Posted on 12/10/2009 10:55:18 AM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
Here are the main reasons I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration, even though a few men whom I love and respect have already affixed their names to it:
• Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.
• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously. It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity.
• Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.
• The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.
• This is neither a novel approach nor a strategic stand for evangelicals to take. It ought to be clear to all that the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless Faith. I stand by what I wrote then.
In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.
John MacArthur
Wellsir, that’s the issue. The document does include the endorsement you don’t think it does, putting (as it were) conservatives and liberals together and saying they (as it were) equally love the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I apologize if it came off as accusatory. You are right. I should not pretend to know how you think. Sorry about that.
Absolutely Right!
Ah hum...I mean you’re absolutely right....
“In short, he won’t sign because there are too many Catholics involved.”
Or he’s a coward, afraid because the blowback from having put one’s name on this document is going to be intense.
Many in the evangelical community are not fans of John MacArthur. He seems to have the attitude that Christians should not challenge the government officials who are corrupt.
Hi SeaHawkFan! “Seahawk” Are you from Seattle by any chance? Familiar with Mark Driscoll’s Ministry?
Anyhow: yeah, I totally understand those sentiments and to this day I disagree with a few of John Macarthur’s statements on things. History calls to mind “civil disobeyers” such as Christian Evangelist William Wilberforce, who was the prime mover of Britain’s Slave Abolition Movement.
I think what Macarthur is weary of is the “Religious Right” movement which started in the 80s under the oversight of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Macarthur observed that an unhealthy mingling of politics can often dilute the faith and the CHristian witness to a dying world. People, particularly unbelievers begin to associate “Christ” with the Republican Party and the same pro-life movement and pro-marriage movement that Mormons, Catholics, Jews, and secular humanists are a part of.
This can be damaging and obviously would not model itself after the ways of the early apostles and Christians—who did not challenge Caesar. This is not to say CHristians shouldn’t involve themselves in the political process or taking part in cultural renewal—but that those things shouldn’t take precedent over the Gospel.
You might also be interested in reading why Al Mohler, a very close friend of Macarthur’s DID choose to sign it:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/11/23/why-i-signed-the-manhattan-declaration/
As my 2 year old grand daughter would say, John Mac Arthur is a poopy head!”
As my 2 year old grand daughter would say, John Mac Arthur is a poopy head!”
The early CHristians were heavily persecuted yet thrived amidst an EXTREMELY pagan culture—and yet they didn’t do things like Manhattan Declarations...
Look, I don’t think that by signing it one is abandoning their faith. Neither does Macarthur, as many of his closest peers have chosen to sign it.
This guy reminds me of the Pharisees.
This guy reminds me of the Pharisees.
You mention the supposed “deification of the Bible”
From the Gospel of “Saint” John:
Chapter 1
1In the beginning was the WORD, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God.
2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
...
14 THE WORD BECAME FLESH and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
*~*
“In the beginning was the WORD”
CHRIST is “The Word made Flesh.”
CHRIST is the rock of our salvation. HE is the rock on which we stand or fall.
I would rather preach the gospel Jesus preached and sent his diciples out to preach. More authentic, coming out of Jesus mouth, don’t you think?
(Mat 4:23 KJV) And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
One small problem.
Jesus didn't say "This is the Gospel" now did he.
If you want "authentic" you should put Scripture in context, don't you think?
Makes sense to me...
Thank you the first teaching was very good. Made a lot of sense about the adversary. Both articles however miss the gospel of the Kingdom since by that time in history the “Greeks” had taken over doctrine and were doing their best to remove the Kingdom of Israel from the church’s radar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.