Touchstone recently posted the weekly newsletter from Father Patrick Reardon, Pastor of All Saints Antiochian Orthodox Church in Chicago, IL, and a signer of The Manhattan Declaration. In the newsletter, Reardon addresses two of the specific concerns over the document: the articulation (or lack thereof) of the gospel, and a call for repentance, using John MacArthur as an example of the former, and Father Jonathan Tobias as an example of the latter. After explaining both of these objections, Reardon concludes:
The objections of MacArthur and Tobias are curious in their evident presumption that Christians, when they speak in public, should limit their discourse to the proclamation of the Gospel and the summons to repentance.
This may be a legitimate view, though it was neither shared by many Christians over the centuries nor obviously favored by the prophets. Jonah, for instance, preached judgment—not repentance—at Nineveh, nor did his proclamation include one syllable of Good News. If this was true of Jonah, what shall we say of Nahum, whose own message to the Ninevites was just an expansion of Jonah’s meager half-verse?
Respectfully, these objections to the Manhattan Declaration (including its rhetoric) could easily have been made against any one—and perhaps all—of the biblical prophets. Our modest Declaration, as a statement of social concern, invites the endorsement of Christians who share that concern. The matter is truly as plain as that.
You can read his article here. I personally think Reardon is right, and I found his reflection on this quite helpful and a wise caution against evangelicals who never seem to find any reason to agree with those who are Roman Catholic or Orthodox.
December 8th, 2009 | 2:19 pm | #1
I think the objection of many Evangelicals isn’t so much based on a belief that Christians “should limit their discourse to the proclamation of the Gospel and the summons to repentance” (though that does seem to be a position MacArthur flirts with from time to time), but more that (as has been suggested on other posts on Evangel) the Manhattan Declaration does not clearly distinguish itself as being an agreement on the Law rather than on the Gospel. If such a distinction had made, much of the controversy would go away, perhaps even to the point where Jews and Muslims would be able to sign as well? Maybe not, but at least some of the ecumenical discomfort would dissipate…
December 8th, 2009 | 2:58 pm | #2
Another point on the gospel: since the declaration does make reference to the gospel, some evangelicals recognize the difficulty of Orthodox, Catholics, and Evangelicals coming together and mutually affirming the gospel when these groups have differences on what the gospel actually is. It is not enough to affirm some idea of good news; we must know what we affirm and if we can really affirm it with one another.
December 8th, 2009 | 3:15 pm | #3
If that is the case, the only time one would sign a document of agreement with Orthodox or Roman Catholics would be a case where Jews, Muslims, and others could sign it. Is that right?
December 8th, 2009 | 3:55 pm | #4
“Is that right?”
I’m an evangelical who hasn’t signed the MD, for similar reasons as Cole’s.
I can’t answer for him, but I’d say no, that’s not right. If we rewrote the MD to remove offending statements, we could include an affirmation of the Trinity, and it would still be OK.
It’s not a matter of it being acceptable to non-Christians. It’s a matter of what the MD claims about the relationship between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox.
As for this line: “a wise caution against evangelicals who never seem to find any reason to agree with those who are Roman Catholic and Orthodox.”
I hope you’re not suggesting that’s everyone who chose not to sign. I, for one, would be happy to sign if we removed elements like saying that we are all fellow Christians simply separated by historical lines of ecclesiastical differences.
December 8th, 2009 | 4:00 pm | #5
No, I am not suggesting that. People have chosen not to sign for any number of reasons.
December 8th, 2009 | 4:22 pm | #6
I should add that my main concern is the issue of what it would take to get those who are evangelicals who would not sign this document to a point at which they would sign something similar to this, but not something that could be signed by Jews and Muslims. In other words, something that would be limited to those who embrace the Christian tradition. I have read through other stuff here at Evangel and online, but haven’t received clarity on this issue. My concern is that I fear many evangelicals would never considered signing their name to a document as long as Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox are on it.
