So Joe posted a link to the new Manhattan Declaration which came out late last week, and in the comments it came out that I agree with the morals of the document but think this documents and others like it obscure the Gospel. Collin, my co-blogger here at Evangel, didn’t see what I meant (prolly because I didn’t explain a lick of it), so I’m going to give an apologia for myself here and hope that it makes something like good sense.
The first thing is this: it’s pretty hard to deny the precepts of the “in the image of God” apologetic for the sanctity of life, and the Genesis/Ephesians apologetic for the presuppositional category of marriage standing prior to any legal sanction of the thing. I have myself made both arguments to others in the past as these are broadly-Christian ideas; they are certainly consequences of a “Nicene” christianity (Big “N”, small “c” intended).
But, as a second point, I wonder if the argument for religious liberty here is entirely satisfactory. I think I agree with the conclusion and would in some way renovate the path to get there — because as a Christian, I think all other paths to God lead to God-in-his-wrath and not to God-in-His-eternal-love. The idea that man has an obligation of conscience to follow God as he sees fit comes apart quickly when we understand that man’s conscience (broken as every man’s conscience is) is actually part of the problem with this world. Moreover, everyone who rejects the Son rejects the Father who sent Him. I’m not sure we do anyone any favors by telling them, “well — if that’s what floats your boat …”; I’m pretty sure that is the antithesis of the Gospel.
That said, the question of whether the state ought to dictate the religious practices of it citizenry has an interesting political history in the west, and I’m not sure it’s entirely “Christian”. It was certainly worked out by all manner of confessional types, but it’s a fairly pragmatic effort on the part of Europeans to live together without killing each other over deep and irreconcilable theological differences. It’s really a recognition that at some point the political realm shouldn’t enforce any theological restrictions on people. And to that end, given that I am a baptist and that our place in that history is sort of the red-headed step-child of all camps, I say, “as long as you aren’t killing me, I’ll let you have your own reasons for that.”
Now, with that in view — which I think is a reasonable objection to a document which wants to be seen as, above all things, “reasonable” — why would I object to the whole thing as “obscuring the Gospel”?
Here’s where I think it goes off the rails, which is right at the beginning:
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. 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. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.
Let me say it on the front-side: this is a moment when the use of the word “Evangelical” comes to the only viable use it has — to distinguish one segment of historical theological reasoning from the other two main streams of theological reasoning in the post-Nicene world. So Kudos for that.
But the reason that distinction exists — and let’s be honest: the reason the EO/RC divide exists — is in complete denial of the italicized text. Of course it also puts (as others have described it) my rabid anti-catholicism on high alert because it simply smacks of Lumen Gentium language which gets excessively-generous to non-Nicene traditions such as those of Jewish faith and also of Muslim faith.
See: as an actual Evangelical, I think that “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” to proclaim and thereafter live by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God does this, and requires it of us believers, because we are in His image and frankly His creatures over whom He has a place above all kings, above all other reasonable allegiances, above even our own claim to our own lives.
When we substitute the phrase “with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image” for the phrase “to proclaim and thereafter live by the Gospel of Jesus Christ” we have done two things:
[1] we have obscured the necessary and central fact of the Gospel by overlooking the irreconcilable differences between “Evangelicals”, “Roman Catholics”, and “Orthodox” by calling all of these groups “believers” in a rather indiscriminate way. I’ve said it elsewhere, so it should be no surprise when I say it here that I am sure there are Catholics who are saved, and likewise for the occasional Eastern Orthodox you may run into who exercises an Evangelical (large “E” intended) understanding of Jesus and the consequences of Him; but to throw out the wide blanket and just call all of these groups “Christian” in an overly-broad sociological sense, and to call all of them “believers” in the sense required to make the rest of the reasoning in this document is much. It makes the distinction between “belief” and “unbelief” such a fuzzy line that I doubt anyone signing this document actually means what they have said here.
By obscuring that line, the Gospel is obscured — because the actual consequences of the Gospel are obscured.
[2] We have substituted the reasoning of the Gospel with the reasoning of statism. The reasoning of the Gospel is this: because Christ died for sins in accordance with Scripture, and was buried and raised on the third day in accordance with Scripture, men are called to repentance which is not just a confession of past wrong but a second birth — a new life in which we are dead to the moral law and its condemnation and raised to new life in the kind of love Christ has and showed us by dying on the cross.
The reasoning of statism is that the state defines what sort of people we will be — that if the state defines marriage, or if the state defines human rights, or if the state defines the religious liberty of the citizens, then they have it.
When you look at these two things side by side in this short form, it is clear how the latter interposes itself against the Gospel and in place of the Gospel.
“Wait a second, Frank,” comes the right-minded objector who already signed this statement, “this statement doesn’t say that at all. It’s sort of circumspect to cite Scripture and verse to underscore the source of its reasoning — and it’s reasoning really goes, ‘if God defines X like this, we should define X like this,’ which I doubt you would deny. They aren’t making any demands of the state at all — certainly not the kind you are listing here.”
My answer to that is to read the preamble of this document a little more closely. The historical metanarative of document is that because Christians fought hard to change the Government and the law, our society changed — that society is changed by altering its laws. Yet it seems to me that as often — for example, in prohibition — misguided pietism makes the problems worse because it is misguided pietism and not the Gospel.
You know: when Paul looked at a church like the folks in Corinth, his urgent advice to them was to remember what was of first importance — that is, the Gospel. If they would remember the Gospel and live like it is true, they would resolve their relational and religious problems. He told the Romans that the love consequence of the Gospel exceeds the demands of the law, and puts their critics to shame. And when he was faced with Festus, rather than lecture him about the gross immorality of the Roman Empire, he preached the Gospel to him in hopes he would be converted.
This document does none of that. It assumes a big tent for the definition of what it means to be a “believer”, assumes that law is greater than grace in reforming the hearts of men, and provides moral reasoning that those who are unbelievers have no reason to accept — because they are unbelievers. And in making these three items “especially troubling” in the “whole scope of Christian moral concern”, it overlooks that the key solution to these moral concerns is the renovation of the human heart by supernatural means established by the death and resurrection of Christ.
The three key issues in this document are important social issues today. My contention is that the Gospel is the solution to these three issues, and I respectfully decline to sign in.
Related posts:
November 23rd, 2009 | 2:43 am | #1
Frank Turk: “why would I object to the whole thing as “obscuring the Gospel”?”
And because you argue that the Manhattan Declaration obscures the Gospel (from a Protestant or Evangelical perspective), then that is the reason why you respectively decline to sign or affirm it.
I will leave it to others to argue whether your argument holds. I would just like to focus on another matter. Have you ever considered that your objection cuts both ways? I.e., by not signing and affirming the Declaration (and honestly, if you think it’s that bad, then the action of integrity is to urge other Protestants not to sign it as well), then that action might really be the action that is obscuring the Gospel for unbelievers? That not signing it might actually be a more Gospel-obscuring action than signing it?
Second, is there ever a situation or circumstance whereby you could imagine signing a declaration with both Catholics and Orthodox folks (and every one maintains their theological distinctives)? If so, what would that situation be? If not, then at least you’re consistent in not wanting to be aligned at all with Catholics and Orthodox members in any endeavor.
Third, as a matter of consistency, do you regard the past collaborations (whether formal or informal) between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox to have been a Gospel-obscuring mistake by those Protestants in that endeavor? For example, take Prop. 8 in California last year. Suppose there were conservative Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox who joined together to get Prop. 8 passed. Do you then hold that those conservative Protestants obscured the Gospel because they teamed up with Catholics and Orthodox members?
I look forward to your thoughtful response.
November 23rd, 2009 | 6:48 am | #2
I do not consider the question of ‘not-signing’ to be a problem, though I would have framed the question you are asking, TUAD, this way: do you think publicly renouncing the document obscures the Gospel?
I would ask the question in that way because that is the argument guys like Chuck Colson make in favor of ECT-like documents like this one: if you renounce these efforts, you are anti-unity and therefore anti-Gospel.
My answer to this question is simple: unity does not come before truth — it is a consequence of truth. Any unity which props itself up in spite of truth is a sham, and it in fact militates against truth.
I have other things to say about this, but that is the foundational place to start.
November 23rd, 2009 | 8:40 am | #3
I like this question becuase it is a trick question, but it’s the right kind of trick question.
I would question the value of making joint statement across historically-unresolvable lines, and the value of making external declarations like this to unbelievers. On a much smaller scale, when the SBC made its declaration against Alcohol a few years back, I had the same objection then that I have now: making moralistic declarations — however pragmatically-useful and correct from a moral actuary’s standpoint — to unbelievers is useless unless the Gospel is pointed to as the solution for the problem.
I would be willing to work with my fellow American citizens for any number of civically-admirable ends, including add, changing, and removing laws which we can agree are necessary to add, change or remove. I just don’t want them to confuse my advocacy for the Second Amendment, for example, with my underlying notion that Christ is actually my Savior and not my political right to gun ownership.
That is: I believe in the Second Amendment because I am an American, and not because I am a Christian — and peppering my view of the Second Amendment with the 10th commandment or some other such Biblical decorations confuses the objectives both of Government and of the Gospel.
But to answer the question you asked, I don’t believe in signing declarations like this one in principle — without regard to who else signs it.
November 23rd, 2009 | 8:56 am | #4
I’ve never officially joined a church, for the simple reason that I refuse to put my name to a document I cannot entirely agree with.
November 23rd, 2009 | 9:00 am | #5
The irony, I think, is that the group which took the most flack for the Prop 8 issue was the Mormon Church, which ultimately makes a lot of sense to me since they are a moralistic religion on the face of it. Moralistic religions should be working like the devil (indeed) to make sure morals are codified as law — becuase in their view, making people act morally is where everyt person’s hope lies.
That said, I think there is an interesting moment in the current document — where the framers have cited Christ’s command to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to give to God what is God’s. In context, this is perhaps the most revolutionary anti-insurrectionist statement in the history of the world. Christ is telling the Jews — the ones whose constitution is the Law of Moses, and for whom idolatry is an act of treason — to go ahead and pay their taxes. It’s Caesar’s coin: if he wants it back, give it to him.
But! Give to God what is God’s.
Now what does that mean? I mean: it sounds good. It sounds like the kind of religious platitude you might hear from one of Oprah’s religious speculators — it’s sort of vague enough to mean almost anything. But in this context it means something specific: there is an obedience which is greater than law.
You know: the reason they asked Jesus whether they should pay taxes was so that they could trip him up — that they could find a reason to accuse him and discredit him. Yet Jesus was actually the Messiah — so when He says, “give to God what is God’s,” He’s saying that they ought to give Him personally a little more respect. Somehow they have to get over their petty concerns and get involved in what God is doing right now.
I think that we need to get involved in what God is doing right now rather than getting a little tightly wound over what Caesar is doing. Caesar’s at God’s mercy, and he’ll be judged in due time. We’re better off by far defining the Gospel and its consequences in our local churches than we are trying to become JesusPAC — both immediately and eternally.
The question, really, is not “who we teamed up with”: it is “what is Jesus’ name and reputation for?” I suggest it’s not for generic civil reconstruction.
November 23rd, 2009 | 9:09 am | #6
Anthony –
That’s anti-biblical for at least three reasons:
[1] You are refusing to be subject to spiritual authority. The believer is called by the NT to be joined to the local body and under the authority of its elders — and contextually, that means something in the English-speaking church. That way may not be the only way (other cultures may have other means to demonstrate membership), but it is the way the local church works in the English-speaking world.
[2] It is inherently contentious, presenting a boundary of separation which no one can overcome. Christ has removed the wall on enmity between you and God; this is the basis for you to overcome the wall of enmity between you and other believers.
[3] While it is indubitable that there are good reasons to be separated from other people who are in the faith, there is also no question that not every matter is a matter of irreconcilable differences. If you fail to make the distinction between the serious matters of the faith and the incidental matters of the faith, you will obscure the whole faith. It is exactly the same mistake represented by this document, only in the opposite direction.
November 23rd, 2009 | 9:20 am | #7
Let me add, completely off-topic:
I love the “related posts” function. Anyone reading this post and wanting more should read those posts to get exactly the right measure of “more”.
November 23rd, 2009 | 9:51 am | #8
I am a committed Christian whose whole life is founded up Christ, and I have a huge problem with the Manhattan Declaration. When Christians come out with a document proclaiming what they are against and describe their beliefs in a negative way, I do not think they are good witnesses to the world. If someone showed me this document before I became a Christian, I believe it would negatively dispose me to Christianity. This is why I will not join my name to this document.
November 23rd, 2009 | 10:35 am | #9
Word.
November 23rd, 2009 | 10:39 am | #10
Frank,
Thanks for your thoughtful responses. (BTW, there was no trick question.)
“do you think publicly renouncing the document obscures the Gospel?”
Yes, that’s a good way of framing the question, a question which shows the other side of your double-edged objection to the Manhattan Declaration.
“My answer to this question is simple: unity does not come before truth — it is a consequence of truth. Any unity which props itself up in spite of truth is a sham, and it in fact militates against truth.”
I anticipated this and I think it’s essential to be clear about terms without falling into the trap of equivocation or talking past one another. There is a “truth” about the Gospel, what is the Good News precisely. And there is the “truth” about the sanctity of life, about the nature of marriage, and about the curbs against religious freedom and religious expression which the Manhattan Declaration declares. And if I understand you correctly, the ecumenical unity on the truths that the Manhattan Declaration affirms is achieved at the expense of the Gospel Truth. (Little “t” truths obscuring big “T” Truth, correct?)
The objection to your objection then is whether you are positing a false antithesis. And then whether your (presumed and to be argued) false antithesis obscures the Gospel.
“But to answer the question you asked, I don’t believe in signing declarations like this one in principle — without regard to who else signs it.”
And if the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox sign declarations like this, then, in all likelihood, you won’t sign it because of your doctrinal objections to their theology, which boiled down to its essence, means that their doctrinal teaching obscures the Gospel.
“The question, really, is not “who we teamed up with”: it is “what is Jesus’ name and reputation for?” I suggest it’s not for generic civil reconstruction.”
Now this is an interesting statment. Earlier you said that give regard to who else is signing the document. Now you say that that’s not really the question.
Once again, let’s flip it back on you. Let’s say that all the drafters, advocates, and signers of the Manhattan Declaration are doing so because the Manhattan Declaration is declaring Jesus’ Holy Name to a fallen society. That should overcome your secondary concern about “who ‘we’ teamed up with”.
On a related note, to gain more clarity into your declination, if this Manhattan Declaration was restricted only to Protestants, would you sign it then?
November 23rd, 2009 | 11:01 am | #11
TUAD –
one of the reasons that I don’t enjoy interacting with you is that you’re a pretty unimaginative and uncharitable guy, and that manifests itself here by your inability (or perhaps unwillingness to read what I wrote and take it at face value.
I said this:
and you interpret it this way:
My problem is the massive flaw in the definition of the word “believers” in the statement — it is intentionally undefined. The problem is not that I can’t agree with Catholics about anything: the problem is that we are simply not being honest about how formal Evangelicalism and formal Catholicism frames their own views and the views of each other.
You’re trying to make my objection into your objection, and I refuse. I decline.
November 23rd, 2009 | 11:29 am | #12
Despite the affirmation that Catholics and Orthodox are Christian, I would be cautiously willing to sign this document for the same reasons stated by Mohler. The issue in the document is not Catholic or Orthodox claims but biblical positions on matters of marriage, life, and liberty.
And recognizing the concern about a moralized gospel, I would still be willing to sign. Christians should strive for a just government, which requires just laws that are shaped around the commands of God. Sin is the true disease at the root of all the problems discussed in the document, and the gospel is the only answer for sin, but we still work to establish a just government and a just society even when unbelievers are included within government and society.
Also, the document is not a call for political action. It is a position statement whereby the signers make clear where they stand on these issues and declare that they will not change their position even if the laws of man oppose them. This is stated in the last paragraph of the Declaration section: “We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.” It is also stated in the last paragraph of the document.
I have a harder time with how the declaration deals with marriage. I think the Catholic influence shows most in this section. Over and over the document places procreation as the great purpose of the marriage union. I certainly affirm that children should be sought in any marriage but procreation is not the biblically defined purpose and goal of marriage. Only once does the document make any reference to the picture of marriage given in Ephesians 5:22-33, and the picture is quickly misapplied.
The section on life was very good and the section on religious liberty was more a statement that the signers will not submit to unjust laws than a call for religious liberty.
I do not yet know if I will sign, but my concerns with the document are a little different than yours. :)
November 23rd, 2009 | 11:31 am | #13
Frank Turk,
Pot. Kettle. Black. I have believed for a long time that it is *YOU* who is a very uncharitable guy and who has had either an inability and/or an unwillingness to read what I wrote, and then to take it at face value without imputing your own uncharitable spin and caricature.
When you toss accusations, try looking in the mirror first.
“My problem is the massive flaw in the definition of the word “believers” in the statement — it is intentionally undefined. The problem is not that I can’t agree with Catholics about anything: the problem is that we are simply not being honest about how formal Evangelicalism and formal Catholicism frames their own views and the views of each other.”
Now it comes out. I have prodded you to release what you think is the “massive flaw”.
“You’re trying to make my objection into your objection, and I refuse.”
Completely bogus. Talk about being uncharitable. You’re imputing wrong motives. I have asked clarifying questions to gain a better understanding of your position.
You’re reacting badly.
November 23rd, 2009 | 12:19 pm | #14
For what it’s worth, I think TUAD’s and Chris’s positions are eminently sensible because they explain well how to go along with those who endorse the truth on issues like marriage and life while not endorsing their mistaken views on soteriology. They see clearly what is the issue in view here and what is not.
Put differently God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. Part of that reconciliation includes a redeemed view of life and of marriage. The fact that Christians in other traditions get this right is reason for gratitude, even though their mistaken views on soteriology are not.
Put differently again, Are they believers? Yes, they are. Are they mistaken on soteriology? Yes, they are. Are they right about life and marriage. Yes, they are. Do I stand with them where they are right. Yes, I do.
November 23rd, 2009 | 12:24 pm | #15
TUAD said “Now it comes out. I have prodded you to release what you think is the “massive flaw”.”
LOL, you think too highly of yourself. It was plain all along what the issue was, you’re just seem too afraid to say it, and so you try to get everyone else to say it for you.
The only issue that ever made anyone not want to sign this document, was the clouding of the gospel by assuming that all signers agreed on what it was, but calling them fellow believers.
How was that ever ambiguous, from the first dissenting comment (to the document) up till now?
November 23rd, 2009 | 12:26 pm | #16
Michael,
“Put differently again, Are they believers? Yes, they are. ”
Therein lies the problem. The reformation and Trent say otherwise, at least in referring to the official teachings of the two sides of the divide (if not necessarily in relation to what individuals may believe).
It’s precisely the fuzzing of that, which creates the problem.
November 23rd, 2009 | 12:29 pm | #17
So my only question for Frank is whether or not he’s going to be consistent and call out some of the signers by name and publicly ask that they remove their names from the list and recant, and by “some of the signers” I’m referring to those within his theological camp.
Since he seems to have no problem calling others out publicly.
November 23rd, 2009 | 12:48 pm | #18
It seems to me that the bottom line has to be the gospel and whether or not it is more valuable and worthy of defending, than the lives or unborn children and the sanctity of marriage.
Of course the gospel is vastly more important.
Since both sides have officially declared the other to be outside the bounds of the biblical gospel, and since this document, in it’s preamble, attempts to slide those issues under the rug, how can the to sides come together here and why do so many have a problem with the dissenting views?
No one likes the Mormon/Catholic comparison, and I get that. But fundamentally, the issue is that both of those sects, as totally opposed to one another as they are, each preach a gospel different from the Evangelical gospel.
Would this document be signed happily by all, as it is currently written, with the minor addition of Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses included in the list of believers? Of course it wouldn’t.
So why would a Catholic leader sign something which claims that those believing in salvation by grace alone, through faith alone on account of Christ alone, are fellow believers, when Rome has declared that very list of descriptors to be anathema?
It seems plain to me that both sides should sidle up to the table and say to each other ‘You’re not signing it are you? Yeah, me neither. You still on for golf tomorrow? Great, see you then.’
November 23rd, 2009 | 12:56 pm | #19
I’m a little skeptical that the signers took the document to be affirming doctrinal agreement with other signers in a formal way, given the fact that Mohler signed it and clearly would agree with several of the people in this thread about the gospel dividing evangelicals and RCs. Is it possible they interpreted it to mean “we see evidence of the Spirit and Christ in these people, despite the fact that their official doctrine is something we cannot agree with”?
November 23rd, 2009 | 1:25 pm | #20
Frank:
The error is not mine, but those who demand that I make an oath of agreement to false teachings, however petty those teachings may be, as a prerequisite to official membership.
Either way, the issue of submission to church authority is a tricky thing for Protestants, since the line of succession from the apostles has (in our view) been broken. Ergo, who exactly IS the authority? This is not a rhetorical question.
