THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION and EVANGELICAL CO-BELLIGERENCE

Camp On This ^ | TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2009 | Steve Camp

[streetpreacher]

THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION and EVANGELICAL CO-BELLIGERENCE
...the ineffectual intersection of politics and faith

 

 

“The goal of both the church and the state is to advance the public good.”

-Francis Beckwith

 

 

The ultimate goal of the church biblically

is not the public good,

but the glory of God in the proclamation

and advancement of His gospel of sola fide.

God, not the audience, is sovereign.

The “public good” is political speak for tolerance.

The gospel, however, does divide;

it is a stumbling block, offensive and foolishness

for those who are perishing.

 

 

Here we go again!

In the face of President Obama's economic wasteland and political indecision vacuum concerning Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq; coupled with an abortion provision being slipped into the latest health care bill championed by Harr Reid yand company - the religious right has found reason again to try itself in the political arena through The Manhattan Declaration.

It is nothing more than ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) and Justice Sunday revisited. Same framers and advocates of the benign philosophy of political remedy for moral malady. The religious right of the past 24 years has all but been silenced. And despite the grass-root efforts by many well respected evangelical leaders and politicians, our country remains unchanged on key social and family issues. So once again, those who are impassioned about important social issues from a "faith perspective" such as abortion, same sex marriage, and religious liberty and freedom, are all but silent about the real "faith solution" for these same issues. The solution being regeneration through the Lord Jesus Christ and not political legislation. The solution for the Christian must be Gospel-Centered; Christ-Centered; and Cross-Centered. Anything less is ineffectual in bringing real resolve spiritually to these concerns.

The lack of sea change in American society to a conservative political ethic for many of us has been frustrating. But attempting to fight spiritual battles with carnal weaponry is just as disappointing. Christians who in the past have sought real change on key cultural issues did so, in part, absent of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. IOW, the gospel became the afterthought, not the primary thought. That failed strategery to keep the proclamation of the gospel center in a righteous quest I have defined as Evangelical Co-Belligerence (ECB).

I offer the following definition:

Creating alliances with individuals or groups who do not share belief in or with orthodox biblical Christianity, in order to fight an agreed upon social, moral, cultural cause that seeks to undermine the traditional family and family values. This includes, but not limited to: gay marriage; abortion; euthanasia; etc. and those who aid, influence, or control such societal moral decline such as the Supreme Court, Congress, state and local officials, and a run-a-way Federal Judiciary. This is accomplished by using boycotts, petitions, picketing, legislation... any political remedies available to resolve the moral maladies in our nation.

This is further accomplished by organizing evangelicals/local churches as PAC's, lobbyist groups, or as some refer to as "Christocrats", as Christian voting blocks to threaten with militant tones sitting politicians with the prospect of not being reelected if they fail to adopt the ECB moral/family agenda. This tactic is being championed by many evangelical leaders, seminary presidents and pastors absent of the authority of Scripture, absent of the preaching of God's Word, and absent of the heralding of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. -Steve Camp, July 14, 2005

Christianity in culture does have impact and does produce change. But it only does so as long as Christianity doesn't become a political organization and remains at its very core deeply gospel-centered. Is it wrong for believers to enter politics? Of course not. Is it wrong for Christians in politics to use their office, driven by a biblical worldview, for the good of society and their fellow man as say Wilberforce did on the issue of slavery? Absolutely not. But the church itself is not driven by the brilliance of U.S. Constitutional ethics, but by the Scriptures of the living God.

So again, what is the solution to the plight our nation finds itself in? The gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.And that brief answer is not about offering cultural reform back to an era of family values and more virtuous days. Jesus Christ did not come to transform America, but to transform Americans. The gospel is not the new nationalism for the conservative, but the hope for any sinner (like me and you) who by God's sovereign electing love trusts that eternal life and salvation is attained only by grace through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord alone.
 