December 8th, 2009 | 4:30 pm | #7
What all Christians ought to realize is that the major groups (C,P,O), all agree that there is good news, that Jesus is the source of that good news, that that good news is not incidental to eternal life and ultimate joy. There are always members of each group who do not represent the historic, consistent witness of that group. I think there are good reasons to not be Catholic, but that doesn’t mean that I believe being Catholic is a sin or that catholics by definition are lost. I think Protestantism is seriously lacking in many ways, that its amorphous nature is is really beginning to undermine its credibility, that Calvinism is a worse heresy than anything Catholicism gets wrong. Nevertheless, I believe being Protestant is not antithetical to being Christian, and that yes, even Calvinists can be Christians. Orthodoxy often suffers from being divided and constructed along ethnic lines, that the local Greek Orthodox church in town is well-known for its annual food festival but not for much else, that the priest of said church is more anti-Catholic than most Protestants (including Calvinists) I know, and said priest is so strict that congregants must ask his permission if one wants to attend another church for even something as simple and typical as a wedding. Nevertheless, Orthodoxy is Christian. We have to suck it up and look for the best in people and their beliefs. We also have to stop playing God. It’s not that our differences are irrelevant, or that our arguments particular beliefs or practices are invalid; the bottom line is that we cannot afford the luxury of doing our own thing. The Church is one, and like it or not, it includes people we don’t like. Deeper still is the reality that God has believers in every major branch f the faith.
A little charity will go a long way.
December 8th, 2009 | 4:30 pm | #8
What all Christians ought to realize is that the major groups (C,P,O), all agree that there is good news, that Jesus is the source of that good news, that that good news is not incidental to eternal life and ultimate joy. There are always members of each group who do not represent the historic, consistent witness of that group. I think there are good reasons to not be Catholic, but that doesn’t mean that I believe being Catholic is a sin or that catholics by definition are lost. I think Protestantism is seriously lacking in many ways, that its amorphous nature is is really beginning to undermine its credibility, that Calvinism is a worse heresy than anything Catholicism gets wrong. Nevertheless, I believe being Protestant is not antithetical to being Christian, and that yes, even Calvinists can be Christians. Orthodoxy often suffers from being divided and constructed along ethnic lines, that the local Greek Orthodox church in town is well-known for its annual food festival but not for much else, that the priest of said church is more anti-Catholic than most Protestants (including Calvinists) I know, and said priest is so strict that congregants must ask his permission if one wants to attend another church for even something as simple and typical as a wedding. Nevertheless, Orthodoxy is Christian. We have to suck it up and look for the best in people and their beliefs. We also have to stop playing God. It’s not that our differences are irrelevant, or that our arguments particular beliefs or practices are invalid; the bottom line is that we cannot afford the luxury of doing our own thing. The Church is one, and like it or not, it includes people we don’t like. Deeper still is the reality that God has believers in every major branch of the faith.
A little charity will go a long way.
December 8th, 2009 | 4:31 pm | #9
James,
I think your assessment is overall correct. The document could not be distinctively Christian and still be signed by Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants, and the Protestant Evangelicals that presently will not sign.
If you were to put together a general, secular document calling on government to cease any interference with religious liberty on matters of sexuality, I suspect evangelicals like MacArthur would have less difficulty signing. But in that case Jews and Muslims would also have less difficulty signing. But once it becomes a document of religious expression, it is harder for Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants to sign without seeming to deceptively ignore our differences.
I imagine, however, that there is one document we could all sign: “We are Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant folk who each call ourselves Christians but might not think the others are as Christian as we think. We here affirm that each group exists and the other guy is wrong.” I could sign on!
December 8th, 2009 | 4:58 pm | #10
Orthodoxdj,
As a Calvinist, I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt that when you said Calvinism is a “worse heresy”, you actually meant “greater glory.”
Nevertheless, I agree with you. Our increasing dividedness is a scandal we can’t afford. Thank you for your good words.
December 8th, 2009 | 5:12 pm | #11
Dear James Grant,
I also affirm what you wrote in your own blog:
“I do not have to deny the gospel in order to affirm the document, and I am a “catholic” Christian who believes we should seek common ground with others who identify themselves as Christians around the world. This document is a good way to do it. I disagree with what I would consider a sectarian view of Christianity that would require me to never agree on these issues with Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians. I had no problem signing it. I would encourage you to to read it and sign it as well.”
Also, I’m enjoying the fact that a number of Protestants who are staunchly against the Manhattan Declaration are extolling John Granger’s article about the Twilight series titled “Mormon Vampires in the Garden of Eden.” John Granger happens to be a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
I also find it somewhat curious that while the Manhattan Declaration is primarily focused on these specific truths:
1.the sanctity of human life
2.the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3.the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
the conservative Protestant objection is that the Gospel is being blurred and obscured by the Manhattan Declaration,
But yet there is no objection to working with a member of the Orthodox Church, Mark Olson, on a blog titled, ironically enough, “Evangel”.
Would not the Gospel be blurred and obscured just as much, if not more, by being a co-blogger with a member of the Orthodox Church on a blog called “Evangel” than just signing your name alongside members of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church on the Manhattan Declaration?
Suppose someone reads Mark Olson’s posts and comments on Evangel, really likes them, and then because of it, decides to become a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Could we then not claim, much like those conservative anti-MD Protestants, that the Gospel was blurred and obscured by those Evangelical co-bloggers who were blogging alongside with Mark Olson?
Wouldn’t the action of integrity for a conservative Protestant who is staunchly against the Manhattan Declaration for blurring and obscuring the Gospel to then respectfully decline to continue co-blogging with a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church on a blog named “Evangel”?
Wouldn’t that be logically consistent?
December 8th, 2009 | 6:03 pm | #12
TUAD,
A couple of brief comments, for what they are worth.
One can appreciate the insightful observations of another without embracing his philosophy and theology. Granger’s comments about Twilight were insightful and informative – and my liking his comments about Twilight had nothing to do with my disliking his church’s theology.
As for this site, why wouldn’t a conservative Protestant participate on here provided he is given free reign to voice his views? As best I can tell, Frank Turk has not held back nor has Evangel tried to hold him back. He’s like a conservative writer for NY Times, doesn’t necessarily fit in but is not compromising anything so long as he is allowed to say what he believes.
I might even be willing to write for Playboy magazine if they allowed me to present the gospel and write on the sin and harm of pornography.
December 8th, 2009 | 6:49 pm | #13
“Wouldn’t that be logically consistent?”
That question is insightful for some kinds of arguments against the MD. It’s a waste of time for other arguments.
Meaning, you’re right that some arguments against signing the MD would also require you not to co-blog with Catholics & Orthodox. And others wouldn’t. (I’ll be surprised if you disagree with that statement.)
In this case, you seem to have people like the Pyros in mind–you mentioned Frank Turk, and Dan Phillips posted the Twilight article. Yet you know that their arguments are not that “doing anything with Catholics & Orthodox blurs and obscures the Gospel”. You know they’ve argued from specifics.
You chose to frame their argument in a vague, generic way, which lets you make your point. But if you want make a valid point about anyone’s logical consistency, you absolutely cannot keep it at the vague level of “the Gospel is blurred and obscured by signing the MD”. If you want to draw a parallel, you can’t do it without considering the specifics.
December 8th, 2009 | 9:50 pm | #14
I think Reardon is right in his statements that it’s foolish to think that believers must only comment on the gospel in public discourse.
But of course that’s not the argument being put forward by John MacArthur or the other non-signers (myself included).
The primary argument being put forward, as every reader should realize by now, is that the gospel is blurred by saying that differing gospels, even gospels that blatantly contradict each other in the essentials (I speak only of the RC/Ev differences, I’ve not the knowledge of EO to comment there) are the same gospel.
To say that we are all (according to the official teachings of our respective churches) believers in the gospel, if just plain false. That can be, and often has been, easily shown.
Just asking “What gospel” will show that.
The idea that MacArthur and others are not signing primarily because it’s too political to do so is a fabrication designed to skip past the issue of what the gospel really is, in an effort toward ecumenism.
That’s an uncomfortable issue for most sides, I agree. Particularly among those who want to affirm brotherhood where none exists.
This is why re-writing the thing so Jews, Muslims and atheists could sign on makes so much more sense. Sense, that is, if the framers are intent only on preserving religous freedom, combatting abortion and preventing gay marriage.
But when Colson says this:
“One great weakness of the Church today is its biblical and doctrinal ignorance. This document is, in fact, a form of catechism for the foundational truths of the faith.”
well then it’s pretty plain isn’t it? This is about abortion etc., but it’s mostly about revitalizing the church. Which has to mean synthesizing very different understandings of what the gospel is.
December 8th, 2009 | 9:53 pm | #15
“One great weakness of the Church today is its biblical and doctrinal ignorance. This document is, in fact, a form of catechism for the foundational truths of the faith.”
I just thought I’d put that quote up again.
So the foundational truths now have nothing to do with what the gospel is, not even anything to do with what the historical creeds and confessions (on any side of the divide) say are important, just gay marriage, religious freedom and abortion.
Who knew?
December 9th, 2009 | 9:57 am | #16
No idea how to backtrack from Blogger, so I’ll post the link to my response @ TeamPyro here:
Idealism vs. normally-wise pragmatism
December 9th, 2009 | 10:07 am | #17
Chris Roberts –
Thanks for your support.
December 9th, 2009 | 3:09 pm | #18
TUAD –
You may rail on as long as you don’t mention me by name. I am enjoying your efforts to try to try (not a typo) to seem objective.
I wonder: is it really so hard to believe that someone could be right about Mormonism and wrong about the Gospel? It seems pretty clear to me that just because someone gets one thing wrong in life — not matter how important it is — it doesn’t mean they are incapable of doing other things right. For example, I have not the first clue about physics — and I don;t mean astrophysics or quatum physics, but how to figure out how much force it takes to push an object up-hill physics. I got a solid ZERO in it in college 25 years ago, and my calculus has not improved one iota since then.
But since I cannot do physics, does that mean I can’t drive a car? How about play catch with my son? How about use a moving dolly or a carry something up stairs?
So the reasoning which goes, “because I think ‘Q’ is wrong about central issue ‘X’ I can never associate on any matter or work to any solution with him, ” is completely daffy — completely unfounded.
None of the objectors to MD are saying anything like that — but you and others are foisting that viewpoint on us. Rather, we would say this: “There is no reason to cast the effort for morally-serious social action in terms of central to the Gospel, and there are plenty of reasons why doing this is contradictory to the Gospel.”
The reason the serious confessional Presbyterian is my brother in Christ is not because we believe the same things about lying, stealing, covetousness and rape: it is because we believe that Christ is the savior and we are not, and that everything we would plan or scheme to do on our own is filthy rags. We may fight about baptism or the relationship of God’s grace to the sacraments, but we stand back to back for the Gospel and can therefore rightly call ourselves “fellow Christians” and “believers” in a soterilogical and therefore Gospel-centric way.
Vaguing-up the Gospel, and then setting it to the side for the sake of a moral cause, is classic liberalism. The fact that some theological conservatives have taken to this tactic in the last 75 years does not make the tactic any less liberal.
And it is in that which we find the sole basis for objecting to MD: the Gospel cannot be a vague thing, and when we seek to make it so in order to point to some other means of saving ourselves, we are theological flops.
Finally, that affirmation should not be something the EO and the RC cannot grasp or embrace. Indeed: the Gospel I would teach and proclaim ought to be something they oppose theologically if the are serious. In their book, monergism should be a bain to their way of reasoning; scriptural supremacy ought to be an untennable assertion; Christ as sole savior ought to be somewhat hard to swallow.
When they say it is not, we should be suspicious.
As you were.
December 9th, 2009 | 3:24 pm | #19
It’s been noted that there’s a logical inconsistency to seeing an anti-MD Protestant who complains about the Gospel being obscured by the Manhattan Declaration who then not only co-blogs with a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but also has his name on the masthead of a blog owned by First Things, a publication founded by Richard John Neuhaus, a Lutheran pastor turned Catholic priest and who was one of the founders of Evangelicals and Catholics Together, and whose current associate editor is an Orthodox Jew.
December 9th, 2009 | 3:30 pm | #20
TUAD,
I can’t find the place on the blog masthead where it says that the writers here are all followers of Christ and believers in the gospel.
Could you point it out to me? I must have missed it.
December 9th, 2009 | 3:32 pm | #21
Frank Turk: “So the reasoning which goes, “because I think ‘Q’ is wrong about central issue ‘X’ I can never associate on any matter or work to any solution with him, ” is completely daffy — completely unfounded.”
Thank you, thank you indeed, for making the case on why some conservative Protestants have signed the Manhattan Declaration.
Well done!
;-)
December 9th, 2009 | 5:01 pm | #22
TUaD,
Seemingly, you stopped reading just before, “None of the objectors to MD are saying anything like that — but you and others are foisting that viewpoint on us.”
That, or you think everything after that doesn’t require any comment, critique, or analysis. It doesn’t even require the statement, “That doesn’t work.” It doesn’t require any acknowledgment that it was even said. It doesn’t require any interaction or engagement engagement in any form whatsoever.
It would seem that if you’re concerned for the edification of the Body–which is presumably what motivates you to comment at all–then you would want to educate us on the thing that’s so clear to you, since we apparently don’t get it.
Why don’t you?
December 9th, 2009 | 5:12 pm | #23
Albert Mohler: “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.”
Ligon Duncan: “[T]hose Council members who signed the document fully understand the agreement on the documents’ statement on social issues that they share with those who didn’t sign, and also fully appreciate the non-signers’ concerns for Gospel clarity and fidelity. However, the Council members who signed do not believe that the document commits them to an agreement with Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox on the nature of the Gospel, the Church or who is a true Christian.
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.”
James Grant: “I do not have to deny the gospel in order to affirm the document, and I am a “catholic” Christian who believes we should seek common ground with others who identify themselves as Christians around the world. This document is a good way to do it. I disagree with what I would consider a sectarian view of Christianity that would require me to never agree on these issues with Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians. I had no problem signing it. I would encourage you to to read it and sign it as well.”
Frank Turk: “So the reasoning which goes, “because I think ‘Q’ is wrong about central issue ‘X’ I can never associate on any matter or work to any solution with him, ” is completely daffy — completely unfounded.”
Me: “Thank you, thank you indeed, for [also] making the case on why some conservative Protestants have signed the Manhattan Declaration.
Well done!”
December 9th, 2009 | 11:22 pm | #24
TUAD –
This make the exchange easier, don’t you think?
Vaguing-up the Gospel, and then setting it to the side for the sake of a moral cause, is classic liberalism. The fact that some theological conservatives have taken to this tactic in the last 75 years does not make the tactic any less liberal.
And it is in that which we find the sole basis for objecting to MD: the Gospel cannot be a vague thing, and when we seek to make it so in order to point to some other means of saving ourselves, we are theological flops.
Finally, that affirmation should not be something the EO and the RC cannot grasp or embrace. Indeed: the Gospel I would teach and proclaim ought to be something they oppose theologically if the are serious. In their book, monergism should be a bain to their way of reasoning; scriptural supremacy ought to be an untennable assertion; Christ as sole savior ought to be somewhat hard to swallow.
When they say it is not, we should be suspicious.
And for the record, that is specifically and exactly what I have done since coming here to blog at Evangel. You cannot make the case otherwise, but I am sure we will enjoy watching you try.
Carry on.
December 9th, 2009 | 11:23 pm | #25
BTW, I look forward to you making the case that Mark Olson is not an Evangelical. I’m sure Mr. Olson will as well.
December 10th, 2009 | 2:15 am | #26
BTW, I look forward to you making the case that you’re not a Pharasaic hypocrite. I’m sure others are as well.
“I also find it somewhat curious that while the Manhattan Declaration is primarily focused on these specific truths:
1.the sanctity of human life
2.the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3.the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
the conservative Protestant objection is that the Gospel is being blurred and obscured by the Manhattan Declaration,
But yet there is no objection to working with a member of the Orthodox Church, Mark Olson, on a blog titled, ironically enough, “Evangel”.
Would not the Gospel be blurred and obscured just as much, if not more, by being a co-blogger with a member of the Orthodox Church on a blog called “Evangel” than just signing your name alongside members of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church on the Manhattan Declaration?
Suppose someone reads Mark Olson’s posts and comments on Evangel, really likes them, and then because of it, decides to become a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Could we then not claim, much like those conservative anti-MD Protestants, that the Gospel was blurred and obscured by those Evangelical co-bloggers who were blogging alongside with Mark Olson?
Wouldn’t the action of integrity for a conservative Protestant who is staunchly against the Manhattan Declaration for blurring and obscuring the Gospel to then respectfully decline to continue co-blogging with a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church on a blog named “Evangel”?
Wouldn’t that be logically consistent?”
December 10th, 2009 | 2:40 am | #27
From the brief bio page: “Mark Olson has been a software developer for a small Industrial Automation firm for the last 18 years (begun in 1990). He is a graduate of the University of Chicago (BA ’80 and PhD ’90 in Physics) and currently lives in Lemont Illinois, is married, and has two rapidly growing wonderful daughters. He pursues, as an enthusiastic amateur, interests in cycling, history, math, science, philosophy, and theology. Mark grew up in a Lutheran household, fell away in the mid-80s, resumed regular and active attendance at an Episcopal Church in 1994, and returned to Christian belief in 2005, and has joined in 2007 and currently attends an OCA Orthodox parish, where I sing in the choir, train to be a reader, and am active in the adult education program. Mark has been blogging at/as Pseudo-Polymath since October 2004.”
Frank Turk: “BTW, I look forward to you making the case that Mark Olson is not an Evangelical. I’m sure Mr. Olson will as well.”
Why don’t you ask Mark Olson yourself?
BTW, I look forward to you making the case that you’re not a Pharasaic hypocrite. I’m sure others are as well.
December 10th, 2009 | 8:42 am | #28
[...] James Grant at ‘Evangel’ [...]
December 10th, 2009 | 8:56 am | #29
What is absolutely staggering in your current journey off the beaten track, through the rough off-road of self-justification and into the deep brush of illogic and rhetorical nuttery is that all you can do at this point is hurl accusations without a shred of evidence.
In order for your current reasoning to be true:
- Mark Olson must be a non-evangelical (a fact you cannot substantiate)
- I must openly call non-evangelicals “believers” (which, I think, the record here is clear about)
- I must also be blogging in a way which brushes over my differences with non-evangelicals in general and catholics specifically (As Dr. Beckwith how that’s turning out)
Given that all of these are false — patently false — your argument has absolutely no substance. You are forced to make statements like your last one here which amount to a version of, “I know you are but what am I?”
Get a grip on yourself, TUAD. At least get a grip on you advocacy for the MD: even Al Mohler admits that there are great reasons not to sign in to it, and that those who disagree with him do so on principled ground. This idea has never occured to you — because it never occurs to you. You have constructed a world for this argument in which either I must be going to hell, or I must say that you are. As I said the first time in my first post on this subject: I respectfully decline. Get over yourself, and over your amped-up sense of offense which always rears its ugly head when you comment on other people’s blogs.
December 10th, 2009 | 9:36 am | #30
My personal opinion is that the MD is a repeat ploy of Chuck Colson and the RC church to undo the Reformation as they tried with the ECT in past years. Sadly, due to biblical ignorance of the protestant churches in America they just may at some future date find success! How I do dread that possibility and pray for our Lord’s return!
December 10th, 2009 | 10:11 am | #31
My personal opinion is that the MD is a repeat ploy of Chuck Colson and the RC church to undo the Reformation as they tried with the ECT in past years.
How could it do that?
December 10th, 2009 | 10:18 am | #32
By drawing protestants back ‘into their fold’ of power and authority! Truth of scripture is forfeited when compromise and ignorance of God’s word leads toward a sleepy agreement with error!
December 10th, 2009 | 10:32 am | #33
I dont’ think it will do that at all. The document doesn’t assert any one “fold’s” authority. Have you read it?
December 10th, 2009 | 10:33 am | #34
Frank Turk,
Your comment in #29 is simply ad hominem nonsense.
But then, to be honest, it doesn’t surprise me.
As you were.
December 10th, 2009 | 10:38 am | #35
I dont’ think it will do that at all. The document doesn’t assert any one “fold’s” authority. Have you read it?
It isnt the document per se but the unity it desires to build by bringing catholics and protestants together that I would object to.
December 10th, 2009 | 10:45 am | #36
John Schroeder in the trackback in #28 has keen and apt observations:
“The Manhattan Declaration has proven divisive, which is just incredibly sad. Here are three blog posts on the matter that are great starting places:
•Ed Stetzer
•James Grant at ‘Evangel’
•Justin Taylor
What’s the debate about? Well, in a word “theology.” The primary concern for many is making common cause with Roman and Orthodox Catholics who, in the view of the usual suspects, are as heretical as the dreaded Mormons. It is interesting, if not funny, because the theological divide between Catholics and Evangelicals is a gnat’s hair compared to the distance-between-galaxies divisions between Mormons and Creedals and illustrates the futility of injecting theology into essentially political situations. They are arguing about definitions of “gospel” when the point is doing what we can to minimize abortion and prevent same-sex marriage from becoming the law of the land.
In the end, it is a statement about the state of Evangelical Christianity for those that have these concerns. For them, religion IS theology, which is a narrow definition of religion indeed. What’s sad is that their theological insistence in the end makes the world worse since it prevents them from participating in an alliance, thus weakening it, designed precisely to make the world better. One is almost forced to ask, “What good is a form of Christianity that makes the world worse?”
December 10th, 2009 | 10:49 am | #37
What kind of unity, though? As I see it, the unity is one that unites in working for moral and legal causes. It isn’t a ‘religious’ unity that blurs everyone together in one church. That’s all the document declares. It goes like this: “We are different, but we are united on these moral legal concerns.” The agreement is already there and it is formally recognized.
December 10th, 2009 | 11:06 am | #38
“One is almost forced to ask, “What good is a form of Christianity that makes the world worse?””
Or worse, what good is a Christianity that brings not peace, but a sword. Sets brother against sister, daughter in law against mother in law?
Oh wait…
December 10th, 2009 | 2:58 pm | #39
TUAD:
“They are arguing about definitions of “gospel” when the point is doing what we can to minimize abortion and prevent same-sex marriage from becoming the law of the land.”
This does a good job of pointing out one of the great concerns MacArthur and others have had with the declaration. The gospel is almost seen as secondary while activism is seen as the primary way of ending social ills. If we are dealing with sin, the definition of the gospel becomes of vital importance.
There are ways Christians can and should respond to social issues without dealing with the theological nature of those issues. For instance, Christians should support legislation that outlaws abortion and defines marriage as the union of one man and on woman even if such legislation nowhere mentions sin and grace. But no document released by Christians that proclaims Christian convictions on these issues should ignore the only ultimate solution to the problems.
The document does not altogether ignore the gospel, but the gospel is certainly sidelined and by joining together Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, it remains unclear what gospel the document even refers to.
December 10th, 2009 | 3:52 pm | #40
Chris Roberts,
As soon as I read John Schroeder’s piece I knew what the rebuttal will be. Your argument is exactly in line with what I expected.
If you read Albert Mohler’s and Ligon Duncan’s posts about their signing the Manhattan Declaration, you’ll see that they don’t see or view the MD document in the same light as the anti-MD Protestants do with regards to the Gospel.
So with regards to this discussion about the Gospel it’s simply just meeting the anti-MD’ers in the arena in which they want to grind their axes. But that’s not the arena by which the pro-MD Protestants have chosen to sign.
The great disconnect between the pro-MD’ers and the anti-MD’ers is this:
Anti-MD’ers: Gospel’s compromised.
Pro-MD’ers: The specific focus of the MD is sanctity of life, biblical marriage, and religious freedom.
The two sides understand each other’s arguments, but simply have different perspectives.
As James Grant said: “I do not have to deny the gospel in order to affirm the document, and I am a “catholic” Christian who believes we should seek common ground with others who identify themselves as Christians around the world. This document is a good way to do it. I disagree with what I would consider a sectarian view of Christianity that would require me to never agree on these issues with Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians. I had no problem signing it. I would encourage you to to read it and sign it as well.”
If you want to criticize James Grant, I think he can take it.
December 10th, 2009 | 4:08 pm | #41
We should all try to keep distinct whether we’re disagreeing over what the MD actually says, or over how we can appropriately unite as Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox.
December 11th, 2009 | 2:17 am | #42
“As soon as I read John Schroeder’s piece I knew what the rebuttal will be. Your argument is exactly in line with what I expected.”
I am glad you already realize what the problems are. Now, are you simply interested in making rebuttals so you can have a good argument, or are you interested in arriving at a reasonable position?
“If you read Albert Mohler’s and Ligon Duncan’s posts about their signing the Manhattan Declaration…”
In case you had not noticed, you are talking with Chris Roberts, not Al Mohler or Ligon Duncan.
That said, I have tremendous respect for Mohler and Duncan but it must be noted that even great men make mistakes. Since they signed and I did not it should be obvious that I think they made a mistake. I have read their arguments, I continue to disagree.
“I disagree with what I would consider a sectarian view of Christianity that would require me to never agree on these issues with Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians.”
As you – and Grant – should know well by now, the issue is not whether or not we agree with Catholics and Orthodox on these issues but whether or not we will stand side-by-side with them while calling one another Christian and claiming that each affirms the one gospel of Jesus Christ. As others have stated, I would readily stand side-by-side with a Catholic or Orthodox priest in opposition to abortion, but I would not do so within a church or while claiming to speak as fellow gospel-affirming Christians.
December 11th, 2009 | 9:27 am | #43
Questions:
1) Does the average voter understand the precious distinctions concerning ‘gospel.’?
2) If they do not, how does holding that distinction so dear aid the political effort in re: abortion, marriage and other vital social issues?
December 11th, 2009 | 9:35 am | #44
More questions:
3) If the world becomes worse place due to our theological distinctions, how is evangelism aided?
4) Lewis called the idea of an objective right and wrong “pre-evangelism.” How does holding the theology line, at the expense of the pre-evangelistic idea aid evangelism?
5) Ultimately, failure to cooperate will reduce our free practice of religion – for us and for “them.” How does that help evangelism?
December 11th, 2009 | 9:35 am | #45
John,
How does signing or not signing the declaration make one ounce of difference in the political process? I can work with Catholics to promote anti-abortion legislation, but not through statements like the Declaration which in and of themselves don’t actually do anything.
December 11th, 2009 | 9:50 am | #46
Unity is necessary for political power – it is the nature of the American system.
December 11th, 2009 | 9:59 am | #47
“If the world becomes worse place due to our theological distinctions, how is evangelism aided?”
John, it is aided significantly more than letting people believe that if we could only get people living right and not killing babies, then we’ll be OK.
We won’t be OK. And only the real and true gospel can fix that.
December 11th, 2009 | 12:55 pm | #48
John Schroeder,
You might find this article by Andrew Sandlin titled “Lordship Salvation is Not Enough: A Response to John MacArthur” helpful.
December 11th, 2009 | 2:58 pm | #49
The whole point is this is a team game. Some preach and some do politics. NOBODY said “…living right and not killing babies, then we’ll be OK.”
What I said was that if social mores conform more to our own then evangelism is easier.
What I am also saying is somethings matter in some settings and in others they do not.
Every been to a party and discussed your latest problem with operating program X? Would it be appropriate, even necessary, to bring up the difference in electronic structure between gallium-arsenic and other semi-conductor dopants? Would it help solve the problem?
From the view point of the computer user they don’t care what kind of semi-conductor is used in their processor – they just want the program to run.
America does not care what religious distinctions exist provided they just make the country run.
Now here is the important part. If America fails, if religion is no longer allowed the freedom it has enjoyed in this nation – then we lose the opportunity to, in an appropriate setting, bring up these distinctions.
In other words, if we concentrate on the semi-conductor when we should be concentrating on helping the user with the software, the user will just throw the computer away and there will be no semi-conductor. If, on the other hand we help them with the software and they come to like the computer, they just might buy another, which will keep the semi-conductor guys busy improving things.
Ecclesiastes talks about a season for everything. There is a time and a place that these theological distinctions matter and that they do not. When it comes to American politics – they don’t.
December 12th, 2009 | 12:21 am | #50
John,
I will not lie so that my politics win. I cannot stand next to Catholic and Orthodox folks and call them fellow Christians in the gospel.
One point that is apparently not communicating is that no one is against any and all unity. I would be happy to unify with Catholic and Orthodox folks – and atheist folks! – to express concerns as a conservative. But I will not say any of them shares the gospel with me. Putting in the Declaration something that is not true means it cannot be embraced. When you sign it, you sign the whole thing, endorsing even the parts that are in great error.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact