Ligon Duncan, a signer of the Manhattan Declaration and president of The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, explains that they have received a number of requests concerning the Manhattan Declaration and why some have signed it with leaders from Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions. He responded with a statement that has been posted at the Ref21 blog. He concludes with these words:
The issue boils down to a matter of judgment, not a disagreement in principle, between those Council members who signed and didn’t sign. The non-signers believe that the content of the document and the associations of the primary authors imply an ECT-like confusion about the Gospel. The signers believe that the explicit assertions and emphasis of the documents relate only to areas of principled social-ethical agreement between evangelicals and non-evangelicals. Further, they believe that it is important for individuals from the major quadrants of the historic Christian tradition to speak on these pressing matters in solidarity.
The Council members have had good, robust discussions on these things among ourselves about this whole matter. We continue to love and respect one another, and we all want to continue to serve and work with one another. The bonds of our fellowship are unbroken. Our commitment to the mission of the Alliance is unchanged. Our unity in the Gospel, and in the great solas of the Reformation is stronger than ever.
You can read his whole statement here.
December 9th, 2009 | 12:15 pm | #1
Dear James Grant,
Thank you very much for posting this article by Ligon Duncan. It’s quite good and echoes in more detail what Albert Mohler wrote several weeks ago as to why he signed the Manhattan Declaration.
Are you familiar with the Fellowship of St. James? I’m inclined to believe that the conservative anti-MD Protestants would also object to the following as well:
“The Fellowship of St. James (FSJ) was incorporated in the 1970′s and is an alliance of authors, professors, clergy members, lay men and women, and writers—from various Christian denominations—who promote orthodox Christianity, the natural law, and traditional Christian morality.
Towards that end, FSJ is comprised of Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians who realize, despite serious differences, that they have a rich biblical faith in Jesus Christ as presented in the gospels. These allies join together in a tenacious advocacy of Judeo-Christian moral teachings about the sanctity of life, respect for human dignity and freedom, and the importance of the natural family and marriage to society.”
December 9th, 2009 | 12:22 pm | #2
I’ll say what I’ve said elsewhere just so I can be a part of this ongoing topic:
The MD asserts a POLITICAL [meaning moral and legal] unity among religiously motivated conservatives from the three main branches of the Christian religion. It is not intended to establish unity through RELIGIOUS [meaning ecclesial] agreement on such topics like the gospel or the nature of the church. It may be true that their political positions are wholly informed by religiously shaped ideas, but those ideas are not the ones that have historically divided Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox.
Those who drafted and signed the document are stating in no uncertain terms that gay marriage and abortion are the two watershed issues in our culture that define their political activism, and that this activism ought to be politically protected by the right to free religious expression.
The hand-wringing over whether the signers can all agree on what a “believer” or a “Christian” may be is beside the point. The document assumes that the signatories have the right to define that for themselves, and this should not be surprising since it places such a high value on free religious expression.
Those that find this objectionable believe the gospel is being made secondary. I think that is a fair criticism, and that is part of the reason why I haven’t signed it. But I think it is absurd for those who haven’t signed it to call into question the faith or the wisdom of those who have. Some believers see their politics being defined by two moral issues. Others don’t and would rather have their politics defined more broadly (including economy, foreign policy) and/or would like their religious identity (gospel and church) take precedence over their political identity.
December 9th, 2009 | 1:26 pm | #3
Adam,
“The hand-wringing over whether the signers can all agree on what a “believer” or a “Christian” may be is beside the point. The document assumes that the signatories have the right to define that for themselves, and this should not be surprising since it places such a high value on free religious expression.”
That may or may not be a proper reading. I have trouble reconciling it with the line, “We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm…”. It seems to speak from an assumed core unity as Christians, with “ecclesial differences”.
I would be happier if the MD included an explicit statement along these lines:
“Our differences in other matters, including the Gospel, might run deep. But we are certainly united in our commitment to these moral truths.”
I doubt Chuck Colson and Timothy George would have been OK with the first sentence. But I hope they would–”might” should leave room for ecumenists.
December 9th, 2009 | 1:35 pm | #4
I’m a little surprised to see so much contention over the word “Christian” because it is often thought of being more broad of a term than “evangelical”–which itself is thought to be too broad. Such a term presupposes a high degree of liberty of what it can define. The drafters and signers most likely understand the word in that way, and feel entitled to use it to describe themselves. The Protestant objectors don’t see it that way. They think that such a term is worth contending for because they see it bound up with the gospel. Fair enough, I suppose.
December 9th, 2009 | 1:55 pm | #5
Justin Taylor has a post up alluding to a “Resolutions for Roman Catholic and Evangelical Dialogue.”
I posted a comment noting that the following men are examples of Christian men signing, supporting, and affirming *both* the “Resolutions for Roman Catholic and Evangelical Dialogue” and the “Manhattan Declaration”:
Dr. J. Ligon Duncan, Senior Minister, First Presbyterian Church, & President, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
Dr. Richard Land, President, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC (Washington, DC)
Dr. Erwin W. Lutzer, Pastor, The Moody Church (Chicago, IL)
Dr. J.I. Packer, Board of Governors Professor of Theology, Regent College (Canada)
December 10th, 2009 | 11:34 am | #6
Adam,
I do have difficulty defining the word “Christian” by something other than the Gospel. And I don’t think this is my personal idiosyncrasy. I doubt that it’s possible to call Catholicism a Christian church (unqualified) without asserting that they have the core of the Gospel right.
