December 2, 2009, Matthew Cochrane, Reactions to the Manhattan Declaration
Last week, I highlighted the Manhattan Declaration, a document signed by major Christian leaders in the evangelical, Catholic and Orthodox traditions affirming our common fight for the sanctity of life, the institution of marriage and religious liberty. I stated, “If those who sign this document take the pledge seriously, this marks a major turning point in American culture and society. If it is just another intellectual exercise for Christian leaders it is meaningless.” I stand by that statement. Only time will tell of the Declaration’s lasting significance. We are going to talk about the Manhattan Declaration more in the coming days but, for now, I thought this segment Bill O’Reilly did on it was particularly good.
In this clip, Mike Huckabee interviews Chuck Colson, one of the three authors of the Manhattan Declaration:
Finally, in this segment Bill O’Reilly discusses the Declaration with Ann Coulter.
These videos nicely setup future posts on the Manhattan Declaration where we will interact with criticism the document has received.
If you have not already done so, I encourage you to sign the Manhattan Declaration here.
Comments
from the looks of the previous post on M.D. and the slow pace of signage, it'll be a rousing discussion
- c
I agree with you, c, on the slow pace of the signage. I guess, depending on your point of view, this is either encouraging or discouraging. From my perspective, my initial enthusiasm for the MD has waned considerably over the way it is being managed. I'm beginning to think that the MD is going to have all the hard-hitting impact of the proverbial butterfly landing on a flower in the rain forest . . .
- Curious George
Sproul: true reformation and revival within the church and the winning of our culture to Christ will come only through the power of the Holy Spirit and our clear, bold proclamation of the biblical gospel, not through joint ecumenical statements that equivocate on the most precious truths given to us. There is no other gospel than that which has already been given (Gal. 1:6–8).
That's a good quote from Sproul; thanks for posting it. After reading what Sproul had to say, I went over to Grace to You and read a similar article by John MacArthur, found here:
Although I don't believe there are two men anywhere that I admire more than Sproul and MacArthur, I must respectfully disagree with them on this issue. It would take a long time for me to do a point by point refutation of my disagreements with what they are saying but I think I can sum it up by saying I believe they are seriously over-thinking the issue. The MD is not, and was never meant to be, a deep theological document to teach either new believers or people training for the ministry. It seems to me that it was nothing more than a group of Christians representing many different branches trying to find the common ground to show the public that, on these issues at least, they are uiunited in their faith. What's wrong with that?
On a personal note, I have a fair amount of experience with such documents on a very local level. In an earlier era, I spent quite a few years in my community working as a "community activist" leading christians of all kinds in campaigns against pornography, adult book stores, nude night clubs and abortion clinics. At tiimes we had hundreds of people turn out and at other times we had thousands turning out in their opposition to such things. To get this kind of public participation we built exactly the type of broad coalition that the MD is attempting to do. We had evangelical protestants, mainline protestants, Roman Cathlics and Orthodox churches all presenting a united front to the commuinity at large: Here We Stand! To do this we consistently started at the top of each group we wanted to include.
We met with Archbisops and Bishops and Ministers and Pastors and heads of Presbyteries and Conventions. The end result was that we were able to reach a solid (and Godly) consenus on who we were and what we were doing. What the community always saw was "Christian believers" united in their faith. In my heart I believe that's exactly what the MD people were trying to do and nothing more. That's why I singed it.
Having said all this, though, I think the MD backers can be legitimately criticised for the way they have handled this whole thing. To my mind they have made at least a couple of serious marketing mistakes. I believe they should have taken the MD to leaders of various denominations in advance of the public debut. They should have gotten feedback from both national and regional Christian leaders and, then, actually done something to meet their objections and suggestions. If R.C. Sproul has serious doubts about part of it, fine, re-word it to meet his needs. If John MacArthur doesn't like a sentence or two, fine, re-write them. And so on . . .
Then, when all the objections are taken into consideration and the documents has been re-written, bring it back to these same leaders once again for the final drafting. It would certainly have been better to have all these poeple on board than having them taking potshots at all their efforts. Finally, I cannot fathom why the MD was made publc right in the middle of the Thanksgiving/christmas/New Year time frame in which virtually nothing ever gets accomplished. Chuhrches are finalizing their Christmas programs and special services while ordinary people are caught up in a meriad of holiday activities. Introducing the MD in this time period almost guarantees it will get less attention than it would in late January when people are ready to tackle new ideas.
Anyhow, I believe the MD is a good document and I am sorry it has garnered the opposition that it has from within the church. It's sad . . . I hope that Sproul, MacArthur and others who feel like they do, will present an alternative that will be acceptable to all. What I can say is that it doesn't require a deep theological treatise to do so.
Just my opinion.
- Jameson
Jameson, since you have a lot of experience in this area, could you amplify a few things for me?
Would your efforts have been successful if they had not been based on religious fervor (if that's the right word)? Could the community have banded together only because they did not want certain activities easily made available? How might that have been different?
This question is just a minor issue. You called yourself an "activist." Others would call you a reactionary. Is there a difference? I think the dictionary would call you a reactionary.
The MD mentions a few verses that don't seem very convincing to me. And overall I just don't see anything in the Bible that tells Christians to organize and cause changes to how Gentiles live their lives. Thomas Paine's Common Sense section which includes a response to the Quakers indicates the colonists disagreed with the approach taken by the Quakers. The readership of Common Sense was high but one can't necessarily assume the percentage of agreement with Paine. It does seem clear that there were several religious men amongst the founding fathers but the logic of the Declaration and the Constitution seems to be based on natural law and an analysis of republics and confederations throughout history rather than Biblical scholarship. It does seem that one of Calvin's commentaries, which said "revolution" is okay if led by the lower magistrates, gave the colonists a way out of Romans and Peter's points about submitting to authority for the sake of conscience. This point leads to my main question. Do you think your community activities lead to changed lives or hearts and the furthering of the Gospel or did it result in confusion that being a Christian means being a good person? And, even if the Bible supports the ideas you support, how do you do so while adhering to the Constitution, or does the Constitution just not matter? Thanks.
- c
Just to clarify one point about Calvin, the last revision of Calvin's Institutes which seems to be his last publication does not support revolution so I have to assume that was his final answer on the subject. I do think the colonies were continuing towards freedom in a way that had begun in England as exemplified by the Glorious Revolution which was led by Cromwell. Since the precedent had been set by their British leaders, it seems to make sense that the colonists could do the same. So, I don't think the colonists were wrong to do so, but I don't think the Bible can be used to justify it.
- c
Now, going of on a tangent, since natural law or science or "the data" or the market place of ideas was intended to be the basis for decisions, it is very contradictory for those that want to change human behavior as it relates to human behavior to ignore the recent U of Anglia email news.
Jameson, Alistair Begg attended the Manhattan conference but didn't sign the declaration and explains why not by focusing on Calvin's Institutes. Maybe George and Colson did try to include the dissenters and failed.
Begg says he agrees with the stance on the issues but doesn't want to harm the solas.
I agree with him on the solas but I disagree on the issues. I have not seen a convincing argument against abortion. I think the emphasis regarding homosexuality in Romans is placed on the avoidance of sexual immorality by believers not on the behavior of non believers. And, Colson et al. are off base on conscience. Thomas Paine's response to the Quakers in Common Sense is much more informative. Finally, the Bible in Romans and Peter do not support organized civil disobedience and unorganized civil disobedience is only very minimally found in the Bible.
- c
conscience and the Christian Examiner (early in the morning of Dec 31st)
"And by year-end nearly a million Christians had signed the Manhattan Declaration."
the truth? nearly a third of a million as of early evening New Year's Eve
