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.

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.

You might find this article by Andrew Sandlin titled “Lordship Salvation is Not Enough: A Response to John MacArthur” helpful.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

“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.

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…

“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?”