IOW beloved, in this hour in our nations history may I propose a simple mandate: it is time for the church to be the church.

Gospel-driven Worship:

Acts 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles.

Gospel-driven Welfare:

44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,

Gospel-driven Witness:

47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

[vladimir998]

You asked - after denying they exist - for verses that show we seek God.

I posted them.

You were wrong.

[Mr Rogers]

Sinners define the ‘common good’ as wallowing in their sinfulness. This leads them to hating Christians, since we are opposed to ‘the common good’ - which is the desire of the hearts of sinful rebels.

“18 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. 21But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.” - John 15

[Mr Rogers]

“You asked - after denying they exist - for verses that show we seek God.”

I thought the context made it clear that my request (”Feel free to show me where scripture teaches we have a built-in desire to be saved.”) was for scriptures teaching that unredeemed men seek God, not that believers do. If a desire for God is built in to all humans, then unredeemed men seek Him.

After all, that was our disagreement - you wrote, “Man was created by God. He made us to be drawn to Him, to seek Him out. Thus, our built in goal is to be saved. “

Instead, you show verses showing that believers seek God...which everyone grants.

[the_conscience]

Sure it is. It just isn’t an answer.

I suppose in a childlike way being coy and evasive is a response but most non-liberal adults understand it as a non-response.

I asked a question that shares something with yours

Actually it doesn't. In the first place the question is internally incoherent and secondly there is no reason to believe that an answer to your incoherent question automatically answers my question.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Sinners define the ‘common good’ as wallowing in their sinfulness. This leads them to hating Christians, since we are opposed to ‘the common good’ - which is the desire of the hearts of sinful rebels.”

Christians are not opposed to the common good. They are opposed to sin. When you can distinguish between the two, let me know.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Instead, you show verses showing that believers seek God...which everyone grants.”

And since all of scripture is written to believers, why would you expect verses to someone else?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I suppose in a childlike way being coy and evasive is a response but most non-liberal adults understand it as a non-response.”

No, most conservatives would judge it to be a response but not an answer - because that’s what it is.

“Actually it doesn’t.”

Actually it does.

“In the first place the question is internally incoherent and secondly there is no reason to believe that an answer to your incoherent question automatically answers my question.”

Incorrect. First, my question is not at all internally incoherent and secondly anyone smart enough to answer one can answer the other. The problem is that you apparently can’t answer either one.

[the_conscience]

OK.

Then do me the honor of tying them together and showing how the answer to your question answers mine.

[Mr Rogers]

As I’ve pointed out multiple times, you need to define ‘common good’. If you mean common good from God’s perspective, then of course Christians advance the ‘common good’.

But you use it with governments, so the ‘common good’ is defined by the unbelievers who make up the bulk of every population and every government. And sinners define it as unopposed sinning.

You write, “And since all of scripture is written to believers, why would you expect verses to someone else?”

Maybe because they exist - as in, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God” and ““If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.”

Verses like that reveal what unbelievers are like - except for you, since you “seek out God and always have.” (post 63)

[HarleyD]

First, show me a verse that says everything has to be in the Bible. Can you do that?

I see this phrase pop up from time to time in different forms. It bothers me. First, the early church fathers knew that man could NEVER write anything as perfect and infallible as the scriptures so much that they separated their writings from the Bible. Second, it presumes that God "left out something" that requires us to go stumbling around in the dark since we are unable to perfectly divine God's will. Everything in scripture is given for our edification and training. We don't need more than what God has given to us.

It is reckless presumption on our part to tell God that we are capable of writing theology that He never intended. The early church fathers never made this mistake.

[Mr Rogers]

“20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, 21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ...26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, 27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.” - Acts 20

“8Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. 9Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.” - 2 John

[the_conscience]

While we’re waiting for vlad to respond I wonder if Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists who strive for the common good in their societies and households turn their attention to God and serve him?

[Quix]

I might note that the more you don’t trust in scripture, the less likely you will believe you are saved.

#########

I think that tends to be quite true denominationally—when as a group, they tend to value The Word lower than Jesus did/does.

and individually within virtually every denomination.

[streetpreacher]

I wish Protestants were better educated so this basic stuff wouldn’t have to be explained.

...

How do we best glorify God? By obeying His will, living like His Son and spending eternity with Him. We call that SALVATION.

Maybe we Protestants (as you loosely define "us") only seem stupid because you assume that we agree with you on basic definitions. But as your own definition of salvation demonstrates, it is clear that we do not.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Then do me the honor of tying them together and showing how the answer to your question answers mine.”

No. This is one of those things where it is so obvious that, if someone doesn’t get it, then he just doesn’t have what it takes to get it.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“As I’ve pointed out multiple times, you need to define ‘common good’.”

Nope. What you need to stop doing is claiming that evil is the common good.

“If you mean common good from God’s perspective, then of course Christians advance the ‘common good’.”

You don’t - at least not according to your posts.

“But you use it with governments, so the ‘common good’ is defined by the unbelievers who make up the bulk of every population and every government. And sinners define it as unopposed sinning.”

And that would not be the common good.

“Maybe because they exist - as in, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God””

That was written to believers. St. Paul was writing to Roman Christians, not non-Christians. You’re merely proving my point. And the next verse talks about suffering persecution. Clearly it is aimed at Christians suffering persecutions at the hands of people NOT reading what was written (”If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.”)

“Verses like that reveal what unbelievers are like - except for you, since you “seek out God and always have.” (post 63)”

I already am a believer, but even those who do not have the faith I do, seek out God.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I see this phrase pop up from time to time in different forms. It bothers me.”

What bothers you is of no importance and certainly doesn’t rise to the level of a theological point.

“First, the early church fathers knew that man could NEVER write anything as perfect and infallible as the scriptures so much that they separated their writings from the Bible.”

What? 1) They didn’t separate their writings from the Bible. They simply assumed, correctly, that their writings were not inspired. Others did sometimes assume some of their writings were inspired. At least one list of canonical scriptures included 1 Clement if I am not mistaken. That’s another reason why the Church had to decide on a conclusive list of scripture.

“Second, it presumes that God “left out something” that requires us to go stumbling around in the dark since we are unable to perfectly divine God’s will.”

Uh, no. It presumes nothing like that. It presumes, correctly, that God never intended scripture to include everything. Where is there an inspired table of contents, for instance?

“Everything in scripture is given for our edification and training. We don’t need more than what God has given to us.”

Whoa! Nice slight of hand there, buddy! So, if something isn’t in the bible it isn’t from God? Again, how did we get the canon that we have? Where is it in the Bible? While you’re failing to answer that question while don’t you fail to answer these: Where in scripture does it say that St. Matthew wrote the gospel named after him? Where in scripture does it say that Matthew’s gospel is inspired? Now, since those answers are no where in scripture, tell me how you know the answers to them.

“It is reckless presumption on our part to tell God that we are capable of writing theology that He never intended.”

Whoa! Another leap there. Abortion. Where is it in the Bible? Nowhere. So, if someone writes out why abortion is wrong according to a Christian understanding of God’s creation and the dignity of the person of man, it’s “theology He never intended”?

“The early church fathers never made this mistake.”

They wrote against abortion.

I don’t think you have any idea of what you’re talking about.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Maybe we Protestants (as you loosely define “us”) only seem stupid because you assume that we agree with you on basic definitions.”

So far in this thread there are Protestants who are incapable (apparently) of understanding common good, history, scripture, common sense, and logic.

“But as your own definition of salvation demonstrates, it is clear that we do not.”

So, spending eternity with God is not salvation? If it is not, then that means people who spend eternity with God are not saved. That’s what you’re saying. Once again, we see a Protestant easily painting himself into a logic corner from which there is no escape.

[Mr Rogers]

“What bothers you is of no importance...”

Feel the love!

“Whoa! Nice slight of hand there, buddy! So, if something isn’t in the bible it isn’t from God? Again, how did we get the canon that we have? Where is it in the Bible? While you’re failing to answer that question while don’t you fail to answer these: Where in scripture does it say that St. Matthew wrote the gospel named after him? Where in scripture does it say that Matthew’s gospel is inspired? Now, since those answers are no where in scripture, tell me how you know the answers to them.”

OK, let’s go thru you list of infantile arguments...

1) “So, if something isn’t in the bible it isn’t from God?”

Scripture says there is a form of revelation given to all. However, all that we need for salvation and holy living is found in scripture. “15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Scripture is able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Therefor, it must have what we need to know for salvation, otherwise it would have to say scripture and the teachings of the church are able...

Further, if a man of God uses scripture to teach, rebuke, correct and train, the result is another man of God who is thoroughly equipped for every good work. One cannot be thoroughly equipped for every good work if something (Purgatory, Priests, Indulgences, Mariology) is missing.

2) What establishes the Canon? Well, any denomination can decide what it accepts, and they do. “Canon” refers to what a group of people consider to be scripture. Mormons and Jews obviously have a different canon than Christians. Among Christians, there are minor differences between Orthodox & Catholics, while Protestants rejected the Apocrypha - as did many Catholics prior to Trent (c 1550), since many Catholics taught as some Orthodox do - that the Apocrypha is NOT useful for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”.

In the end, scripture must be self-authenticating. If I don’t believe something is scripture, then I won’t believe a church that claims it is, such as the Mormon Church. A canon list is like a constitution - it defines church belief, but it doesn’t force anyone else to accept it.

3) “Where in scripture does it say that St. Matthew wrote the gospel named after him?”

It doesn’t. You can believe Matthew was written by Barnabas, and it makes no impact. And if most folks thought it was written by Barnabas, it would be called “The Gospel According to Barnabas”.

4) “Where in scripture does it say that Matthew’s gospel is inspired?”

It doesn’t. You either believe it, or you do not. No one can stop you from calling yourself a christian, no matter what you believe. Mormons call themselves christians, but they draw their beliefs from the Book of Mormon and others.

Do you accept the Book of Mormon on the authority of the LDS Church? I suspect not - but why not? Perhaps you reject it because the Catholic Church tells you to. I reject it because it conflicts with scripture I do accept.

The whole ‘who wrote the canon’ argument is stupid. It only transfer the question of authority from “Do you trust this as scripture?” to “Do you trust this is the true Church?” accept or reject one, and the other will follow.

You wrote the_conscience, “This is one of those things where it is so obvious that, if someone doesn’t get it, then he just doesn’t have what it takes to get it.”

Got it...you don’t know.

You wrote to me, “What you need to stop doing is claiming that evil is the common good.”

Of course, what I said was that evil men decide that evil is the ‘common good’, and cause their organizations - including government and states - to seek it. China uses abortion and sterilization for ‘the common good’. They oppose Christians who say it is evil.

You write, ““Maybe because they exist - as in, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God”” / That was written to believers. St. Paul was writing to Roman Christians, not non-Christians. You’re merely proving my point.”

In writing to Christians, Paul explains what our state is prior to being born again. Your had argued some scriptures show men have a built in compulsion to seek God, while I said they did not. I pointed out the scriptures you cited discuss men who were believers, while scripture discussing fallen man explicitly teaches that no one seeks God.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Feel the love!”

Protestants seem obsessed with their hurt feelings. Again, what bothers you is of no importance. What bothers me is of no importance. All that matters is what is true, not what bothers us.

“OK, let’s go thru you list of infantile arguments...”

Nothing about the questions were infantile.

“Scripture says there is a form of revelation given to all. However, all that we need for salvation and holy living is found in scripture.”

Where is that in scripture? Also, please note it doesn’t say that in 2 Timothy 3:15. Also, please note, it says the scriptures that Timothy knew since he was a child. That means the Old Testament. So, if everything needed for salvation is in the OT, then why was the NT written?

You probably never even thought of that, right?

“Further, if a man of God uses scripture to teach, rebuke, correct and train, the result is another man of God who is thoroughly equipped for every good work. One cannot be thoroughly equipped for every good work if something (Purgatory, Priests, Indulgences, Mariology) is missing.”

And yet all of those things are implicitly in scripture anyway.

“What establishes the Canon? Well, any denomination can decide what it accepts, and they do. “Canon” refers to what a group of people consider to be scripture. Mormons and Jews obviously have a different canon than Christians. Among Christians, there are minor differences between Orthodox & Catholics, while Protestants rejected the Apocrypha - as did many Catholics prior to Trent (c 1550), since many Catholics taught as some Orthodox do - that the Apocrypha is NOT useful for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”.”

But where in the Bible does it say what is canonical? WHERE? Give me a verse.

“In the end, scripture must be self-authenticating. If I don’t believe something is scripture, then I won’t believe a church that claims it is, such as the Mormon Church. A canon list is like a constitution - it defines church belief, but it doesn’t force anyone else to accept it.”

So, you might or might not have canonical books in your Bible? You have no certainty other than your feelings.

“It doesn’t. You can believe Matthew was written by Barnabas, and it makes no impact. And if most folks thought it was written by Barnabas, it would be called “The Gospel According to Barnabas”.”

But the issue is the same: how do you know it is true other than your feelings?

“It doesn’t. You either believe it, or you do not. No one can stop you from calling yourself a christian, no matter what you believe. Mormons call themselves christians, but they draw their beliefs from the Book of Mormon and others.”

So the only thing that separates you from the Mormons is that they they have a feeling about their BOM which you don’t have. But you have a feeling about the Bible which they in essence don’t have (i.e. that public revelation ended with John). So, again, it’s all just feelings.

“Do you accept the Book of Mormon on the authority of the LDS Church? I suspect not - but why not? Perhaps you reject it because the Catholic Church tells you to. I reject it because it conflicts with scripture I do accept.”

Which you do accept? So, it is all up to you. Your feelings. Mormons would tell you their feelinsg tell them that there is no conflict to begin with.

“The whole ‘who wrote the canon’ argument is stupid. It only transfer the question of authority from “Do you trust this as scripture?” to “Do you trust this is the true Church?” accept or reject one, and the other will follow.”

No. You are missing half of the argument - and i’m not surprised. Your feelings probably didn’t tell you to include anything about tradition.

“Got it...you don’t know.”

Oh, I do know, but as I said, I could spend weeks writing about it and I have assurance that someone who seems clueless about the obvious would get it.

“Of course, what I said was that evil men decide that evil is the ‘common good’, and cause their organizations - including government and states - to seek it. China uses abortion and sterilization for ‘the common good’. They oppose Christians who say it is evil.”

So do the Chinese have the common good or not? It is a yes or no question. It is not a matter of perspecitive. We are Christians, not relativists.

“In writing to Christians, Paul explains what our state is prior to being born again. Your had argued some scriptures show men have a built in compulsion to seek God, while I said they did not. I pointed out the scriptures you cited discuss men who were believers, while scripture discussing fallen man explicitly teaches that no one seeks God.”

No. St. Paul was not making a conclusive statement about the human being in toto. His hyperbole was about the degradation of mankind, not about a complete lack of searching for God in man. This is why in Acts 17 we find this:

22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious.

23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

Paul actually says something shocking to many Christians today. Clearly he understands that they are searching for God - for he even acknowledges they worhip Him but as an “something unknown.”

And what does he say just four verses later?

27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

Thus, I understand St. Paul whil eyou are forcing him to stand in contradiction to himself. You do violence to the scriptures. I do not.