I understand that many of the signers aren’t intending this sort of ecumenism. They only intend to express unity and co-belligerence in moral causes. However, it seems that key drafters, do intend this ecumenism.
See Chuck Colson’s comments, including, “This document is, in fact, a form of catechism for the foundational truths of the faith.”
In other words, I judge that ecumenism is in both the actual wording of the document and in the intent of its authors. It asserts that our differences do not run to the definition of what it means to be a true Christian. It’s broader than simply agreeing on certain moral truths.
Now, if you believe that it is possible to deny sola fide without denying the Gospel, as many do, then you’ll be fine with that. You can sign this document. (I’m not talking about denying misunderstandings of sola fide. If someone thinks sola fide means “sola intellectual assent”, or “saving faith can exist apart from transformed life & good works”, then that’s another matter.)
It depends on where you put “sola fide” on the scale of essential doctrine. (Michael Patton’s recent post is helpful.)
December 10th, 2009 | 11:55 am | #7
Jugulum,
Right. Like I said, “fair enough.” I think the implication of saying the word “Christian” cannot apply to Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believers is that they are non-Christians. That’s pretty stiff stuff, and in my view, crazy, but that’s the beauty of it. We both have the liberty to determine why don’t want to sign it for whatever reason that bothers us.
December 10th, 2009 | 12:02 pm | #8
That would be stiff. But I didn’t say “the word ‘Christian’ cannot apply to Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believers”.
It’s not like the only options are to assert “Catholics are Christians” or to assert “Catholics are not Christians”. (That’s why I made a point of adding the word “unqualified”. There’s also a difference between talking about individuals and talking about organizations with official teachings.)
December 10th, 2009 | 12:17 pm | #9
But it does need to be qualified for you to sign the statement, right? I mean therein lies the rub. I know you didn’t say as much, but I still think the implication holds if that qualification is brought to bear on the matter. For those that can sign, it means it doesn’t have to be qualified in such a way that it excludes the RCC and EO.
December 10th, 2009 | 12:31 pm | #10
And that’s why I brought up the difference between talking about individuals and talking about organizations.
The word “Christian”, unqualified, can apply to some people in the Roman Catholics church. But not to everyone, if the organization gets the gospel wrong.
Of course, there are always false professors in any church. But a false professor in an SBC church is a false Baptist, too. The difference is, if the official Catholic church gets the Gospel wrong, then you can be a sincere Catholic without being a Christian.
Does that logic really seem stiff to you? I would think that you would agree with the logic, but disagree about whether the Catholic church gets the gospel wrong.
And if you don’t think they get it wrong, then (1) you agree with Colson, and (2) it makes sense for you to sign.
But the document still asserts more than moral standards, as you were saying before. It asserts unity in the foundational truths of Christianity.
December 10th, 2009 | 1:02 pm | #11
I follow your logic and it seems that you are largely in agreement with what I said. In terms of institutions, the RCC and EO are non-Christian. Your qualifications make that perfectly clear.
What “foundational truths of Christianity” is it asserting other than the moral truths its declaring?
December 10th, 2009 | 1:10 pm | #12
Jugulum, excellent reply. I thought about Colson’s statement of cathecism and was glad to see you post it.
There is a statement in the MD that says:
If I were to stand with someone on this statement I’d ask – What does that mean?
When I asked someone about this they told me it was just a theological inference. HHmmm…
I then asked if this statement was also just a theological inference:
I can’t understand how these can essentially be empty theological statements. If they are then what uniting factor? If not, then what uniting factor?
December 10th, 2009 | 2:45 pm | #13
Hmm… Good question. I don’t think it actually does serve as a catechism for the foundational truths of Christianity–even the other truths it refers to. I wonder exactly what Colson had in mind. That’s why people had said it’s muddled.
I suspect that Colson was thinking “The Gospel”. (But unless Chuck Colson thinks the gospel is defined by the moral issues, which I highly doubt, I’d say he was being vague in his own mind.)
Other than the moral issues, it refers to the Gospel and our duty to proclaim it. But it couldn’t actually flesh out what the Gospel is, or the list of signers would be smaller.
Either way, Chuck Colson’s words (and the general ecumenism of the drafters) makes it hard to believe that the MD was as tightly focused as most Protestant signers thought. (And that’s on top of the MD’s wording about the Gospel & Christianity.)
December 10th, 2009 | 4:32 pm | #14
But unless Chuck Colson thinks the gospel is defined by the moral issues, which I highly doubt, I’d say he was being vague in his own mind.
I read Charles Colson’s book The Faith, and there were places that made me think that he sees “doing good” as part of the gospel. At the very least, he didn’t seem really clear in his own mind about what the gospel is. I tried to ask him about what he meant by “the gospel” but he misunderstood my question and his answer left me as befuddled as I was before I asked.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact