be about, what the Manhattan Declaration says or assumes, not about whether all those who signed it have suddenly sold out the gospel. All you have to do is read Al Mohler’s reasons for signing it to realize that he does not think the Manhattan Declaration concedes any ground to Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.
Mohler writes:
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.
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.
No doubt some who signed the Declaration may have done so assuming that Catholics and Orthodox and Evangelicals are separated by only relatively minor doctrinal issues. But it is safe to assume that many of the evangelicals who signed the Declaration did not view the document in this way. You may argue that people like me or Mohler or Keller or whomever else (not that it’s nearly as big a deal what I think) don’t understand what the document really implies. That would be our mistake. But don’t make that into a mistake of monumental, gospel-denying proportions.
I see how some could construe signing as a tacit suggestion that all three sides pretty much agree on the most important issues of faith. I also didn’t take into account that the leadership behind the document have been active in Evangelicals and Catholics Together. So maybe there was another agenda behind the document. But maybe there wasn’t and we are wrong to make a document explicitly about certain things into a document that is implicitly about something else. I simply don’t know. The brief introduction to the Manhattan Declaration from Chuck Colson’s Breakpoint didn’t sound like a an ecumenical Trojan horse.
The Controversy
So I admit, I didn’t anticipate how some might read the language of the Declaration as broadly affirming of Catholic and Orthodox theology. But I don’t think the language has to be read in that way. As far as I can tell these are the two statements that have caused the most controversy:
We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image.
And just a little further:
We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths.
Some have objected to these lines, and others like them that refer to “we [and] our fellow believers,” as affirming the basic legitimacy of the Catholic and Orthodox theology. While this could be construed from the language, it is worth pointing that the Declaration never makes this claim (nor, I admit, does it reject this claim). The point of the document is not to bridge the gap of our “ecclesial differences.” I know that some think this language is too weak, but it is fair to say our disagreements are “ecclesial differences.” That is, they are differences among our churches. To call them “ecclesial differences” says nothing about whether they are small differences or essential differences. It only makes the point that there are differences. You may see that as underselling our differences, but you wouldn’t have to see it that way.
Likewise, I think there are a couple different ways to understand the language “We are Christians…” You could picture in your mind a meeting of Evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox holding hands and shouting in unison “We are all believers!” I’m pretty sure that’s not what Al Mohler, Joel Belz, and Wayne Grudem had in mind. But you could also picture someone getting the document and thinking “I’m a Christian and I believe these things. So I’ll sign.”
And it’s important to remember the Declaration was signed by individuals, not be ecclesiastical institutions. It would be uncharitable to think there aren’t genuine, regenerate believers in the Catholic and Orthodox communities, men and women who really do trust in the merits of Christ alone for their salvation, despite the false doctrines found in official church confessions. To take the language of “We are Christians” in a document like this about societal ills and automatically assume that it is equivalent to affirming the gospel preached in Catholics and Orthodox Churches is an unnecessary assumption in my opinion.
So where do I stand on The Manhattan Declaration? Well, I wish I would have listened to my initial hesitation about signing these sorts of documents. The Declaration does not need my signature to make it significant and I don’t need people to misunderstand what my support means. But having signed it (only as one of the crowd), I still agree with the Declaration and feel no pang of conscience for supporting it. If it comes out that the Declaration was meant to minimize the deepest divisions between Evangelicals and Catholics, then I will regret my support. But as it stands, I agree with Mohler’s reasons for signing the document and share his understanding of what signing does and does not mean.
One Last Thing
Before you post any comments, let me try to reiterate my main point. This debate, at least among many of us in the conservative reformed world, is not a debate about whether there are essential core-gospel differences between Catholics and Orthodox on one side (who don’t agree either!) and Evangelicals on the other. So please let’s be careful before we blast each other for selling out the gospel. The debate is about whether The Manhattan Declaration implies that there are no essential core-gospel differences among us. After reading the criticisms that have come out I understand how the Declaration could be seen as minimizing our differences. I have great respect for those who read the document in that way. But I still think the Declaration can be read as a statement that simply says “We all as individuals stand in the tradition of Nicene Christianity and we speak together on these three crucial issues of our day.”
46 Comments
For what it’s worth, I too have been caught off guard by some of the negative response to the Declaration, primarily because I did not read it the same way as some like, for example, John MacArthur, did. Nor did I conceive of the Declaration as functioning in some of the ways its critics have described — although I can see how they would view things differently.
I write as someone who, in recent posts on my own blog, has maintained that the continuing doctrinal differences between evangelical Christianity and Roman Catholicism are significant and fundamental. I would even say that official Catholic teaching on justification amounts to a ‘false gospel, which is no gospel at all.’
Having said that, when I read a document like the Manhattan Declaration, I read the word ‘Christian’ (applied to Catholics and Orthodox) differently — in what I guess I would call a ’sociological’ and not a ’soteriological’ sense (I’m sure there are better, more precise ways of putting it than that). What I’m trying to say is that for the purposes and audiences and situations addressed in the Declaration, I think it is meaningful to use the term ‘Christian’ to apply to Roman Catholics and to the Orthodox. (Many would be surprised that this is even controversial.) So again, in a ’sociological’ sense (think of, how would such a person would self-identify on a religious survey) such persons are ‘Christian’ (they aren’t ‘Jewish,’ ‘Hindu,’ or ‘atheist.’)
