Nov
30
2009
The Manhattan Declaration
The release of The Manhattan Declaration (an ecumenical document addressing the issues of life, marriage, and religious liberty) has already generated significant discussion. Since I have been on the receiving end of many questions concerning it, I thought it best to address it directly. The declaration reads in part as follows:
“We are Christians who have joined together across historical lines of ecclesial differences … to speak and act in defense of these truths.”
I was present at the meetings in Manhattan in October when the draft of this document was presented. I listened carefully and was stirred by the ensuing discussions. I share the concerns expressed in the document. I also have respect for those who wrote the paper and also for many who have subsequently signed it.
Why then have I chosen not to append my name as one of the initial signers? Because of my convictions about the nature of the Gospel, and the importance of Christian co-belligerency being grounded in it. The activity of the Christian as a citizen engaging in co-belligerency over civic and moral issues is not the same as the declaration of Christians mutually recognizing the reality of each other’s faith. This is what I wrote to Chuck Colson:
“Thank you for sending me the amended document. I care deeply about these issues, but I cannot in conscience sign on with those with whom I have fundamental disagreements on the nature of the Gospel. (I just re-read Calvin in the Institutes, Book IV, Section 18.)”
This particular section of Calvin’s Institutes provides us with his response to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass.
It was maintained at the meeting in New York that this document was not to be viewed as a product of ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together). However, in light of the evangelical leadership behind the declaration, it is hard not to take into consideration the most recent ECT paper on “The Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Life and Faith.” In examining the place of Mary, the writers “acknowledge the primary authority of Holy Scripture.” This at least gives the impression of a concession to Roman Catholicism. Protestant theology affirms the sole authority of Scripture. Sadly contemporary evangelicalism seems little concerned with the solas of The Reformation and is therefore susceptible to initiatives, which make something other than the Gospel, the basis of unity and the focus of our declarations.
I am reminded in this connection of the declaration of Jude.
“Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”
It is quite common for people to view The Reformation as simply a disagreement between two groups of men. The protestant martyrs and their monuments testify to the fact that they died, not on account of ecclesial differences, but because the issue was the way of salvation. (Interestingly, exactly the same was true of the Roman Catholic martyrs!)
Are we wise to lay aside crucial historical differences of eternal significance so as to secure temporal advantages? George Smeaton, in his classic work on the atonement, observes, “To convert one sinner from his way is an event of greater importance than the deliverance of a whole kingdom from temporal evil.”
I do not believe it is possible to embrace the premises of ecumenical strategy and still draw the conclusions of evangelical orthodoxy.
In accord with others who have chosen not to sign, my reservation is not with the issues themselves, or in standing with others who share the same concerns, but it is in signing a declaration along with a group of leading churchmen, when I happen to believe that the teaching of some of their churches is in effect a denial of the biblical gospel. I wonder whether it might not have been more advantageous for evangelicals to unite on this matter, rather than seeking cooperation with segments from Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy and the Latter Day Saints. The necessary co-belligerence, as far as I’m concerned, can never be rooted in a Gospel other than that which has been given to us.
7 Comments
Dear Alistair:
Well–have you ever seen the film, quite old now, of Georges Bernanos’ book Diary of a Country Priest? As I recall, the little priest, as he lays dying, whispers “everything is grace”. There is sola gratia.
I studied with Dr. Packer some years ago at Regent College, and he said something once, along the lines of “I can work with anyone on the basis of the Creed.” Dr. Packer isn’t God; but illustrious as the members of The Gospel Coalition may be, would any of us argue that there is another living pastor, theologian, or human being who has been more instrumental in passing on the Gospel, including in its “Reformed and evangelical” distinctives? Packer is a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration, and I know you do not think him a heretic. Nor Tim Keller, nor Al Mohler.
I believe Packer has said that God justifies; and it is right and proper to articulate the way He justifies as accurately as we can, in reference to how the doctrine is stated in Scripture. But as important as that is, it is not our articulation, or even our understanding, that saves us. It is God who saves us.
Questions of ecclesiology and sacramentalism come in here, obviously. But from what I can gather in the current situation, and the dialog going on, the encounter of evangelicalism with Rome, say–
there seems to be a far greater recognition of Christ as the source of everything. So that even the “machineries” of church and liturgy are seen not as salvific in themselves, but only because they participate in the work Christ has already done completely. Isn’t this seen, for instance, in the fact that Catholic teaching recognizes that where communion or baptism is unavailable, the grace of Christ reaches the needy soul?
I’m not defending the whole package by any stretch. But I am convinced, and I’m sure you would agree, that there are Catholics, and Orthodox, who worship the Trinity, who understand that Christ is the One and Only Saviour, full stop. Despite some of the “baggage.” If Christ is the Centre, and the baggage is baggage, well, isn’t it possible that co-belligerency may take on a different hue?
You may recall Richard Wurmbrand: Tortured For Christ? The Romanian pastor who was brutalized under the Communists? His chronicle of suffering in the persecuted church included his account, as a Baptist, of what happened among confessing Christians–Baptists, Catholics, Orthodox, in prison together under the heel of genocidal atheism. It was as though the differences burned away, and Christ remained. Where that is true, the Gospel is all you’ve got, isn’t it? And that seems to be what is developing in the culture, as hostility to God grows.
Interesting dialog. You already know, by the way, that Rome at this moment is far closer to what Luther wanted to achieve initally, than many of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches are that came out of the Reformation historically. Many of those churches are outright heretical now.
Remember what J. Gresham Machen said, even in the 1920’s and 30’s, when comparing evangelical belief to Liberalism and Catholicism…..
God Bless you in every way!
:-)
Bryan Zacharias
Hello, I really enjoy your work. Please check out some of my blogs at http://reginaldbejr.blogspot.com/
Standing together with others,that we don’t agree with on doctrinal issues, doesn’t mean that when we sign a statement along with them ,we condone them or give credence to there belief. This declaration whose three fold statement life, marriage,religious freedom -we implore and stand for,is the real issue. I signed this document because of it’s worthy content. If you draw the conclusion that I and Roman Catholics now concur because we agree on this statement then you have made and invalid assumption. We differ, and that hasn’t changed. We unite in proclamation of these truths, that’s good. Let’s unite our voices to preserve these institutions, that what’s important-not our differences.
[...] while reading D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ book Studies in the Sermon on the Mount. Given all the discussion recently about the Manhattan Declaration, I thought this a timely word: We are all talking about [...]
I am extremely happy you did not sign this document Mr. Begg, but I do have one point of critical disagreement. You stated that perhaps evangelicals should have presented a document with similar concerns on their own; well I ask, why should we present a document in the first place? I think that it would be more advantageous for Christians to engage the political realm not as churchmen or citizens of a heavenly kingdom, but as citizens of an earthly and secular kingdom. We should argue and engage with the secular culture on the basis of natural revelation and take advantage of not simply what God has revealed in Scripture, but also what he has revealed in creation. I am persuaded that such an approach can help prevent the type of error in the Manhattan Declaration and help keep our religious commitments distinct and not muddled or diminished.
[...] one thing, it’s still a topic of great conversation on some of the blogs. See Alister Begg’s reason for not signing it released on Monday. So it seems that it is not too late to have a [...]
[...] who have not signed John MacArthur R.C. Sproul Alistair Begg Michael [...]