Whatever your preconceived notions of me, I’ll have you know that I attend church regularly, but it happens to be a denomination that does not have an official membership roll. Agree or disagree, that’s just how they do it, and it enables me to avoid the awkwardness of having to consent to something like the Westminster Confession of Faith or the necessity of speaking in tongues, etc.
Honestly, I think most churchgoers don’t give much thought to what they are agreeing to when they consent to a list of doctrines. I’m a person who takes this stuff seriously, and takes oaths seriously, and that is why I’ve never gone through any kind of membership ceremony… unless you consider baptism to be a membership ceremony, which it certainly is in a more profound way.
November 23rd, 2009 | 1:41 pm | #21
You can’t stand against others when they are right, or stand with them when they are wrong. On the issues of marriage and life they are right. On the issue of justification by faith alone they are wrong. This document is explicitly about the former, not the latter. This is not Trent vs Geneva; it’s Biblical morality vs. secular morality (if morality it can be called).
In short, fight the fight being fought, not some other one.
November 23rd, 2009 | 1:56 pm | #22
My problem with the document deals with what you discuss later in your comments. It isn’t that the historical claims are not true in the absolute sense, but they are strained. It also has nothing to do with what the document claims to deal with. It therefore opens up an avenue of attack that is not useful to the causes that it does later address.
I’m frustrated that I feel unable to sign it.
November 23rd, 2009 | 2:00 pm | #23
Michael Bauman: “For what it’s worth, I think TUAD’s and Chris’s positions are eminently sensible because they explain well how to go along with those who endorse the truth on issues like marriage and life while not endorsing their mistaken views on soteriology.”
Thanks Michael. I appreciate the affirmation.
Chris Roberts: “Despite the affirmation that Catholics and Orthodox are Christian, I would be cautiously willing to sign this document for the same reasons stated by Mohler.”
I just looked up what Dr. Mohler wrote and he makes very compelling arguments against the objections that Frank Turk and others have lobbied against Protestants signing and affirming the Manhattan Declaration.
Excerpts: “There are several reasons, but they all come down to this — I believe we are facing an inevitable and culture-determining decision on the three issues centrally identified in this statement. I also believe that we will experience a significant loss of Christian churches, denominations, and institutions in this process. There is every good reason to believe that the freedom to conduct Christian ministry according to Christian conviction is being subverted and denied before our eyes. I believe that the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and religious liberty are very much in danger at this very moment.
The signatories to The Manhattan Declaration include evangelical leaders, as well as leaders from the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches.
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.
Finally, I signed The Manhattan Declaration because I want to put my name on its final pledge — that we will not bend the knee to Caesar. We will not participate in any subversion of life. We will not be forced to accept any other relationship as equal in status or rights to heterosexual marriage. We will not refrain from proclaiming the truth — and we will order our churches and institutions and ministries by Christian conviction.
There will be Christian leaders, pastors, seminaries, colleges, universities, denominations, churches, and organizations that will abandon the faith on these issues. They will bend the knee to Caesar. Far too many already have. The signatories to The Manhattan Declaration pledge that we will not be among them.
I want my name on that list. I surrendered no conviction or confessional integrity to sign that statement. No one asked me to compromise in any manner.”
I think it’s fair to say that Dr. Mohler does not believe the Gospel is being obscured by Protestants signing the Manhattan Declaration.
November 23rd, 2009 | 2:10 pm | #24
I certainly understand the discomfort which some orthodox Christians have in signing the document. I would have preferred that some parts of it been worded differently and believe that much of the preamble, while strictly speaking is accurate, glosses over some “inconvenient” and shameful facts about the actions of past generations of Christians. Not all those who claimed the name of Christians supported the civil rights movement. Indeed, many actively opposed it. And many supported through their churches the legalization by the state and the acceptance by their denomination of birth control, abortion and now same sex “marriage” and ordination.
Nonetheless, I signed the declaration. I saw nothing in the document which was heretical and believe that the time has come, indeed has long since arrive, for those of us from different Christian traditions who hold to the orthodox and historic morals of the Christian faith to stand together in our opposition to the moral decay in our society and the state’s support and endorsement of the same and in support of our brothers with different views on doctrine who, nonetheless, recognize that Christians cannot support or even tolerate what our state not only condones but is now in some cases demanding that we support.
I certainly respect those who believe they cannot sign the declaration (and have friends who have told me that they will not do so), but I would urge them to reconsider a decision which I frankly believe is wrong. If we must wait until we have a declaration to which all of us can agree with every word and with every possible interpretation, then we will continue in our ineffectual opposition to what is surely coming. I signed the declaration as much, if not more, for my children and grandchildren, who will face the consequences of our failure to manfully defend our faith and morals against our decadent culture, as I did for myself.
If the declaration meets the approval Robert George, Timothy George, Chuck Colson, Peter Kreeft, Jim Kushiner, Albert Mohler, Russell Moore, J.I. Packer, Fr. Patrick Reardon, George Weigel, all of whom I respect and each of whom is solid in maintaining their respective distinctives and who may themselves not agree with every word, as worded, of the declaration, then any concerns which I might have should not be an impediment to my signing the declaration. How long will we allow our difference to divide us in our effort to resist the coming darkness? How long will we allow our difference to keep us silent when those who share our moral beliefs, if not all of our dogmas, suffer for their stand on matters upon which we all agree? How long will we prefer our divisions to the unity which the times demand?
November 23rd, 2009 | 2:18 pm | #25
Gregory,
It is worth noting that one can work with Catholics and Orthodox against these social ills without ever signing a document. It is also worth noting that at the end of the day there is no particular value in signing a document but there is value in what one does. I can appreciate what these documents help us to proclaim, but I will appreciate all the more what I see Christians do, and doing needs no Manhattan Declaration.
November 23rd, 2009 | 2:21 pm | #26
“How long will we allow our difference to divide us in our effort to resist the coming darkness? How long will we allow our difference to keep us silent when those who share our moral beliefs, if not all of our dogmas, suffer for their stand on matters upon which we all agree? How long will we prefer our divisions to the unity which the times demand?”
Given that the required answer to the above questions is “No longer”, and given the myriad other groups who claim to be Christian, how far could the list be expanded and still be acceptable.
Would the addition of Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses be acceptable? Or any number of other non-Christian-yet-claiming-to-be-Christian groups?
If that would be acceptable, then I accept your reasoning, while still declining the invitation.
If it wouldn’t be acceptable, then a better explanation is required I think.
Is freedom and morality the be all and end all?
November 23rd, 2009 | 2:32 pm | #27
Daryl Little: “Is freedom and morality the be all and end all?”
I did not see Gregory Laughlin saying this or even implying this in his comment.
November 23rd, 2009 | 2:39 pm | #28
TUAD,
Fair enough, but I do. His last paragraph fairly screams it.
November 23rd, 2009 | 3:22 pm | #29
Frank – I guess this is an honest question, because I agree with your assessment but basically see it as off topic to what the Manhattan Declaration addresses.
Why can’t the arguments you’ve used elsewhere referencing the Nicene Creed be used in much the same way to support this doc?
The Manhattan Declaration separates those who recognize the God of the Bible as the God of the universe from practices that are so clearly objectionable to the nature of his universe that a stand has to be made. Its purpose is not for Eastern Orthodox, Catholics and Evangels to sing Kumbaya together.
The scope of the Manhattan Declaration is limited to a united voice on the 3 issues it takes a stand on.
November 23rd, 2009 | 3:48 pm | #30
Frank,
Your way of Christianity is cold, lonely, and lifeless.
November 23rd, 2009 | 4:10 pm | #31
Orthodoxdj: “Frank,
Your way of Christianity is cold, lonely, and lifeless.”
And that is why I have asked Frank Turk to consider what he himself said “do you think publicly renouncing the document obscures the Gospel?”
Because the Gospel is warm, joyful, and life-giving.
And since Frank Turk’s way of Christianity is viewed (by some) as being “cold, lonely, and lifeless,” then his way is also obscuring the Gospel.
November 23rd, 2009 | 4:35 pm | #32
OrthoDJ:
I am sure that’s the best you can do.
=============================
Paul D –
That’s an interesting approach to the document. Here’s why I wouldn’t use that approach:
The Nicene Creed is intended to focus on the hard-center of the faith; this document is no such thing. Its target is the “whole scope of Christian moral concern”? No wait — it’s target is three items in the whole scope of Christian moral concern.
It turns out that in such a large target, they picked things which, I think, are consequences of other problems more centrally addressed by the Gospel.
I want to give these people who did sign the benefit of the doubt; I respect, ultimately, the points they are making. I’m just not interested in talking about those three items are the most important things on my agenda — and I don’t think that “christians” even in the broadest sociological sense should have these things are our first concern.
And I’m not convinced that congratulating ourselves as standing in a long history of people we say were doing what we say we are doing is exactly the most convincing way to go about any of it.
November 23rd, 2009 | 4:58 pm | #33
Chris Roberts and Dr. Mohler have both said something similar; I’ll quote Chris on it:
And the implication is being forwarded that this is not a call to action.
As they say on the internet: Really?
First of all, I again point the readers to the phrase “fellow believers”. With his clear statements that he doesn’t believe this for a minute, I wonder what Dr. Mohler means by that phrase in this document? You know: I think he has acted in good conscience, and he has a public view of these topics which is admirable, but to say that this specific phrase is not a call to action is a little less than fully-reasoned-out.
But then there’s the phrase, “no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence”. So those who signed are going to do some things, and they are not going to do others — how? By publishing more statements? I hope for their sakes not — because the comparison between saving babies off of trash heaps and publishing a statement like this is somewhat lop-sided. If the tradition they see themselves in is the one which went to death in the Circus of Nero rather than deny Christ, this version looks a little effete and passive.
November 23rd, 2009 | 5:11 pm | #34
Wow, Frank, I sure think you are giving the Manhattan Statement.
Could it say things better? Sure, it could.
Does it say what it must say, well? I believe it does.
I’m thinking that some of us will be quibbling on blog sites right up until the moment someone comes along and unplugs our conversations.
If you are opposed to “Statements” as “do nothing but talk” then let judgement first come to the House of Israel and let us cease blogging, discussing and talking here.
The Statement is a public statement announcing our intention of refusing to obey the federal government when they order us to do something we can not do, and will not do.
There were a bunch of Christians and theologians who loved to debate, argue and quibble about what the Church can, and can not say, or should and should not say, and they kept quibbling and arguing until finally along came representatives of the government and either made them say what they must not say, and agree to what they never should have agreed to and hauled some of them off and killed them.