In fact the online edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ‘Christian’ as “one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.” So for purposes of standing together in the ‘public square’ and addressing together matters of such monumental importance for the common good (rooted in common grace), I come down on the side of saying it’s right to ’sign on’ with others in the historical stream of Christendom (who have been influenced by Scriptural teaching) to address matters of such crucial concern — even while saying that I would not unite with them in a theological concern like the statement, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” or in an evangelistic endeavor.
[...] Kevin DeYoung [...]
I signed the statement for what it said; not for what it did not say.
Surely there is some common ground between RC/EO, et al.!
I signed the declaration and haven’t lost any sleep over the critics comments.
The logic that says I threw in the towel compromised my doctrine in signing the declaration also says that by NOT signing the document folks like MacArthur and Begg are pro-choice, pro-same-sex marriage, and anti-religious liberty.
Ridiculous!
Thank you Kevin for your excellent, thoughtful post.
I have the utmost respect for Kevin, Al Mohler, Wayne Grudem and Bryan Chapel and others who signed. I believe there motives are pure and they would never intend to confuse believers or validate Roman Catholics who deny the Gospel and practice a false one, but I believe these men (who I love as brothers) have erred in judgment because they are passionate on these moral and social issues. Chuck Colson called this a theological document and it is viewed by many as such. Why couldn’t the reformed camp create their own document? It just doesn’t make sense to join hands with those who deny the Gospel. Why not allow the Mormons in? They are perceived as more moral than the Evangelicals or Roman Catholics, but would we sign if they did? The argument to sign doesn’t hold water if you wouldn’t allow them. They hold to the morality of the document and they have a lot power politically.
We all know that Jesus would never sign a document with the Pharisees to fight against Roman taxation; that Paul would not sign with the Judaisers to hold the line against Roman persecution; that Luther would not sign with the Roman Catholics to bring social reform.
The Reformed Camp signed a document that clearly ASSUMES a unified Gospel even though we know the men in the reformed camp don’t believe we’re unified.
I began reading The Manhattan Declaration expecting to discover the same old b.s. At first I was surprised, and then I was frankly AMAZED by the crystal-clear meaning of the uncompromising language. I signed it after my first reading of the thing.
Where the affairs of men in the work of God are concerned, I stick with Zechariah 4: “Not by might, not by power, but by my Spirit says the LORD of hosts.”
Whatever “doctrinal” differences we may have with one another now will soon-enough be overwhelmed by the way, the truth, and the life of The Christ.
Praise the LORD and pass the ammunition!
I respect all the great saints who have signed on, but with hesitancy, since I am nobody important, fall behind John MacArthur and Alistair Begg’s assessment of the document. Simply for the reason stated a dilution of the gospel. It is a grand thing to see so many rallies around the moral principals that Christians stand behind, but we must never wavier at the thought of or never inject the gospel of Jesus Christ at every opportune time, whether in season or out. It is that simple IMHO
Just a brief comment regarding Doug Phillips observations. While I agree with his point about how one could understand language referring to Christians and Christianity in the sense in which he speaks, it seems to me that it is only legitimate to do so if this is the meaning intended by the author of such language. I honestly don’t think a fair reading of “The Manhattan Declaration”, particularly in view of the known thinking of the author’s behind it, so intends this definition.
If this is a correct supposition, and we can’t read the document as Doug suggests, what would be the implications regarding signing it?
Rev. DeYoung: “But having signed it (only as one of the crowd), I still agree with the Declaration and feel no pang of conscience for supporting it. If it comes out that the Declaration was meant to minimize the deepest divisions between Evangelicals and Catholics, then I will regret my support. But as it stands, I agree with Mohler’s reasons for signing the document and share his understanding of what signing does and does not mean.”
Amen Rev. Kevin! FWIW, my Thanksgiving holidays were more joyful because of the Manhattan Declaration! God is Good! All the Time!
The underlying issue is whether co-belligerency is ever a good idea. I simply cannot imagine Paul signing a document with Pro-life Judaizers, or gnostics, or any other group he believed compromised the gospel, believing that a social/political need merited unholy alliances. Gospel clarity trumped everything.
In the OT unholy alliances for political purposes brought God’s judgement on Israel. They were called to trust God rather than see strength in numbers.
To John Thomson’s point, I think it is very hard to guess what Paul might have done, given the significant differences in his political situation and ours. But I am intrigued by Titus 1:12, where Paul is making a point about the Cretans. He quotes one of their own “prophets,” affirming the truth of what that “prophet” said. Surely Paul would not have regarded this “prophet” to be a prophet in the same sense that Isaiah, Jeremiah or Agabus (in the NT) and yet he uses the word in a general way that he knows has a more distinctive theological meaning in a Christian context. And he is willing to use the truth found in this unusual source for his own (inspired) (declaratory) purposes.
Again, this is only an analogy…it’s not an identical situation. But it might..MIGHT…be suggestive.
Awesome! I signed the declaration and have read the critics. Men whom i deeply respest and recieve from.
Howver, your contribution brings charity and clarity together in a well reasoned fashion. I am grateful. Thank You!
I’ve been critical of the document, but Kevin makes some good points, and I wouldn’t accuse him of something like abandoning the gospel. I’ve written at length on this subject at Tim Challies’ blog, and I’ll just summarize a few relevant points here.
It’s true that a term like “Christian” can have different meanings in different contexts. But the Manhattan Declaration repeatedly uses a variety of such terms. It refers to Catholics and Orthodox as people who follow “the faith”, who are “believers”, who are “[Jesus'] disciples”, etc. The issue is how such terms would most naturally be interpreted, not how they might be interpreted in some less likely manner. It’s not just one bad word that was chosen by the drafters of the document, but a series of poor choices made several times throughout the document by drafters who have a history of being overly ecumenical.
Men like Chuck Colson and Timothy George have known for a long time that affirmations of the Christian status of Catholicism and Orthodoxy would be objectionable to many Evangelicals. Why would they repeatedly choose a variety of less clear terms to use when other terms that would have been clearer and commonly understood were easily available? They could have just used terms like “Catholics”, “Orthodox”, and “Evangelicals”. They could have given less attention to the identity of the signers and more attention to the issues involved. Etc. The document is poorly worded at a minimum, and I think the evidence suggests that it’s even worse than that.
If anybody is interested, in the Challies thread linked above I discuss how the Bible contradicts the Roman Catholic gospel and why Catholicism’s gospel should be considered to be under the anathema of Galatians 1. See comments # 94 and # 99.
To those who think that all such cooperation with Catholics and Orthodox is unacceptable, even if the orthodoxy of such groups isn’t being affirmed in the process, I’d suggest that you reconsider. There are many instances in the Bible in which believers work with unbelievers in some sense, whether at the level of government, in the context of war, in the events of everyday life, etc. And all of us work with unbelievers in a variety of contexts in our lives. Simply citing a Biblical passage about separating from unbelievers or false teachers, for example, isn’t enough, since such general principles don’t settle the issue of specific application. Even if you don’t agree with him on every issue involved, Scott Klusendorf makes some good points on this subject in his article here.
I have no difficulty with Christians working with non-Christians. We do this all the time in our professions and jobs.
My difficulties are these.
Firstly, grouping people together under the banner of ‘Christian’ to work for a socio-political cause who are christians in a sociological sense but not not soteriological sense is confusing and likely to lead to ecumenical compromise. Clarity of definition is important here.
Secondly,I make a fairly sharp distinction between Christians acting as citizens in society and Christians creating a pressure group under a ‘Christian’ banner. At this point we begin to act more officially as ‘the Christian Church’ and so take a position the church ought not take – a socio-political pressure group. Christ avoided political activism. He said, ‘Who made me a judge or divider over you’. Paul reflects the same stand when he says, ‘what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
Thirdly,when we baptize a socio-political position as ‘Christian’
I understand there are difficult questions, however, I am not so sure there are many texts that prompt political activism by the church. If there are, I will be glad to be informed of them. I cannot think of any that champion co-belligerency. I read Scott Klusendorf’s article. Thanks for pointing it out. However, his examples are from church history not Scripture. I submit the grain of Scripture is against both co-belligerency and official ‘Christian’ socio-political postures.
I have no difficulty with Christians working with non-Christians. We do this all the time in our professions and jobs.
My difficulties are these.
Firstly, grouping people together under the banner of ‘Christian’ to work for a socio-political cause who are christians in a sociological sense but not not soteriological sense is confusing and likely to lead to ecumenical compromise. Clarity of definition is important here.
Secondly,I make a fairly sharp distinction between Christians acting as citizens in society and Christians creating a pressure group under a ‘Christian’ banner. At this point we begin to act more officially as ‘the Christian Church’ and so take a position the church ought not take – a socio-political pressure group. Christ avoided political activism. He said, ‘Who made me a judge or divider over you’. Paul reflects the same stand when he says, ‘what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
I understand there are difficult questions, however, I am not so sure there are many texts that prompt political activism by the church. If there are, I will be glad to be informed of them. I cannot think of any that champion co-belligerency. I read Scott Klusendorf’s article. Thanks for pointing it out. However, his examples are from church history not Scripture. I submit the grain of Scripture is against both co-belligerency and official ‘Christian’ socio-political postures.
John Thomson,
I agree that we shouldn’t work with non-Christians in a way that suggests their orthodoxy, as the Manhattan Declaration does. But your position concerning the inappropriateness of the church’s acting as a “a socio-political pressure group” needs to be further defined.
In Acts, Paul repeatedly makes use of his Roman citizenship and various state laws and doctrinal agreements with non-Christians in order to advance his purposes. The Old Testament gives us many examples of believers serving in government positions under the leadership of unbelievers and attempting to change laws and accomplish other things through the state. It would be irrational to deny that the principles in Proverbs about caring for the poor, defending those who are being wronged, etc. imply that we should be concerned with matters pertaining to the state. The church is different than the state, but Christians and Christian groups, including churches, can be highly involved in social and political issues without violating general principles like the ones you’ve appealed to.
You write:
“Christ avoided political activism. He said, ‘Who made me a judge or divider over you’.”
Are you referring to Luke 12:14? If so, I don’t think that Jesus’ refusal to get involved in a dispute between a man and his brother suggests that Christians or Christian groups can’t ever be active in social and political contexts. When John the Baptist and Jesus met people serving in the military or other government contexts, they didn’t tell them that they couldn’t be involved in such things. John the Baptist told tax collectors and soldiers to apply his moral standards to their work in the government (Luke 3:12-14).
Yes, Jesus and believers throughout history have sometimes avoided involvement in some matters pertaining to social issues or the government. But the same is true of church affairs. In Acts 6:2, the apostles stop serving tables in order to do other work. We’re each called to do different work, with different priorities, sometimes giving up one thing in order to accomplish another. It doesn’t follow that whatever work we avoid or give up must be inappropriate for every believer in every context. The fact that Jesus avoided something during His earthly ministry doesn’t necessarily imply that all believers should avoid it as well. Jesus had an unusual mission that we don’t have, and His contexts have to be judged case-by-case.
If you take the passages you’ve cited as defining what role all Christians are to have in every such context, then you’re going to arrive at some unreasonable conclusions, including some conclusions that involve scripture contradicting scripture. Jesus didn’t come with the sword of government, and Paul wasn’t responsible for judging unbelievers in some contexts, but the tax collectors, soldiers, and other government officials Jesus and Paul approved of and instructed did do such work. Jesus and Paul did address matters of society and government in other contexts, such as Jesus’ discussions with government officials, the passages in Acts I referred to above, and Romans 13.
You say that we shouldn’t “baptize a socio-political position as ‘Christian’”, but the Bible speaks about issues that societies and governments address. Scripture has much to say about property, unborn children, marriage, and other subjects that societies and governments are involved with. There is a Christian position on such issues.
Just a question, how is it that we share a common Nicene Christianity when the RCC rejects baptism outside her? When her baptism is instrumental and Reformed baptism is not?
I think that is the major problem with MD as here expemplified, and that being the diminution of terms to a leveling of the playing field. That is paramount in those who refused to sign. There is only one baptism, one faith, but that begs the question doesn’t it, which one is the right one. All other nuances of baptistic rites aside, isn’t the sacrificial nature of Roman Catholic Baptism what would make it non-Nicene? Or, are you interpreting the Nicene to mean that baptism is efficacious for salvaton? Even if we go with the original c.325 version, the question must still be asked if Jesus actually died for our salvation or if he only potentially did contingent upon our own sacrifices to actualize it.
We cannot just stop at the bare confession and claim by it that we are all brothers to the faith expressed therein, can we? Do we not have to define the terms of those truths to have fellowship in them? This is the controversy. A point easily passed over by some for the cause of social reform. That is where the tragedy of the MD is found- the fact that some are willing to be so blind, or have been blinded by the social need, or a desire to preserve a life which provides them comfort where the defense of the Gospel provides no such thing, or simply out of a irreconcillable zeal for righteousness over against a righteousness which is by faith.
I agree with Jason, we can cooperate and should where our interests are the same and which at the same time do not involve a reduction of the truth we must defend. That defense must come at those points which we disagree and in those term by which the world recognizes the difference. Too often the language doesn’t matter and by that the shift in meaning is allowed. That betrays the trust we have been given to defend the Word which was given for exactness, that we may know the truth and be set free. We are to prove what is true and hold to it. So language matters. We should never condone the emptying of meaning from our confessions which use terms that must remain inviolable for the establishing of a firm foundation which cannot be moved.
I just don’t understand why we have to join forces with Orthodox and Catholics. What does it promote besides putting us into the same category as they are? I, for one, don’t want to be in that group. Watering down the Gospel aside (and I believe the Declaration does accomplish that), I just don’t want to be associated with the other two faiths, even if we agree in some areas.
I do not believe anyone is being accusative in the sense of pointing fingers, we that are the Protestant groupies do believe in and adhere to the solas and the regula fidei (rule of faith) and as such we are bound together in the grand orthodoxy of Christianity. That being said, again IMHO when Christ is not first and foremost in any creedal, catechism, declaration or manifesto, we do injustice to our brothers and sisters in Christ. We become a little less salty and a little bit dimmer in a pluralistic society that sees many ways to God. There is no harm in signing a document, I think, but it does set a bar for others to judge whether or not to jump on the wagon. Again I have to hang with the older crowd on this one. I would be curious to see an age related poll on the issue to sign or not to sign the document. I am willing to bet that the majority of the guys 40+ would not join in signing. To me that just sets the tone for the difference in old school vs. new, that is some things never change in a biblical sense. Yet the very nature of an emerging postmodern church really would sign on. No offense to the guys to the left but its true I see it every day cultural compromise and this is another one of those okay everyone’s game so go ahead and sign on
I am an old guy and I signed the document. I am also reformed in my doctrine. However, after a lifetime of experience (36 years service) in war and peace in 37 foreign countries, 48 states, numerous church denominations and military chapels, I have come to the firm conviction that “creeds do not a Christian make.” Some of the greatest times of fellowship I have experience have been in times of great trial with fellow believers who were Catholics, Orthodox and non-evangelical. True faith is not just a creed…it is something that proceeds out of the heart and is evidenced by our faithful commitment to our Lord. Remember that many pastors stood with Bonhoeffer initially in Germany as part of the Confessing Church but most bailed as soon as they were threatened with death. Because they had the right creed were they truly Christian? On the other hand, a number of Catholics remained true to their faith and the Word of God (even unto death) despite the persecution. Watchman Nee also experienced the same thing in China in 1947. He relates sitting in a hidden room with Catholics and other denominations after the persecution began and thinking how wrong he was to have judged them as faithless simply because of the church or creed they professed. We are approaching times like they experience in Germany and China and it will test the true nature of the faith of us all. The Manhattan Declaration is a statement of biblical truth that crosses over creeds. When I see a Catholic or Orthodox brother or sister stand with me on truth, I am not going to judge them as to their faith…that is God’s job. We would do well to remember the words of a poem:
And I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year, Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown’ And he replied:. Go out into the darkness and put your hand into the Hand Of God. That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way’ So I went forth, and finding the Hand of God, trod gladly into the night. Haskins
That is true faith when we are willing to step out and lay our life on the line for the Truth!
I respect John MacArthur, like his preaching and books, AND think he must live in a bit of a guilded cage. I challenge anyone to listen to his preaching on homosexuality and not think, “Good grief, John, do you really not want to reach any of these people?!!” And this from a man who preaches in L.A. That to underscore that it is dizzying how a man like him would not appreciate the document. As other have pointed out, it is signed by individuals, NOT churches. Does he also reject the defeat of Prop 19 because the LDS Church was so instrumental in its downfall. Reformed Theology of all -isms can embrace the fact that individuals may have faulty theologies and still be saved. Packer and Keller signed the thing… but hey, they aren’t Dispensationalists, are they? Unfair zing, but John M. is simply off-base here.
John Clauer wrote:
“When I see a Catholic or Orthodox brother or sister stand with me on truth, I am not going to judge them as to their faith…that is God’s job.”
Catholics and Orthodox don’t stand with Evangelicals on the truth of justification through faith alone. And God has spoken on that subject (Luke 18:10-14, Acts 15:1-11, Romans 4:4-6, Galatians 3:1-25, etc.). Paul warned that false gospels are to be rejected even if they come from angels or angelic men (2 Corinthians 11:2-15, Galatians 1:6-9). Thus, telling us about the angelic character of Catholics and Orthodox in other contexts doesn’t give us sufficient reason to sign a document that suggests their orthodoxy. Their character in those other contexts is significant and commendable, but we can’t isolate those other contexts from the additional context of their false views of justification.
And it’s not as though signing the Manhattan Declaration is the only way of opposing evils like abortion and homosexual marriage or the only way of working with Catholics and Orthodox on such issues. We can oppose those evils, including in ways that involve working with those other groups, without doing something like signing a document that suggests the orthodoxy of those groups.
Concerning the issue of the salvation of individual Catholics and Orthodox, I don’t think that many critics of the Manhattan Declaration have been denying that a Catholic or Orthodox individual can be saved in spite of the false gospel of the group with which he’s affiliated. But I doubt that any of the Evangelical signers know every non-Evangelical signer well enough to sufficiently discern that they’re believers in spite of the false gospel of the groups they’re associated with. The implication is that these non-Evangelicals are being judged to be saved individuals on some other basis. If you don’t know the non-Evangelicals well enough to conclude that other evidence outweighs their affiliation with a group that has a false gospel, then why sign a public document that repeatedly uses a series of terms that suggest their orthodoxy (terms that could easily have been avoided if the drafters had wanted to avoid them)?
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Albert Mohler knows Robert George (a Roman Catholic drafter of the document). Mohler has seen George living a life that’s highly consistent with Christian moral standards. In private, George has told Mohler either that he rejects Catholic teaching on the relevant issues pertaining to justification or that he interprets those teachings in a way that’s different from how most Catholics interpret them and is consistent with what scripture teaches. Because of such evidence, Mohler has sufficient reason to conclude that George is a Christian (in the highest sense of that term), in spite of the false gospel of the group with which George is affiliated.
Still, does it make sense for Mohler to sign a document that suggests the orthodoxy of George and other Catholics and Orthodox? The public doesn’t know about Mohler’s private interactions with George. And George isn’t the only non-Evangelical who’s being identified as a believer by the document. If Mohler had sufficient evidence of the orthodoxy of every non-Evangelical involved, and his signing of the document was accompanied by an explanation of that fact, then you could argue for the appropriateness of Mohler’s signing the document on that basis. But, as far as I know, that’s not the situation with any Evangelical who has signed the document.
I think many of us have made bad judgments at times about whether an individual is a Christian and whether we should refer to that person as a believer. If you spend much time thinking about such issues or speaking or writing about them, you should be aware of the complexities and difficulties involved. Should a particular historical figure be referred to as a Christian? What about somebody you’ve met, such as a neighbor or co-worker? Sometimes it’s difficult to make a judgment, and sometimes we go along with a convention of referring to a person as a Christian without giving that convention much thought. If the signers of the Manhattan Declaration made a bad judgment in this context, then it’s a common mistake, one that most or all of us probably have made at times. But it is a mistake. And when the mistake is made in the context of a public document receiving so much attention, in an ecumenical environment like the present one, it’s significant.
Jason Engwer: “And it’s not as though signing the Manhattan Declaration is the only way of opposing evils like abortion and homosexual marriage or the only way of working with Catholics and Orthodox on such issues.”
I’m not aware of this claim being made by anyone.
“Concerning the issue of the salvation of individual Catholics and Orthodox, I don’t think that many critics of the Manhattan Declaration have been denying that a Catholic or Orthodox individual can be saved in spite of the false gospel of the group with which he’s affiliated.”
Jason, here’s a quote from Dallas that dovetails with this comment of yours:
“I am not saying that people who are involved in RC/EO are Christians, but that there is enough ambiguity concerning the question of whether members of RC/EO are Christian for me not to reject the entire document based soley on that one issue. While I do not agree with RO/EO concerning some very broad issues concerning the gospel, I do agree with them concerning the sanctity of human life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty. Because the Manhattan Declaration addresses these narrow issues rather than the broader issues of the gospel, one can sign the Manhattan Declaration without bringing confusion to the gospel or endorsing a false gospel.”
Jason Engwer: “And it’s not as though signing the Manhattan Declaration is the only way of opposing evils like abortion and homosexual marriage or the only way of working with Catholics and Orthodox on such issues.”
I’m not aware of this claim being made by anyone.
“Concerning the issue of the salvation of individual Catholics and Orthodox, I don’t think that many critics of the Manhattan Declaration have been denying that a Catholic or Orthodox individual can be saved in spite of the false gospel of the group with which he’s affiliated.”
Jason, here’s a quote from Dallas that dovetails with your comment above:
“I am not saying that people who are involved in RC/EO are Christians, but that there is enough ambiguity concerning the question of whether members of RC/EO are Christian for me not to reject the entire document based soley on that one issue. While I do not agree with RO/EO concerning some very broad issues concerning the gospel, I do agree with them concerning the sanctity of human life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty. Because the Manhattan Declaration addresses these narrow issues rather than the broader issues of the gospel, one can sign the Manhattan Declaration without bringing confusion to the gospel or endorsing a false gospel.”
Truth Unites… and Divides wrote:
“I’m not aware of this claim being made by anyone.”
Why would the claim have to be made in order for me to address the subject?
But some people have been making such comments. For example, in the thread at Challies I linked above, we read in comment # 38:
“This document unites people on three basic biblical principles. It does not try to define ‘believer’ or preach the gospel. Does that make it wrong? Is it better to stand by and watch our rights be taken away and say nothing?”
Surely the woman who posted those comments knows that the alternative isn’t “nothing”. But if she’s going to make such a careless or hyperbolic comment, then critics of the document, like me, can respond by noting that “saying nothing” isn’t the only alternative to signing the Manhattan Declaration.
Another commenter in the same thread, in post # 45, wrote:
“Big fish in thousands of very small ponds pompously arguing over ever-diminishing points of theology while accomplishing, well, absolutely nothing, while holding themselves out as the only ‘true’ Christians. Jaw-dropping self delusion.”
I deny that opposition to the document has accomplished “absolutely nothing”, and I would deny that the critics of the document have accomplished nothing on issues like abortion and homosexuality, if the poster meant to suggest that.
You go on to quote the following comments written by somebody else:
“I am not saying that people who are involved in RC/EO are Christians, but that there is enough ambiguity concerning the question of whether members of RC/EO are Christian for me not to reject the entire document based soley on that one issue. While I do not agree with RO/EO concerning some very broad issues concerning the gospel, I do agree with them concerning the sanctity of human life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty. Because the Manhattan Declaration addresses these narrow issues rather than the broader issues of the gospel, one can sign the Manhattan Declaration without bringing confusion to the gospel or endorsing a false gospel.”
The document does address the gospel, even though it isn’t the primary focus of the document. And I’ve explained, above and elsewhere, why the appeal to the salvation of Catholic and Orthodox individuals is insufficient. I’ve argued for the falsity of the Catholic gospel and the application of the anathema of Galatians 1 to that gospel. See comments # 94 and # 99 in the Challies thread. And if a group like Catholicism teaches a false gospel, then our evaluation of the salvation of an individual Catholic doesn’t begin on neutral or positive ground. See my comments on this subject in my last post in this thread.
The MD asserts a POLITICAL unity among religiously motivated conservatives from the three main branches of the Christian religion. It is not intended to establish unity through RELIGIOUS agreement on such topics like the gospel or the nature of the church. It may be true that their political positions are wholly informed by religiously shaped ideas, but those ideas are not the ones that have historically divided Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox.
Those who drafted and signed the document are stating in no uncertain terms that gay marriage and abortion are the two watershed issues in our culture that define their political activism, and that this activism ought to be politically protected by the right to free religious expression.
The hand-wringing over whether the signers can all agree on what a “believer” or a “Christian” may be is beside the point. The document assumes that the signatories have the right to define that for themselves, and this should not be surprising since it places such a high value on free religious expression.
Those that find this objectionable believe the gospel is being made secondary. I think that is a fair criticism, and that is part of the reason why I haven’t signed it. But I think it is absurd for those who haven’t signed it to call into question the faith or the wisdom of those who have. Some believers see their politics being defined by two moral issues. Others don’t and would rather have their politics defined more broadly (including economy, foreign policy) and/or have their religious identity (gospel and church) take precedence over politics.
I’m curious how it is any luminary’s concern who his fellow luminary chooses to sign documents with. Mightn’t this be a case of “mind your own business”?
MD has created discord among the brethren and in and of itself makes signing it a poor discerned decision.
The confusion lies here:
“We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image.”
The Roman Catholic does not lay total claim to the one true God. They rely on the church and its sacraments for possible salvation or purgatory until the church prays them out! It’s an apostate church. If this isn’t a theological document, why the words above? If not theological, why weren’t the Mormon Christians invited and the words triune removed so that this document could carry more weight with our pagan poliicians? The Mormon signatories would have helped in Washington! Maybe there true believers in the Mormon church who are just staying in it? That’s no reason to sign. Please, don’t you see?
Do you see the weak argument to sign with apostates! When does it end for temporal social agendas? I have heard believers say that they THINK there catholic friend or families MIGHT be saved. Not if they believe in there works! By signing it gives the appearance that the MIGHT could be and IS!! Souls are more important that signing with apostates. Period.
Why didn’t we make our own document? If we had, all of the brothers and sisters would have signed. Instead, discord and strife. Lets have strength in numbers with the Romanists (but not the Mormons because they don’t hold to the trinity?) and offend the brethren who have a valid point on this one. I’m sorry, if I am wrong (and I’ll acknowledge that I could be), trying to protect the integrity of the Gospel does not make me judgmental.
1 Peter 1:22
Here is sound Biblical proof for not associating with the purveyors of evil doctrines.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift OF GOD: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast (Eph. 2:8-9).”
If we add the meritorious works of man to supplement the work of Christ, it becomes anathema to God, and then becomes ANOTHER GOSPEL or a DIFFERENT GOSPEL. Paul declares in Galatians; “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ. For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but {I received it} through a revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal 1: 6-12).”
The curse given by God to the foolish Galatians applies to anyone now-days, who adds good works to the ALL SUFFICIENT work of Christ on the cross. “Knowing that a man is NOT justified by the WORKS of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified (Gal 2:6).”
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a DEBTOR TO THE WHOLE LAW. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are FALLEN FROM GRACE. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith (Gal 5:1-5).”
Notice particularly the words in Galatians 5:4, “Christ is become of NO EFFECT unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are FALLEN FROM GRACE.” FALLEN FROM GRACE, there it is! When the Catholic Church adds to the sufficiency of Christ’s work on the cross, by their own good works, they have fallen from grace, and are cursed by God. If I remember right the Council of Trent condemned the Reformed doctrine of Justified by faith alone. They declared it anathema. God’s has condemned the Roman Catholic Church and pronounced His wrath upon it for this very reason. And this is why I will not be a party to anything the RCC is associated with.
After thinking this whole thing through, I suddenly remembered what I learned in my psychology class in college. It is actualy very simple. When we actively participate in something (such as signing our names on a petition, joining a rally, or what ever the case may be), we are far less likely to be critical of it. Which means what???, we try to look for common ground, but God is clear, there is no common ground. “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness (2 Cr 6:14)?”
This is why we are to be so careful to NOT join hands with the enemies of Christ. “But now I have written to you NOT TO KEEP COMANY with ANYONE NAMED A BROTHER, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or AN IDOLATER, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—NOT EVEN TO EAT with such a person (1 Corinthians 5:11).”
Mary
For those who say this was not intended to be a theological document, here is a statement I found on James White’s blog.
“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.” End of quote.
Mary
Kevin – Thanks for posting this; it was very helpful and I’m sure it will assist many in “understanding the times.” [being aware and prepared for the Things with which we have contact in the world]
~Amanda
=)
Dear Kevin
I think your blog is one of the best out there – for level-headed good sense and Biblical wisdom. I often forward links of your onto others as time & time again you articulate the feelings & unease many Christians have about ‘popular Christian Culture’ in the West.
However, on the Manhattan Declaration, I do wonder as you say yourself what the value of these statements are – especially when set against the almost inevtiable ‘muddying of the waters’ they create. I believe this approach is called ‘co-belligerency’ – a kind of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ way of doing theology. So that we few evangelicals will be able to ‘punch above our weight’ if we band together with other religious groups on those parts of the Venn diagram where we happen to overlap.
This unfortunately is not with precedent – in the Old Testament, Israel felt its weakness against the great world forces of its day – and sought to make alliances with other nations on issues of common ground (i.e. opposition to Babylon). In such ways they thought they could strengthen themselves and have more chance of rolling back hostile forces. God was not impressed.
Such ‘alliances’ encourage putting the focus of faith in treaties, politics and numbers – and shift it from reliance on God and hope in the Gospel alone.
Anyway, keep up the good work.
What I find interesting and amazing is:
1) On Mike Huckabee’s show, Huckabee made the statement to Colson that “you guys couldn’t come together to have a cup of coffee and yet you have agreed together to formulate this statement….”
2) Building on this, I wonder if it was not realized by the framers that “no, we probably could not agree on the production of a dogma or doctrinal statement together, but we can agree together to make this statement in unison ‘to the world’ that we understand the Bible to, at least, be saying this.”
3)I also find quite awe-inspiring that especially the EO and RCC constituents could agree with “such” an evangelical statement that they could affix their signatures to it without “flinching” or “wincing” as they did so.
4) How many could identify with Lot (2 Pet 2:7-8) who was “a righteous man ‘in anguish’ over the debauched lifestyle of lawless ones…by seeing and hearing ['sights and sounds']the lawless works.” This tells me that while I would not want to be categorized with Lot in his spiritual condition (at this point), even he wanted what he saw and heard removed, so society could return to some semblance of balance. Could not EO and RCC members be moved and be sensitive just from a good moral and ethical standpoint and be identified with evangelicals in agreement? Can the moral,’want to exercise righteous moves’, unevangelized souls ever be tormented by what they see and hear? Was not Cornelius (Acts 10:1ff.) a “devout, God-fearing man” (NET trans.)who did acts of charity and “prayed to God regularly” lost, yet moral, and did things contrary to godless appearances in society? Thank about it.
Jason
This is a response to your engagement with my comments above. I suspect from reading other comments of yours that we are not so far apart. I do agree too that there are issues about which christians can say absolutely ‘this is right or wrong’. However, in many examples of areas where Christians wish to be politically active the issues are often not nearly as clearly ‘Christian’ as they are presented.
I quoted the text from Luke 12 because it seems to me the position that Christ models for us the approach the church, as the church, ought to take. He speaks here as Messiah not as a ‘private citizen’. I pointed out that as ‘private citizens’ it is quite in order to be socially and politically active. I am all for politicians/sociologists/economists etc who are Christian,however, I think it is wiser to describe them as politicians who are Christians rather than describe them as ‘Christian politicians/economists etc’. In the latter case the implication is that the implication can be that a clear cut christian position may exist when it may not. Secondly, it suggests that the church has a political agenda, which I have explained previously I believe is against the grain of Scripture.
Jason, I am not so sure where all these biblical examples of believers with an agenda of imposing a ‘Christian’ morality on a pagan culture are to be found (in OT or NT). This is precisely my dilemma. Sure, we have examples of believers living as faithful to God as they could in a pagan context. This is different from seeing them as having a mission to impose the mosaic covenant injunctions on for example Babylon.
Even when the Prophets condemn the sins of the nations they are effectively bringing a message of impending judgement calling for repentance; that is they are not acting to bring about political change but preaching the gospel.
My question really is can we read the bible’s big story do we readily conclude that the church is called to socio-political change?
Jason Engwer, Thomas Twitchell, Chris Fisher, Mary Palshan, and other anti-MD’ers,
If MacArthur and James White crafted a revised Manhattan Declaration (ver 2.0) that was only for Protestants to sign, would you sign it then?
Pro-Christian, TUAD
No. However, if it was exclusively Reformed I might. You know my posititon TUAD. I have run for political office with the Constitution in one hand and the Gospel in the other. There are principles that I would never lay down for the first- I am under “woe is me” if I did.
Check my blog, there you will find an example of a Declaration that I would sign. I am afraid there are none today who would craft or sign such a document. In it you will find that by the parameters laid down, RCC and Orthodox by definition would not sign it in good conscience. There in is the proplem, the diminution of the the Reformed faith is the very reason tht the Barmen was signed. It targeted both the secular state and the apostate churches that infected it. Let the spokesmen for the Reformed faith craft such a document, let them condemn those who will not uphold the Gospel and at the same time call for action against the state, and I would be much more likely to sign. The result of the Barmen was widespread persecution of believers. Those who recanted were set at liberty. Those who did not were killed or sent to concentration camps. Therein also is a reason that the MD is not worth the paper it is written upon. No such peril will be faced by those who have signed and it will offer no relief from the social/moral decline we face because it is toothless tiger.
When Southern Baptists get their act together and condemn those in their own camp who signed on and supported Obama, when those in their camp recant of their widespread support of other socialist schemes that have empowered the left, when they honor the commandment not to steal or covet a neighbors goods for support of their own aims at wealth distribution, then there might be a solid shove to the right. Till then, until the welfarites of the right stop acting like leftists, the power will remain in the hands of those who also support the immorality that we now have exalted to prominence along with the rights to others’ property. Make no mistake, it was nationalist socialist Protestants that empowered the Reich. Until the so called conservatives quit going along with the left in that area, things will continue their decline.
Thomas Twitchell: “Check my blog, there you will find an example of a Declaration that I would sign.”
I checked it out. So why not have MacArthur and James White and Steve Camp, et al craft an updated Barmen Declaration for the issues (and any others) that the Manhattan Declaration addresses? I would probably sign that one too!
“Make no mistake, it was nationalist socialist Protestants that empowered the Reich.”
Like today’s Liberal Protestants and Emergers empowering secular liberals.
“Until the so called conservatives quit going along with the left in that area, things will continue their decline.”
Ummmmmm, that’s what the Manhattan Declaration is trying to do.
BTW, here’s a post by Steve Hays countering Steve Camp’s rants against Evangelical Co-Belligerence: here.
[...] Kevin DeYoung has a thorough and balanced explanation of the controversy, including why there is a controversy and the positions of both sides. [...]
[...] Kevin DeYoung concedes that the reservations expressed could be read into the Declaration while asserting that it does not have to be read in that manner. [...]
[...] Update on 12/1/09: Kevin DeYoung has a nice summary of the pros and cons of signing the Manhattan Declaration here. [...]
[...] being nothing more than the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. You can read his analysis here. If you agree with that assessment, I encourage you to read this article. It serves as grounds to [...]
[...] Why Kevin DeYoung signed here. [...]
[...] fidelity to biblical morality. But the Manhattan Declaration produced an unintended consequence by pitting allies against one another and reigniting a fierce debate over whether evangelicals should engage in ecumenical dialogue and [...]
[...] Mohler explains why he signed the document as do Kevin DeYoung, Scot McKnight and Ron Sider (HT: [...]
[...] who have signed Albert Mohler Kevin DeYoung interesting Scot McKnight Justin Taylor Share and [...]