[Alex Murphy]

Those who did not sign the document believe that it is a lamentable example of the confused sort of ecumenical theology, on display in the ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) statements, and that it implicitly commits its signers to acknowledge a commonality between evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Orthodox on the gospel, who is a true Christian and what is a true church. They rightly point out that the Alliance has always been and remains unanimously critical of the presuppositions and products of ECT.

Those who did sign the document believe that it is a statement of solidarity, not of ecumenism, and that it represents the kind of principled co-belligerency advocated by, for instance, Francis Schaeffer and James Boice. These signers believe that document actually helps clarify their concerns with the whole ECT project, because the Manhattan Declaration only asks evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox to agree on matters on which we actually agree (marriage and sexuality, the sanctity of life, and religious liberty), rather than purporting an agreement in vital matters on which we do not agree (the Gospel, what is a Christian, what is a true Church).

It should be made clear that those Council members who did not sign the document agree with what the document says about the social issues it addresses. Their concern is that the document implies an agreement between evangelicals and Catholics on the Gospel where there is in fact not an agreement. Conversely, those 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.

[Alex Murphy]

GRPL[R] Ping

List members will be pinged to articles regarding Reformed thought or interest. If you want to be added to the Great Reformed Ping List [Re]formed, please FReepmail me. If you were on the old GRPL and want your name removed from the Great Reformed Ping List [Re]formed, please FReepmail me. And if you were on the original GRPL and your name is missing from the GRPL[R], please FReepmail me.

Related threads:
Exurge, Calvinisti, et judica causam tuam...
Exurge, Calvinisti, et judica causam tuam [revisited]...

[HarleyD]

"...agree with what the document says about the social issues it addresses. "

I'm still puzzled why a Reformer-any Reformer-would want to sign this document. Social issues are so "Finney". If a person believes the ONLY way people's hearts are going to be changed is through accepting the Lord Jesus, then I'm not sure what good it is going to do anyone to say, "Hey, you shouldn't have sex before marriage." Heck, Britt Hume knows that much and I'm not sure if he's a Reformer.

[AUsome Joy]

Thanks for posting this. I had chosen not to sign the document and appreciate reading why others had declined.

[Lee N. Field]

it implicitly commits its signers to acknowledge a commonality between evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Orthodox on the gospel, who is a true Christian and what is a true church.

I suppose I'll have to go and read the thing, before it's 15 minutes of notoriety are over.

"Of the making of many declarations and manifestos there is no end, and much reading of them is a weariness of the flesh."

[BibChr]

Two Statements from BibChr:

1. Ligon Duncan is a great brother, and I love him a lot

2. The MD is a bad Trojan-horse document, and people who trivialize concerns about it really, really don't get the central issue.