It happened just a bit over fifty years ago.
I think there are a lot of Christians living in “la-la land” about the realities we face.
November 23rd, 2009 | 5:16 pm | #35
Frank – I see your point, and agree – and I won’t press the point any more. But this doc isn’t opposed to the Gospel being the solution. It’s addressing issues that the government and church are coming into direct conflict over and saying – “your wrong, it won’t matter if you continue to press these issues, we will not relinquish the Gospel.” If the 3 points are meant to communicate the Gospel then no one would have signed it. But if the powers that be think the Gospel will fail because churches will lose tax credits or something, they are wrong.
Last sentences of “Declaration” paragraph.
November 23rd, 2009 | 5:24 pm | #36
[...] justice by David Frank Turk at Evangel blog has a good critique of the Manhattan Project up on Evangel. The whole thing is worth perusing but I’ll post only his conclusion [...]
November 23rd, 2009 | 5:32 pm | #37
The “ecumenical” aspect of this is troubling.
But have we come to a place where Christians can be pro-choice and pro-gay and we tolerate such views in church leadership and in our congregations? When Christians become advocates of sin or have aligned themselves to those who propagate such sin socially and politically, that is a serious problem. Maybe one this document tries to address in a flawed way.
I think if we do not confront the Liberal influence that is increasingly pervasive within Christianity, we will see the preaching of the Gospel turned into an act of hatred and bigotry. To preach against sin, as we must, will violate this new Liberal dogma that is emerging and I think that is why we must also stand against sins like abortion and homosexuality. These two sins are uniquely targeted at undermined the Gospel. Once sin is no longer questionable then those of us who must preach against it and call people to repent from it will suffer persecution. I think this may need to happen to walk us up, but should we not confront those Christians who are helping to bring this about?
http://bluecollarphilosophy.com
November 23rd, 2009 | 5:36 pm | #38
Rev. Paul T. McClain: “Wow, Frank, I sure think you are giving the Manhattan Statement.”
Rev. McClain, could you complete your sentence above?
Also, you wrote: “It happened just a bit over fifty years ago.” Could you be a little more specific? I think I know what you’re referring to, but I prefer not to guess wrongly.
“I think there are a lot of Christians living in “la-la land” about the realities we face.”
Do you mean the Christians who have signed the Declaration or do you mean the Christians who won’t sign the Declaration?
November 23rd, 2009 | 5:59 pm | #39
Rev. McCain –
I had a line-by-line response to you, but you have wandered pretty far afield here from my original point.
This document does none of that. It assumes a big tent for the definition of what it means to be a “believer”, assumes that law is greater than grace in reforming the hearts of men, and provides moral reasoning that those who are unbelievers have no reason to accept — because they are unbelievers. And in making these three items “especially troubling” in the “whole scope of Christian moral concern”, it overlooks that the key solution to these moral concerns is the renovation of the human heart by supernatural means established by the death and resurrection of Christ.
The three key issues in this document are important social issues today. My contention is that the Gospel is the solution to these three issues, and I respectfully decline to sign in — as if my signing it changes anything about this world.
November 23rd, 2009 | 6:06 pm | #40
Frank:
Excellent post!
You and I have disagreed on somethings throughout the years, but this was spot on in every way.
Thank you for standing for the truth of the gospel on this important issue.
Steve
Roms. 3:21-31
November 23rd, 2009 | 6:07 pm | #41
“It is worth noting that one can work with Catholics and Orthodox against these social ills without ever signing a document. It is also worth noting that at the end of the day there is no particular value in signing a document but there is value in what one does. I can appreciate what these documents help us to proclaim, but I will appreciate all the more what I see Christians do, and doing needs no Manhattan Declaration.”
I feel the same about comboxes.
November 23rd, 2009 | 6:07 pm | #42
TUAD:
I think he’s talking about Nazis, which would be 80 years ago — which also frames the cultural perspective that wants to make thsi “declaration”, and where they locked in their standard operating procedure.
Thirty years ago, I can see why someone would think this would be effective. It wasn’t, and that’s why we have to move on and engage in a more palpable way.
November 23rd, 2009 | 6:09 pm | #43
I think someone put Steve Camp up to that just to see if that could change my mind …
November 23rd, 2009 | 6:13 pm | #44
“I am a committed Christian whose whole life is founded up Christ, and I have a huge problem with the Manhattan Declaration. When Christians come out with a document proclaiming what they are against and describe their beliefs in a negative way, I do not think they are good witnesses to the world. If someone showed me this document before I became a Christian, I believe it would negatively dispose me to Christianity. This is why I will not join my name to this document.”
So, you are coming out with a combox statement proclaiming what you are against and describing your beliefs in a negative way, and thus, on your own grounds you are not a good witness to the world. So, your comments refute themselves.
Try again.
November 23rd, 2009 | 6:14 pm | #45
“I think someone put Steve Camp up to that just to see if that could change my mind.”
Steve Camp, otherwise known as the elevator music Larry Norman. :-)
November 23rd, 2009 | 6:37 pm | #46
Here’s something I published in Christian Research Journal a couple of years ago. Some find it helpful:
Wise as Serpents:
Christians, Politics, and Strategic Voting
by Francis J. Beckwith
Imagine it is Election Day 2004. You know for whom you will cast your vote for the office of President of the United States. You are not sure, however, about who will get your vote for other offices up for election, such as those in the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, state senate, state assembly, and city council.
You consider yourself to be a social conservative, and so you conclude that your best strategy is to vote for every socially conservative candidate regardless of his or her party affiliation. This is the strategy some well-meaning Christian personalities offer on their radio programs and in their literature. It would be a mistake, however, to follow this strategy.
Caesar’s Coin. In order to explain what you probably think is a completely outrageous suggestion, we have to take an excursion into the Bible as well as the nature of the American government. The New Testament speaks very little about government and the Christian’s responsibility as a citizen; nevertheless, there is one particular passage that is cited most often in this regard. Jesus, in a familiar scene, is confronted with an apparent dilemma by the disciples of the Pharisees:
The dominant understanding of this passage is that Jesus was instructing His audience that the church and government have jurisdiction over different spheres of authority. I believe this understanding is largely correct; however, those who present it often miss the subtle and political implications of what Jesus said. He asked whose image was on the coin. The answer was, of course, Caesar’s. There is, however, an unsaid question that begs to be answered: What or who has the image of God on it?[1] If the coin was under the authority of Caesar because it bore his image, then we are under the authority of God because we bear His image. Good governments, nevertheless, ought to be concerned with the well-being of their citizens, and these citizens correctly believe that their well-being is best sustained by a just government. It follows that both government and the church, though having separate jurisdictions, share a common obligation to advance the well-being of those who bear God’s image.
The Nature of American Government and Politics. The United States is a constitutional republic of separated powers. By “constitutional republic” I mean that the United States is a nation whose government is based on an authoritative document, the Constitution, in which the government’s powers and the rights of its people are enumerated. By “separation of powers” I mean that each government of the United States, whether federal, state or local, and each branch of those governments, whether executive, legislative, or judicial, has its own scope of authority and powers unique to itself. This places limits on governments and reduces the likelihood of tyranny and despotism.
From the very beginning and through most of its history, two parties have dominated American electoral politics. Today, the two parties are Republican and Democrat, each holding to contrary points of view on a variety of issues that are important to Christians such as the moral status of the unborn, gay rights, public education, constitutional interpretation, judicial appointments, and the relationship between religion and government. There are, of course, members in each party who do not act in agreement with their party’s platform (i.e., stated views), largely because of the demographics and cultural history of the part of the country in which they were elected. One finds, for example, the phenomena of the “liberal Republican” in the Northeast (e.g., Rudolph Giuliani) and the “conservative Democrat” in the South (e.g., Zel Miller).
In legislative bodies (Le. those that make laws) the majority party is essentially in control of legislation that is put to a final vote. This is because the majority party controls the leadership of the legislative body, which includes the chairmanships of committees that decide what sort of legislation will be debated and voted on by the entire body. If, for example, the majority party in the U.S. Senate has a platform that affirms abortion rights, then that party’s policy preferences on abortion will be advanced even if a few U.S. Senators who are members of that party are not supporters of abortion rights.
Strategic Voting. The goal of both the church and the state is to advance the public good. That seems simple enough. Some Christians would conclude, therefore, that they should always vote for the candidate, regardless of that candidate’s party affiliation, whose views most closely line up with what advances the public good. This voting strategy, however, ignores the realities of our constitutional republic and its two-party system. Consider the following illustration.
Suppose that Mr. Smith is running against Mr. Jones for the state assembly (a law-making body). Mr. Smith is strongly pro-abortion while Mr. Jones is strongly pro-life. The typical conservative Christian who considers only this factor would say that one ought to vote for Mr. Jones. Imagine, however, that Mr. Smith belongs to the pro-life party, which holds the majority (26) of the 51 seats in the assembly. Mr. Jones, on the other hand, belongs to the pro-abortion party, which holds the minority (25) of the seats in the assembly. If Mr. Smith wins, then the balance of power in the assembly stays with the pro-life party, and it can maintain leadership of the assembly, fill committee chairmanships with members of the pro-life party, and hold hearings and votes on legislation that is important to pro-lifers. On the other hand, suppose that Mr. Jones wins. Even though Mr. Jones is pro-life, the balance of power would shift to the pro-abortion party. The pro-abortion party would now control the assembly leadership and thus the assembly committees that decide what sort of legislation gets out of committee; therefore, if Mr. Jones is elected, it actually harms the pro-life cause. In fact, if you think that pro-life legislation advances the public good (as many Christians do) – that such legislation may help protect the smallest creatures who bear God’s image – then, ironically, voting for Mr. Jones may be inconsistent with the implication of Jesus’ admonition that the church and the state should be concerned with the good of those who bear God’s image.
Consider another example. Suppose the U.S. Supreme Court is only one vote short of overturning Roe v. Wade. You, like many Christians, believe that abortion is an evil that not only wrongs unborn children but also tarnishes the souls of the women who elect to have these abortions. Although you realize that overturning Roe would not outlaw abortion – for it would merely return the matter to the states as it had been until 1973 – you rightly conclude that this change in the law would permit you and your fellow citizens to pass legislation that would at least protect the unborn and their mothers in your state. Your political party, however, the pro-life party, is in the midst of a primary race for a U.S. Senate seat currently occupied by a proabortion senator who is the minority leader of the Senate judiciary committee. This is the committee that holds hearings on the President’s judicial nominations to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. The primary pits three candidates against each other: Ms. Johnson, a devout pro-life Christian who has made comments in the past that have been interpreted as racist; Mr. Adams, a proabortion atheist who is moderate on other issues such as sex education and gay rights; and Mr. Baker, a moderate on abortion (he thinks some legal restrictions are permissible) who is liberal on other issues such as gay rights and school vouchers.
Imagine that you live in a very liberal state, and thus it will be virtually impossible for Ms. Johnson to beat the incumbent senator in the general election. Mr. Adams and Mr. Baker therefore stand a better chance; however, only Mr. Adams has promised to support the judicial nominees of the President, a strong pro-lifer who thinks that Roe was wrongly decided. Assuming that pro-life laws advance the public good, voting against Ms. Johnson, a pro-lifer, and for Mr. Adams, a pro-abortion supporter, is strategically wise, for it increases the likelihood that the President’s nominees to the federal courts will be approved, and these nominees, which will include future Supreme Court justices, will have an opportunity to rule in ways that advance the public good (or at least put up judicial barriers to harming the public good).
In order to be wise stewards of the gift of self-government in a constitutional republic, we not only have to understand what our theology teaches us about our obligations to the wider community of human persons, but we also have to understand both the nature of our government and its politics. We have to be, in the words of Jesus, “wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16 NIV).
Notes
1 This is an insight Luis Lugo offered in his essay “Caesar’s Coin and the Politics of the Kingdom: A Pluralist Perspective,” in Caesar’s Coin Revisited: Christians and the limits of Government, ed. Michael Cromartie (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 14-15.
November 23rd, 2009 | 7:50 pm | #47
Francis,
“I feel the same about comboxes.”
Yes, that too. :)
November 23rd, 2009 | 8:15 pm | #48
This is definitely an issue requiring some serious thought. I think I would not sign this. I agree with Frank Turk’s objections in that so much of Christianity is reduced to political action as a substitute for the Gospel. I fully support us banding together for the sanctity of marriage, for the defense of all human life (I am a pacifist in the strongest sense), and for the preservation of religious liberty.
However, I would argue with this priority just as I would argue with feminists who (in my experience) only lobby the concerns of well-read women of the first world. There’s some pretty serious stuff going on in the world that we seem to NOT be banding together on. Human trafficking isn’t dead. There’s still a billion hungry worldwide. Many do not have access to clean water (which makes infections so much worse). Women are treated deplorably in several countries. Lack of tampons in some areas forces girls to wait out their periods, and they get behind in schools for it. That sort of poverty is unacceptable.
It is inappropriate to create a document for the cause that furthers Christian morality in accordance with the comforts and preference of only our own demographic, while others overseas (and in America, even) deal with so many issues that they don’t get to sit around even thinking of things like marriage or religious liberty.
While I would consider a pro-life and pro-military/death penalty person to be a paradox, I would utterly not accept someone claiming to be pro-life who makes statements about abortion, but nothing about stopping human slave trafficking.
This document, while its concerns are valid, is too narrow in scope. We cannot seriously confirm the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman and then make no statements about how women (and men) are to be treated. Nor can we seriously affirm the sanctity of human life yet make no statements about fighting world hunger.
One starting point would be to build your vocabulary at Free Rice.com. For every right answer, this site donates ten grains of rice to the UN World Hunger program.
I would move for a redrafting of this declaration to take into account these serious and (I say) inseparable issues. Also, perhaps having a trinity of documents: a Protestant Declaration, a Catholic Declaration, and an Orthodox Declaration. These three would vigorously affirm the same moral imperatives, though their grounds may be different, such as the Catholic emphasis on procreation as the focus of marriage. The Declarations would also pledge mutual support for the carrying out of certain mutual, tangible objectives, even if their theological motives are not completely in accord.
That’s my two cents.
November 24th, 2009 | 2:15 am | #49
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Andy Stevenson, Stephen A Moody. Stephen A Moody said: Manhattan Declaration: uncomfortable w/ the ecumenical angle. http://bit.ly/7azuYM http://bit.ly/8PJdg4 #mdec [...]
November 24th, 2009 | 2:35 am | #50
Frank Turk: “My contention is that the Gospel is the solution to these three issues, and I respectfully decline to sign in.”
I found this article by Scott Klusendorf titled “Should Christians be Cobelligerents in Ecumenical Coalitions” to be helpful with regards to Frank Turk’s contentions. Excerpts:
“Evangelical Christians who are committed to sound doctrine must distinguish themselves theologically from people who reject fundamental truths of the Protestant Reformation. Those truths must never be
discarded so as to achieve a greater unity with nonevangelicals. Are evangelicals forsaking the gospel, however, when they unite with Catholics, Jews, and other religious groups to address cultural issues?
First, it does not follow that because cultural reformers cannot make a culture blameless before God, we shouldn’t try to make it better for the weak and oppressed. I do not know of a single pro-life leader, for example, who argues that cultural reform can save souls eternally; only the gospel does that.
Second, the goal of cobelligerent cultural reform is not necessarily to change the hearts of individuals (whether saved or lost), but to restrain their evil acts.
Third, the notion that “there can be no real cultural impact apart from the transforming power of the gospel of Jesus Christ” sounds good, but it is simply incorrect. Consider the moral evil of slavery in America, which did not end because of mass conversions to Christ. It ended when believers and nonbelievers joined forces to stand against it.
Fourth, it is not spiritually unacceptable for Christians to mobilize with non-Christians for causes other than preaching the gospel. Prior to the Civil War, Protestant clergy worked with non-Christians and organized the Underground Railroad to free black slaves. Anyone who thinks that God’s people are wasting their time pursuing social justice may want to take a look at how important it is to God: Jeremiah 5:26-28; 9:24; Isaiah 1:16-17, 21-23; 58:6-7; 61:8; Psalm 94:1-23; Proverbs 24:1-12; Matthew 25:41-46.
Fifth, why should anyone suppose that pro-life advocacy detracts from the discipline responsibilities of the local church as outlined in Matthew 28? Simply put, the answer to a lack of evangelical fervor for the Gospel is not to withdraw our political advocacy for the weak and vulnerable; it’s to encourage Christians to do a better job presenting the gospel. We don’t have to stop rescuing the innocent to do that.
Pro-life advocacy, in fact, often serves an important preevangelistic function because it reawakens people’s moral intuitions.
It is not morally wrong even for Christians to focus, for example, on saving human lives rather than primarily on spreading the good news. The fire department, for example, is not “distracted” when it spends time putting out fires rather than preaching the gospel. The purpose of the fire department, clearly, is not theology, but rescue. Its job is to save lives. The same is true of the pro-life movement. Its
primary goal is not to save souls, though we rejoice when that happens. Its mission is to protect lives.
Sixth, the theological claim that cultural reform efforts hinder the gospel because they leave unredeemed people feeling “safe” (falsely) in “superficial Christian morality” is misguided. Are we to conclude that God’s ability to save His elect decreases when cultural morality increases?
Koukl writes, “When someone tells me that laws can never change a fallen person’s heart, I ask them if they apply that philosophy to their children. Does the moral training of our children consist merely of preaching the Gospel to them? Wouldn’t we consider it unconscionable to neglect a child’s moral instruction with the excuse that laws can never change a child’s rebellious heart?”
Seventh, why shouldn’t evangelicals work with Catholics or nonevangelicals against abortion? Gregg Cunningham of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform affirms that many Christians are inconsistent on this point. For example, if a critic of evangelical cobelligerence had a two-year-old daughter who stumbled into a swimming pool and needed immediate medical attention, he would gladly work with Catholic paramedics to save her life. If she were injured and needed surgery, it wouldn’t matter for a moment if the best surgeon were a Catholic operating out of a Catholic hospital. If the critic of cobelligerence will work with Catholics to save his own child, what’s wrong with working with them to save somebody else’s (unborn) child?
Cunningham points out, “The Good Samaritan did not preach salvation to the beating victim; he risked his own life to save a fellow traveler. Jesus used this example to illustrate our duty to love our neighbor. It is cold comfort to a dead baby that we allowed him to die to avoid working with Catholics.”
Between Albert Mohler’s article on why he signed the Manhattan Declaration and Scott Klusendorf’s article which I just quoted, I firmly believe that the arguments to affirm and sign the Manhattan Declaration are persuasive and compelling. They overcome the objections that the Gospel is being obscured from working with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox members.
Frank Turk: “I Respectfully Decline.”
Truth Unites… and Divides: “I Joyfully Accept.”
November 24th, 2009 | 2:43 am | #51
It suddenly occurs to me to wonder what happens if we “win”? That is, what happens if we do see a sudden and dramatic shift in culture and all these social ills are outlawed? Will we then look around and realize what sort of people we have taken for allies? What would become of these associations and fellowships?
If this is an alliance that could not exist beyond these issues, can it exist while addressing these issues? Governments can make such allies – the enemy of my enemy is my friend – but can saints?
November 24th, 2009 | 5:50 am | #52
[...] foundations. An article from Frank Turk, who would not sign the Declaration, can be found on the First Things blog. It sums up the problem that arises from a document that says more than it needs to in areas that [...]
November 24th, 2009 | 6:50 am | #53
TUAD:
I think you have, again, missed my point pretty broadly. In that, here are a few words to help clear up your muddle. If you don’t want to receive them, that’s your trip.
[A] As an intro, I suspect that, given the track of your complaints against my post here, you could not compose an outline of the post which would adequately reflect what the post actually said. However, if you do just to prove me wrong, I suspect you’ll have to retract about half of what you’ve said so far about my opinion because (as I said before) you’ve put a lot of words in my mouth.
[B] I really have no qualms with anyone joining with anyone else to oppose abortion, or slavery, or to “end hunger”, or whatever other moral objective people might have. However, I did say this already:
The question is not “can we take politically-active measures to right societal wrongs?” The question is in fact, “Should we dilute the definition of ‘Christian’ to a merely-sociological meaning in order to join together to right societal wrongs?”
I’m waiting for the transcript of Colson of Hewitt last night to say more about that, so you can put this on the back burner until then.
[C] I also find it tremendously problematic that, even if I am wrong about point [B] (which is my point [1] in the post above this thread), we are (again) coming to the place where “Christians” are willing to say that the political means of converting society are more pragmatic and effective than the Gospel. This is my point [2] in the post above this thread.
There are political means; they are God-ordained means. They are not the means to ending the problems listed in this declaration. You may make marriage a legal contract, and may make a law against abortion, and you may make the state honor every religious expression (or none), but you will not have solved the problems you have set out to resolve.
I’ll post more about this later this week.
November 24th, 2009 | 7:58 am | #54
Francis:
Better than being known as one who is the elevator music Trent.
Sola fide is central to this discussion and why political remedy for moral malady is benign and ineffectual.
As my friend James White wrote:
“I have seen so many re-organize their priorities in light of having made “common cause” with those who have a false gospel all in the name of doing social good. I am glad Rome retains elements of God’s truth and morality. But when did being good or moral bring one salvation, as if anyone is every truly good, or truly moral?
These are the matters that truly concern me about the Manhattan Declaration. Why does God have the right to determine human sexuality, marriage, and to define life itself? It all goes back to the gospel, does it not? If we are going to given a consistent, clear answer to our culture, we dare not find our power in a false unity that overshadows the gospel and cripples our witness.”
November 24th, 2009 | 8:05 am | #55
Frank Turk,
Did you read the Mohler and Klusendorf articles that I provided?
At any rate, you have your reasons for rejecting the Declaration (reasons which I don’t find convincing). And I have my reasons, explained rather well by Mohler and Klusendorf among others (which you don’t find convincing).
You have respectfully declined while I have joyfully accepted.
Are you at peace with the Protestants who support the Manhattan Declaration or do you condemn them?
November 24th, 2009 | 8:30 am | #56
Dr. Beckwith: meet Steve Camp.
Steve: Dr. Beckwith.
A fine how-d’ya-do.
November 24th, 2009 | 8:33 am | #57
TUAD –
I disagree with most of the other signers of the Declaration. I condemn your approach to this discussion, and your approach to blogging in general.
That’s a softball, son: swing hard.
November 24th, 2009 | 9:03 am | #58
[...] 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 [...]
November 24th, 2009 | 9:18 am | #59
Frank Turk: “That’s a softball, son: swing hard.”
I respectfully decline.
November 24th, 2009 | 10:02 am | #60
As I read all these “comments” it to me is just Frame vs. the WHI guys all over again. Mr. Turk you will not agree with that but as my husband and I were just discussing these blogs I read do nothing to edify me personally just confuse me. They just divide. Not wheat from tares – but oh you get the picture. Maybe I should just quit volunteering at the organization I find helpful to people in need – just in case I start doubting my salvation and think I am doing it to make my salvation sure. Things get so over analyzed my head hurts. I’m not even sure anymore if I share the gospel with anyone I’m doing it right:o) You all are scaring the “lay” people off. Please don’t anyone say God does the saving trust me I get it. Just an old housewife’s few from her computer. Everybody up from their computers knock on the neighbors door next door and share the gospel with them – there that makes sense to me.
November 24th, 2009 | 10:33 am | #61
Francis:
You have stated in your lengthy repost above that:
“The goal of both the church and the state is to advance the public good.”
Taken at face value, your words would reinvent the nature, purpose, mandate and function of the church.
The ultimate goal of the church biblically is not the public good, but the glory of God in the proclamation and advancement of His gospel of sola fide. The “public good” is political speak for tolerance. The gospel, however, does divide; it is a stumbling block, offensive and foolishness for those who are perishing.
So to promote an artificial unity around common social causes (evangelical co-belligerence – ECB) is not only unbiblical, non-consistent with the gospel, but an effort in futility. It can never offer true hope to the abortionist, same sex marriage participant, or anti-religious freedom proponent. Only the gospel itself is the answer for these spiritual concerns.
Therefore, we cannot fight spiritual battles with carnal weaponry. As Sproul has repeatedly said on this issue, “it’s time for the church to be the church once again…” I agree. We must lead with the gospel of the our Lord Jesus Christ and the clear command of Scripture on these issues and not reduce our strategery to a social-political-moral-pragmatic ideology.
The Manhattan Declaration is recycled ECT/Justice Sunday nomenclature. Same framers and leaders. Should we be concerned about these issues as believers in the Lord? Absolutely. But our solution and method of addressing them should be Christ-centered; Gospel-centered; and Cross-centered.
Question for you: has Peter Kreeft’s “Ecumenical Jihad” influenced your convictions on these issues?
November 24th, 2009 | 10:41 am | #62
[...] Frank Turk has not signed and said why. [...]
November 24th, 2009 | 10:56 am | #63
Karen: “As I read all these “comments” it to me is just Frame vs. the WHI guys all over again.”
Dear Karen, I don’t know what that was all about, but you might find Dr. Albert Mohler’s article (comment #23) and Scott Klusendorf’s article (comment #48) to be helpful reading as you consider their arguments.
November 24th, 2009 | 11:50 am | #64
Karen said:
I do agree with you, Karen. You know where I wind up on that about 97% of the time (excluding the mutual moments of blatant Presbyterianism).
And I agree with your solution: get out more often. The reasoning of the Gospel is incarnational — bringing the hope bodily to people pre-eminently in Christ, and then as “little Christs” (Χριστιανούς, as in Acts 11:26) in person — not through some statist activity which makes the state do things we ought to be doing ourselves.
This is again my criticism [2], which I think the WHI guys neglect often.
November 24th, 2009 | 11:55 am | #65
“Is freedom and morality the be all and end all?”
No. Trust and obedience to Christ is the be all and end all. What is happening is that we are very near the point where Christians in America will have to decide between their livelihood and their faith. That’s better than having to decide between their lives and their faith, of course, but it’s still a form of persecution. Maybe that’s God’s will for us. If so, His will be done. I, however, see the declaration, despite its admitted imperfections, as an opportunity to join many other Christians to give a common voice to my objections to our continuing to head down that road and to give common notice that if it comes to it, it is our intent (which we can only meet if God enables me — for we can do nothing good on our own) to choose obedience to Him whatever the price.
You need not sign if you choose not to, but I see not doing so for the reasons I have read so far a making the perfect the enemy of good and as picking at nits. So once again, we fight over the details while the Enemy continues his advances against the Church. Praise God that we have His promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, but we have no promise that its members will not suffer for our doing nothing because we value our divisions more than standing together as brothers. When the time comes when I need to find those who will stand with me if persecution comes, I’ll seek those who didn’t allow word parsing to keep them from uniting their voice with other believers in a common opposition to the assaults of the Enemy.
November 24th, 2009 | 12:07 pm | #66
Gregory Laughlin: “When the time comes when I need to find those who will stand with me if persecution comes, I’ll seek those who didn’t allow word parsing to keep them from uniting their voice with other believers in a common opposition to the assaults of the Enemy.”
If I’m allowed and given the honor, I will stand with you, Gregory.
November 24th, 2009 | 12:30 pm | #67
Rome will always use moral issues (particularly abortion) as nothing more than an artifice. Under the guise of morality, Rome, once again, uses its “good works” (support for the unborn) to their self-righteous advantage, to divert attention from their multitude of sins. Politicians do much the same; they grandstand on an important issue, to divert attention from the issue at hand. Rome’s hope is to rise from the ashes from the very sins that seem to be inextricably intrinsic to a dead, lifeless faith. It is no surprise to anyone here as to the bad fruit that this false religion has been producing over centuries, pedophilia, homosexuality, and lesbianism. This should not shock anyone, unless people here have been tuned into the incessant barrage of news articles, of the foibles and follies of the RCC. “By their fruits you shall know them.” Has Rome ever changed from the time of the Inquisition? Their fruit (good works) and their promotion of morality will never produce anything of lasting value, but only help to establish their image in an egocentric way.
So, can we coin IT, Rome’s fruit, that is, “moralistic fruit with no lasting value”? I think we justifiably can. “…FOR WHATSOEVER IS NOT OF FAITH IS SIN (Rom 14:23).” And this is why I cannot put my signature on something that is not intended to be from God’s perspective; good fruit is ETERNAL in its value, and produces Godly results. We need to, and should in all good conscience, promote ONLY fruit of eternal quality and value. Anything not of faith, which can be understood to mean fruit/works produced by a dead faith, results in fruit unacceptable to God, and does not have lasting value. Protestants that sign these documents are in a very real, unknowing way, contributing to Rome’s “RE”definition of good fruit/works. And a redefinition of terms is adding to Scripture. If it is not God’s interests, there is only one other possibility, SELF-INTEREST.
Am I saying it is a bad idea to promote morality, absolutely not, I am saying to join hands with Rome in the redefinition of terms is wrong? Period!
Rome’s support for common morality and what means can best be produced to affect a better society, is nothing more than a ruse, seen only by them as a way to lift them from the ashes, from an image that has plagued them for centuries, and used solely as a diversionary tactic; not to the purposeful end, of ALL righteous and glorious ends….Soli Deo Gloria!!! I think somehow in this document, God is NOT in the details. If Rome’s stamp is on this document, I respectfully decline, as well.
November 24th, 2009 | 1:03 pm | #68
Reading through the comments, I’m struck by Gary’s remarks that unless we say A, we can not say B. I suppose the statement should have included the disclaimer:
We wish to make clear we reject and condemn anything, any Christian, anywhere, at any time, has done that is contrary to the Christian Faith.
As for the qualms/quibbles and second-guessing about what the statement did, or did not say, or how it did, or did not, say it, I can only but think that we will continue to be talking amongst ourselves, and to nobody else, about these issues even as finally the federal government does mandate all religious entities to stop “hate speech” and provide coverage for abortions and provide for gay marriages.
There are some fundamental misunderstandings running through a number of comments, born of misunderstandings of how God does His work in this world through his “left hand” and “right hand” kingdom, that is to say, how God accomplishes His will through the secular government and how and what He does through the Gospel via the Church’s ministry.
I was struck by the pithy remarks of another person on another forum that has been talking about the Manhattan Declaration. Here is what he said, very well, in my opinion:
Talk of human rights is really simply talk of the limits of the left-hand kingdom. In one way it makes sense to say that people have a God-given right to worship false gods, not due to anything related to free will but do to God’s ordering of the world such that no government has the God-given right to prevent them from worshipping false gods. In RC thought, the division of kingdoms is not so neat, so human rights become more a moral thing. We have the right to be human, and human rights are therefore a list of all that being fully human entails. Since worshiping false gods is intrinsically dehumanizing, the idea that we have a God-given right to worship false gods can really only be understood in the former sense, that no government has authority in spiritual, religious matters. A long-hand way of restating it might be that we have a God-given right not to be coerced by the secular authority in matters of faith or religious practice.
November 24th, 2009 | 1:20 pm | #69
Gregory Lughlin said:
I think that’s exactly the problem. I think that we American Christians have a problem with stuff — me as the foremost example, but us as a group. We want out livelihood more than we want the freedom to be a failure in the world’s eyes which the Gospel presents.
I have no idea what that means. Our problem with stuff is self-inflicted.
And before someone goes all Michael Horton on me, I’m not saying material things are bad: I’m saying that when we have decided (as many of us have) that our hope is built on nothing less than cul de sacs and fawning press, we have stopped living like our faith is true and have made of it an ornament for our christmas trees.
Fair enough. How does this declaration address the problem of livelihood vs. faith as you spell out here? And how does signing this note actually belly up to the real conflict?
As opposed to what?
See: I read that critique as honest enough, but I think it misses the point that the Gospel is greater than these errors. Sure: two of the errors are certainly sin. The problem is actually sin and not legislation.
I think that’s a pretty good, substantive objection to making declarations which, frankly, some of the people signing will betray.
AHA! If we don’t stand up for marriage, the church is in danger.
We should consider what the church is before we make a statement like that.
See: I find it hard to grasp how preaching the Gospel and living as if it were true can qualify as “doing nothing”.
Thanks for your advice. I hope it works out for you.
November 24th, 2009 | 1:52 pm | #70
“because we value our divisions more than standing together as brothers. ”
And therein lies the difficulty, the preamble to the declaration says that those who are not brothers, really are.
It’s not about picking at nits or saving the morals we live by, it’s about being clear and right about what the gospel is, and what it isn’t.
November 24th, 2009 | 2:30 pm | #71
Daryl Said: “It’s not about picking at nits or saving the morals we live by, it’s about being clear and right about what the gospel is, and what it isn’t.”
Good quote!!! And the Gospel is NOT saved by works.
November 24th, 2009 | 2:33 pm | #72
Frank said: If you fail to make a distinction between the serious matters of the faith, and the incidental matters of the faith, you will obscure the whole faith.
Another good quote!!!
November 24th, 2009 | 8:45 pm | #73
Your position would leave us with no alternatives. How could we work together in a way that is not to be considered inimical to our faith? That is a defensive mentality whereas we ought to have the view that others need to fear our cooperation more than theirs because our view will infect them. Religious liberty is really saying truth will win out, and anything less is cowardly and fraught with dire consequences. Grant truth its freedom, and error must yield. Error can only prevail, when it shuts truth out of the public arena. You are quite right in one respect: Many signing the document are thinking only in terms of their particular agendas. But think of this: The first synagogue in America was built in Rhode Island, and it still stands. I have seen road maps that show this, and the same fail to mention that the first baptist church in American was built there, the one denomination responsible for that freedom. Can it be that the truth is again being shut out? Could that be due to the fact that we don’t have in mind the thought, Truth will win out, regardless? The most radical thing in the world is THE TRUTH. In the end truth shall prevail.
November 24th, 2009 | 9:25 pm | #74
Dr. Willingham said:
The same way we coach and play in youth sports, participate in the local school board, becomes members of the local chamber of commerce, and shop at WAL*MART. That is: without drama, and with real personal love and relationship.
Somehow many people think that the way we live every day is not the way we ought to live every day. I think that the faith we have ought to live every day, and that we don’t need to publish another manifesto which simply undercuts the Gospel’s necessity and lack of ambiguity to do it.
Honestly: I like the post-millennial-esque optimism of that statement. However, I’m not worrying about whose cooties one might catch. I’m more concerned about confusing someone who will then simply not listen because what we ought to be saying has become unintelligible because of what we are actually saying.
I wonder, Dr. Willingham, if you have ever read the New Testament. While I think you are right to embrace its optimism about the power of the Gospel, I think you have missed the parts about people having itchy ears and seeking after what seems right in their own eyes.
November 24th, 2009 | 9:50 pm | #75
“Better than being known as one who is the elevator music Trent.”
Touche’.
For what it’s worth, I truly love the song you co-wrote with Larry, “If I Were a Singer.” God rest his soul.
Blessings,
Frank
November 24th, 2009 | 11:07 pm | #76
Thanks Frank (Beckwith). We penned that song in LA in mid 1970’s. First colaboration.
Would very much like to hear more of your thoughts on TMD and Kreeft’s possible influence on your worldview.
The Gospel Matters,
steve
November 24th, 2009 | 11:21 pm | #77
[...] I Respectfully Decline [...]
November 24th, 2009 | 11:22 pm | #78
Question for all TMD signrs & supprtrs:
So what? Where’s the teeth or end game to thIs declaration? There’s no real muscle to thsI is there? Just more Christians playing politics w/o the gospel being explained or proclaimed.
Just saying…
November 25th, 2009 | 1:58 am | #79
[...] Frank Turk: I Respectfully Decline [...]
November 25th, 2009 | 3:57 am | #80
SJ Camp: “Question for all TMD signrs & supprtrs:
So what? Where’s the teeth or end game to thIs declaration?”
The end game rests in God’s sovereign pleasure. As Scott Klusendorf (#48) says: “Are we to conclude that God’s ability to save His elect decreases when cultural morality increases?”
#55: “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.
P.S. Frank Turk, are you going to delete this comment like you did the previous comment #73 which simply showed how in condemning me you were actually condemning yourself?
November 25th, 2009 | 8:56 am | #81
Frank,
An awesome post. The Bible makes it clear that we should not be yoked with unbelievers or those that teach a heretical gospel. So I ask what do Evangelicals have in common with Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics? Actually very little. All 3 don’t even agree on the proper definition of the Trinity. The uneducated masses, who are to lazy to study doctrine and show themselves approved as the Bible commands, prefer fallacious documents such as this. Catholics forsaked the truth with her Marian dogmas, Papacy, Ministerial Priesthood. Eastern Orthodox forsaked the truth with Hesychasm and mystagogical instructions. Thus any Evangelical who fails to understand Theology and doctrine is in error if he signs this proclamation
November 25th, 2009 | 9:25 am | #82
George –
I hate to be the one who keeps deleting your comment, especially since it calls my post “awesome”, but I have to say this openly: even if I agree with you about any of what you said here, the point of my post is not about who specifically is or is not a “heretic” who is “forsaking the truth” — because let’s face it: I’m a heretical Catholic. I was born and baptized Catholic, catechized Catholic, educated by the Jesuits and the Franciscans, and I have forsaken the lot of it. If there are any heretics in the world today from a Catholic standpoint, I am one of them. For the sake of this post, I’d be willing to stipulate a wholly-Catholic perspective on the status of people who are not just by default “not Roman Catholic” but are in fact “Evangelicals who reject the authority and teaching of Rome.”
I think I did the right thing but becoming what I am, but let’s get something straight: the problem is not “which one of multitudinous groups signing in here is (the most) heretical?” The problem is that the three major headings of these groups are mutually exclusive. Going on a harague here about how mutually and how exclusive they are is simply distracting from the central point: we have obscured the necessary and central fact of the Gospel by overlooking the irreconcilable differences between “Evangelicals”, “Roman Catholics”, and “Orthodox” by calling all of these groups “believers” in a rather indiscriminate way.
Please: don’t try to leverage this into a massive apologetic against Catholicism, listing all their perceived sins as somehow the reason this cannot work. They may be right about the lot of it, and my argument would still hold up: the divide theologically between the three major groups is is wide, and glossing those divisions over to call everyone in those groups a “believer” muddies the water for the actual unbeliever.
November 25th, 2009 | 10:07 am | #83
[...] Frank Turk also declines, saying “It assumes a big tent for the definition of what it means to be a ‘believer’, assumes that law is greater than grace in reforming the hearts of men, and provides moral reasoning that those who are unbelievers have no reason to accept — because they are unbelievers. And in making these three items “especially troubling” in the ‘whole scope of Christian moral concern’, it overlooks that the key solution to these moral concerns is the renovation of the human heart by supernatural means established by the death and resurrection of Christ.” [...]
November 25th, 2009 | 10:41 am | #84
[...] MacArthur, James White, Frank Turk, among others, have posted responses delineating why they cannot sign the document. I commend [...]
November 25th, 2009 | 10:49 am | #85
[...] you are glad to have a few more on the 'right' side of a vitally important social issue." Frank Turk also declines, saying "It assumes a big tent for the definition of what it means to be a 'believer', assumes [...]
November 25th, 2009 | 10:53 am | #86
Up til this post, I disagreed with you, but I didn’t consider you flippant, but this response changes that. Loss of livelihood is not merely about materialism, it’s about a husband and a father who may have to give up his career as a pharmacists or a doctor because he refused to dispense death pills to women who woke up the next morning in the bed of some man they didn’t know and wanted to make sure that any human being who might have come into existence is never born. After years of education and investment, they’ll have to find something else to do, perhaps in late middle age, for which they have no education and training. Florists and bakers, who have invested years and all they have into their businesses may have to shut down rather than obey court orders that they provide goods and services to celebrate “same-sex” marriages which they believe to be abominations. And as a result, these husbands and fathers and those under their care may suffer real want. It’s not the same as Polycarp being martyred, but its a form of persecution. And we need to stand by those who will suffer it — or may if we fail to stand up now.
You knew what I meant. Don’t sign the declaration if you don’t want to, but don’t be flippant about others struggles and sacrifices for our Lord. People will suffer. Fathers won’t be able to provide for their children because they had to give up business and careers rather than compromise their faith. Their sacrifices for our Lord will be real and meaningful. Some may denigrate them, but I will not and shame on anyone who does.
I won’t post on this again. You may have the last word.
November 25th, 2009 | 11:12 am | #87
TUAD –
I am trying to figure out why you want to be a martyr over this document and this discussion. Yours wasn’t hardly the only comment I deleted because it was over the top and frankly intended as an insult. That’s your M.O., and I suspect you cannot be diverted from it, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to abide it.
In that, I suggest you stop trying to define everything some says which disagrees with you in antagonistic terms. And after that, mind your manners.
This is a valuable topic, and the side you represent is worth hearing out. The way you represent that side is not.
November 25th, 2009 | 11:49 am | #88
Frank Turk,
Your comments to me are often insulting. Moreover, you’re the antagonistic instigator who starts it. That’s your MO. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised to see that you’re blind to your own faults and then impute them to others, but I am.
———-
#80: “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 then, let’s start with the bloggers on Evangel, (not to mention myself as well). I believe Hunter Baker, Joe Carter, Kevin DeYoung, Russell Moore, and Justin Taylor have all signed or promoted the Manhattan Declaration. I suppose then that we are all “betrayers of Christ and His church [who] must be separated from and called to account by all faithful Christian ministers and people.”
I’m even more thankful and joyful now to have signed the Manhattan Declaration. Gregory Laughlin mentioned persecution coming from those who support abortion, gay marriage, and/or stifling freedom of religious expression. Now we signers of the Manhattan Declaration get to be condemned by the Protestant Sanhedrin also.
I joyfully accept.
November 25th, 2009 | 11:57 am | #89
Greg Laughlin said:
I am sure that with all these words I have spilled out here, I’m flippant.
I don’t want to be flippant, Gregory, but these same people have dispensed “normal” contraceptives for years. Were they being persecuted then by selling pills which will cause the fertilized egg not to implant?
While I admire and agree with the moral stand against the “morning after” pill, we should apply that reasoning to the “other” pill — if we’re serious. If we’re not serious, or just looking for a fight, fight on — but don’t call that persecution.
As someone who has changed careers — three times — I am certain that cannot be easy. The question is why the objection so late in the game? Why now is that kind of contraception so wrong but for 4 decades a like-minded method of contraception was accepted as medically and morally neutral
This is an interesting new angle — that in the past, bakers have not supplied products to someone at some time for moral reasons.
I had no idea bakers were such idealists. I thought most bakers made cakes and bread.
You know: when I owned a bookstore, there was a lot of stuff we wouldn’t sell. But there weren’t any people we wouldn’t sell to. The reason is simple: people needed what we were selling, and what we were selling was actually good for people.
And a lot of the good was not actually the item we sold: it was how we sold it. It was the love and kindness we demonstrated we demonstrated while we did what we believed in.
If the point of this document is that it endorses the idea that bakers should not sell cakes to people for parties — or that the bakers should first have a complete moral check list to determine what parties they are selling to (open bar, or limited bar? will the dancing lead to any pre-marital sex?) — then I suggest that this document is worse that I originally thought.
Given your elaborations here, I can say that I honetsly did not. I would have been more forceful to argue against what yyou’re advocating here.
Oh my. Sounds to me like they will suffer either way — either the bakers or those they refuse to bake for.
So if a young man in college wants to buy a birthday cake for his live-in girlfriend, should the baker refuse the sale? It’s fornication after all — selling that cake condones fornication, by your reasoning. What about a stripper who wants to buy a dozen cupcakes for the girls she works with becasue they’re having a party at the club this evening to celebrate one of the girls’ engagement or graduation or something?
It seems to me that your view of how the baker does his business has a rather narrow focus — one which, if the baker tries to implement it, means he’s not going to bake for anyone his church elders don’t approve of.
How long is that guy going to stay in business, I wonder?
November 25th, 2009 | 12:08 pm | #90
Just to point something out here: those quote TUAD has rounded up to declaim the “Protestant Sanhedrin” are from random comments around the blogosphere (whom I have not endorsed) — not from responsible people who have reputably rejected the wording and the teleology of the Declaration. In doing so, he’s made it clear that anyone who rejects the document must be someone who would repudiate the signers of this document in all things — somehow excommunicating them from church and public life.
He has in fact baited me to say as much — and I have refused. I refuse to make this discussion into an all-or-nothing flashpoint as to whether people are “in or out” of the evangelical orbit.
The document is not useful at all — as demonstrated by the hyperbole from Gregory Laughlin (which, btw, TUAD has endorsed) which is allegedly another reason to sign up for this thing. If it’s true that bakers are going to go out of business because gay people are getting married (seriously?), then I think this document is probably the least-effective way to stop gay marriage imaginable — we have to close the bakers’ gap to make sure gay marriage doesn’t put an end to fine pastry and confections. For the children.
I rest my case.
November 25th, 2009 | 12:16 pm | #91
[...] MacArthur, James White, Alistair Begg, Frank Turk, Tim Challies, etc. have gone on record stating why they have refused to [...]
November 25th, 2009 | 12:19 pm | #92
Frank Turk: “In doing so, he’s made it clear that anyone who rejects the document must be someone who would repudiate the signers of this document in all things — somehow excommunicating them from church and public life.”
No, I most certainly didn’t. As is your MO, you’re reading into something that’s not there. And then using your strawman to impugn others.
Please don’t construct strawmen as bait. It’s out of bounds for sensible discourse.
November 25th, 2009 | 12:54 pm | #93
Frank,
TUAD has posted the same quotes at my place and at others’. I have no idea where the quotes came from, but he is trying to loosely tie them to you or with those of use to did not sign. As far as I can tell.
other thoughts
As I see the “angles” that are taken to defend this document I’ve thought of others too.
In the MD, the Gospel is spoken of as the foundation of motivation, yet left undefined. The Gospel, at least in word, actually seems to be the only formal theological position mentioned. The irony is that the definition of the Gospel is also the primary cause of disunity between the ecclesia mentioned.
Concerning definitions, would the same liberty be allowed on two of the key MD issues of same-sex marriage and abortion?
How many differing definitions of same-sex marriage and abortion would be allowed for those who are pro-MD? If the definitions of these terms are important it seems that the definition of the Gospel is more so.
November 25th, 2009 | 1:01 pm | #94
The Manhatten Declaration is moralistically a good document, who could not agree with its many varied conclusions? The issue seems to be undeniably the unholy alliance of the three major players: Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians. To me calling one a brother or sister in Christ, when (s)he adheres to the unsound practices and beliefs of another gospel, is anathema. We can all bandwagon and grand-stand the issues, WITHOUT the problematic mix of doctrinal differences of truth and heresy (which this document seems to be a sacred purveyor of), it only takes a pulpit, a good expositional preacher, a congregation in agreement with the word of God, and a peculiar, called-out people, willing to follow and submit to the Lord Jesus Christ. That is our best voice, our strongest apologetic, our strongest stand before the gates of hell, and our unflappable witness to a fallen, sin depraved world, which no amount of signatories can produce.
Documents don’t convert the heart. They don’t have that capability. They only act as a formal declaration OF a truth. And since this is part and parcel to the backdrop of the MHD, being solely a declaration OF said truths/morals, then this being the case, I need to make it MY business to know whose truth/morality is being espoused in this particular writing, and more to the fine, needling point, from where do they gain such insights? Do the signers of said document ascribe to the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, or ANOTHER gospel? I would never just blindly give my consent to any written proclamation, without knowing the underlying philosophy, or religious beliefs of ALL the originators.
A little bit of wisdom goes the distance, and a whole lot of wisdom wins the race. :)
Frank, I love your writing on this whole matter,and George Welborn, kudos to you , too.
I think we all knew that the one Pastor, who has made it his life’s work to carry the unquenchable torch of truth, John MacArthur, would decline signing this document. To that I say, AMEN! I don’t want to leave out James White, either…..AMEN!
November 25th, 2009 | 1:29 pm | #95
Just a short reply Frank, I agree with you on contraception. You’ll find few Protestants as opposed to contraception as I am. I believe the Protestant acceptance of contraception to the be an important link in the chain of events which has led to our current situation of moral debasement. However, many pharmacists have for years refused to dispense them and many doctors have refused to prescribe them. These professionals have primarily been Catholics, to the same of Protestant Christians, who were blinded to the consequences of their actions.
I don’t want to continue exchanging words on this. You may be unaware of the position of pro same-sex “marriage” advocates that those who cater to the celebration of real marriages must also cater to their mockery of the same. They intend — and have openly declared their intent — that they will use existing laws and the courts to force such businesses to cater to their mockeries. I hope and expect that some businessmen will shut down their businesses rather than comply.
As to the consequences of all this for health care providers, I recommend Leonard J. Nelson, III, Diagnosis Critical: The Urgent Threats Confronting Catholic Health Care.
You may now mock this response as well. You may continue to deny the seriousness of the situation. Time will tell whether your minimizing the coming consequences or my warning of them was the more accurate. In my view, your current position is much like that of my fellow Protestants who have for so long been blinded as to the consequences of their acceptance of contraception. Maybe your correct, but I will stand with those who choose to stand together rather than to sit on the sidelines ridiculing their efforts while they parse every word and pick every nit looking for an excuse for their not giving a united voice of opposition to what has come and what is still yet to come.
Being a naysayer will always get you attention and readership. I never found it to be much use otherwise.
November 25th, 2009 | 1:55 pm | #96
After reading Frank’s reasoning, and reading Challies, Mohler, and every comment here…I think that I agree with Frank’s concerns, but I don’t think they would keep me from signing the document. I think I fall more in line with Mohler’s way of thinking. The document limited itself in scope to three issues that are fundamental issues of conscience that are currently under attack by our government. Its purpose was to say that, as people who consider themselves to be Christians, we are not going to give in on these issues.
Will it be a historically significant document? Maybe not. Is signing the document a substitute for adorning the Gospel with our lives? No.
Does the fact that “believer” was used…loosely…cause me to pause? Yes.
But I see value in communicating that there are issues that, as people who consider ourselves to be followers of Christ, we are not going to give in on. I would even be fine with signing a document of any manner of people…athiests, Muslims, whoever…that said, “hey we disagree about a lot, but don’t think that you will get away with asking us to fund abortions with my tax money.”
The issue with this document, obviously, was that it was trying to be a Christian document without defining what being a Christian means. I see that as flaw, but I don’t think that it will hurt our witness, because I see it as being unrelated to our witness. I see it as a political document and I think there is a place for taking a political stand when core issues of conscience are so obviously at stake.
November 25th, 2009 | 2:12 pm | #97
Joey –
I disagree pretty seriously, but I appreciate the way you phrased it. I would think more about how someone or something can approach a matter in a “Christian” way when the term “Christian” is not actually defined.
And with that, the comments are now closed.
November 25th, 2009 | 4:47 pm | #98
[...] Frank Turk [...]
November 26th, 2009 | 1:51 pm | #99
[...] Further Thoughts on the Manhattan Declaration from James White James White responds to MacArthur Frank Turk’s Excellent/Thoughtful Response Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Around the blogosphere: The Manhattan [...]
November 27th, 2009 | 6:35 am | #100
[...] Alistair Begg, John MacArthur, James White, Frank Turk, Tim Challies explain why they disagree with the document. David Doran, Steve Hays and John [...]
November 27th, 2009 | 6:45 am | #101
[...] Alistair Begg, John MacArthur, James White, Frank Turk, Tim Challies explain why they disagree with the document. David Doran, Steve Hays and John [...]
December 1st, 2009 | 11:03 am | #102
[...] occasion of the Manhattan declaration has been one in which a number of evangelicals, the very active Frank Turk at Evangel, has decided that the primary reason he will not sign is [...]
December 1st, 2009 | 11:05 am | #103
[...] Reply to Mr Turk By Mark O. The occasion of the Manhattan declaration has been one in which a number of evangelicals, the very active Frank Turk at Evangel, has decided that the primary reason he will not sign is [...]
December 1st, 2009 | 2:20 pm | #104
[...] following 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 [...]
December 11th, 2009 | 10:06 am | #105
[...] Turk a while back offered that: so it should be no surprise when I say it here that I am sure there are Catholics who are saved, [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact