Here is the document
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
http://manhattandeclaration.org/
At first glance, the three stated truths are good, but what is missing here?
Here is what John MacArthur says:
By John MacArthur
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
18 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 30, 2009 at 9:12 am
Paul
Well Lindsay, Its a good thing to care for the weak and vulnerable and the true church of Christ has done that since its creation. I’m sure that most of us who blog here support the poor and needy either at home or overseas but giving is done unto the Lord and not announced from the roof tops.
The trouble I have with that declaration and others like it is that its an affirmation of the catholic and orthodox churches that some how as a protestant bible believing christian I recognise that they are part of the true church. This I will never do. I would commend people of good will in both sects but biblically they are not christian as the Holy bible discribes Christian.
Personally I believe the Roman Catholic church is the Babylonian Whore from Revelation and the Orthodox church is her little sister.
( Yes I know! I will never get a job as a diplomat and I suspect that many here disagree with me.)
There are good, decent and believing people in both institutions and the Lord calls them His people. But he calls them to depart from her, not to join with her in chatitable actions that would muddy the waters concerning who is or is not the true church.
Rev 18:4-6 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. 6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
For me personally to work with either institution would be a betrayal of the multitudes of true believers who died at that hands of such blasphemous and bloody counterfeit churches.
If they get it wrong on the doctrine of salvation they get it wrong. Why bother to ponder any other deviate doctrine? If the Churches ( Eastern and Roman) Do not preach salvation by grace alone thru faith alone they are not saved. ( Thank God some individuals Find Christ regardless of the false doctrines they espouse.) Luther and the reformers would turn in their graves to see such betrayal from modern so called protestants who would cozy up to these two deviants. For me personally and at the end of the day my battle cry has to remain Sola Scriptura. ( the Word Alone)
November 30, 2009 at 9:53 am
Kim
Paul,
I do not disagree with you at all.
Jesus wasn’t much of a diplomat when he called the Pharisees “You snakes! You brood of vipers!”
Also, this document has tinges of the “common ground” aspect of other signed manuscripts, binding together false religions for unity.
November 30, 2009 at 6:27 pm
cherylu
I agree with the signers of this document that these are certainly areas that Christians need to be concerned about and need to be dealing with in our society today.
However, my concerns are mostly with the ecumenical aspects of this statement too. I agree that statement blurs the lines of who true Christians are.
I also agree that if they are going to refer to the Gospel it probably should be spelled out in detail so people don’t believe that the definition of Gospel is merely working on moral issues.
December 3, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Bud Press
I share the concerns about “The Manhattan Declaration,” and would be quick to point out that Christians need to be careful with what and whom they endorse.
And, when Christians make public statements, they should be quick to offer clarification or retraction–so there will be no doubt as to their position:
http://www.christianresearchservice.com/JohnMacArthurYoga2.htm
Bud Press
December 4, 2009 at 9:40 am
Kim
Hi Bud….
Also, I like this article from Herescope which addresses the MD by discussing these points.
Ecumenism, Covenant, Bait and Switch, Common ground for Common good, and The Missing Gospel of salvation.
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2009/12/manhattan-declaration.html
December 7, 2009 at 11:35 pm
IWanthetruth
I am not a fan of the ecumenical movement and that I have great respect for John MacArthur, but I disagree with him on this one and think he is missing the broader point of the document. Certainly the groups involved differ theologically and that is clearly noted in the document by them But what they all agree on are the three issues under governmental attack, for two topics in particular (the devaluation of life and marriage) are legally infringing on the third (religious liberty of conscience). To the best of my knowledge the Gospel John and I agree to (the evangelical understanding of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ) is not what is being legislated or hijacked by judicial fiat into silence and we remain free to preach it to whomever will listen, either orally or in writing. While the differences between these groups relative to the Gospel are real the cultural issue at hand pertains to the three topics in the document. If the church fails to curb the erosion of these the day may very well come when in fact the true Gospel will be muzzled by legislative and judicial oppression as hate speech as is already the case in other parts of the world; but thus far that is not the case in the US. The document is, in effect, a shot across the bow of the civil magistrate not to continue on its path of codifying unrighteousness into law and a call to those who adhere to the Judeo/Christian faiths to defend the defenseless (culture of life), the family (biblical marriage), and individual liberty (freedom of conscience). I respect the position of my brother and humbly disagree with him on this one.
My issue with the whole thing is not whether one agrees or not with the documnet but rather, “let your yes be yes and your no be no” and we are not to sign or swear to documents, oaths, etc.
This is one of the areas that I think many churches have actually caused ther members to “sin” by making them sign oaths, covenants, etc. We are not to do so.
December 8, 2009 at 9:12 am
cherylu
Without going back and rereading the ariticle from Herescope that you linked to Kim, I would just like to say that I didn’t see dominionism in the Manhattan Declaration like they did at all. I did see a group of people that are very concerned about the way things are going in this country and are trying to do something about it. As I have said previously, I do have problems with the Declaration and haven’t signed it, but it is certainly not because I consider it to be dominionism. What in the world is wrong with wanting to influence the law making process of our country so that our laws are righteous and fulfill one of God’s purposes for governement–punishing evil doers? (Romans 13 I believe) We do have the privelege in this country after all, of making our voices heard to our lawmakers. What is wrong from a Christian standpoint of doing so? I just do not understand that thinking at all.
That seems to me a far cry from trying to take over the country and make it a nation that is forced to live by God’s rules like it or not.
December 8, 2009 at 10:55 am
Kim
Herescope is probably referring to this article for the dominionism worries.
This article troubles me also….Colson was one the three major drafters.
It states
http://www.colsoncenter.org/the-center/partners/12622-disciple-nations-alliance
Taking Herescopes advice I popped down
http://www.disciplenations.org/
to discover odd writings like :
http://disciplenations.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/great-commission-utilitarianism-part-3/
I believe this is nothing to be partnered with…
December 8, 2009 at 11:18 am
Kim
Also under the document’s FAQ section #8 states
I believe the Mormon Church to be a cult.
December 8, 2009 at 7:07 pm
IWanthetruth
I think the main points should be areas of concern by “The Church” and should if nothing else lead us to fall on our knees to pray for Gods justice in these areas.
Affiliate with those who signed it, NO! in fact the scriptures simply states “let your yes be yes and no be no and we are not to make a covenant or oath. I believe this declaration is such and if we follow the commands of the scriptures it should not have been signed anyway, but again, the points are valid.
Can we as a church, a people who are trying to follow in truth still be able to have concern regarding these issues such as free speech, no abortions, etc. etc? I would hope so and do what we can to spread the truth of Gods word in these areas. Of course the world won’t give a rip, but who knows, it might make a few think and rethink.
December 8, 2009 at 11:39 pm
IWanthetruth
By the way here is
Albert Mohler – Why I Signed http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/11/23/why-i-signed-the-manhattan-declaration/
December 9, 2009 at 9:18 am
Kim
I like Albert Mohler but he only selects certain parts of the documents he agrees with and ignores the rest.
What about the reference to Mother Teresa.. Here are two quotes from one of her books.
“We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men — simply better — we will be satisfied.”
“I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic”
When one signs on the dotted line, one is responsible for the fine print. One would be held in court for the entire document not just parts you believe in. In fact, one would cross out, initial, dele, etc. make changes to a document to make it acceptable.
A casual reader would assume that Christian signers now stand with Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Mother Teresa.
I would not myself sign this document, it blurs the truth IMHO.
December 9, 2009 at 10:12 am
Disciple Nations Alliance
Hi Kim,
I think the critique that you and your associates are bringing to the Manhattan Declaration are significant. I think it is also important not to be so dogmatic and to earnestly recognize the positive aspects of what these people have tried to do. I think both sides are extremely important. It seems like some of your posts have unfortunately become a little hateful.
A careful and full reading (maybe not a skim) of any of our materials will certainly challenge and encourage you with a better, discerning look at our culture and the Bible.
May you be blessed as you seek to serve Him in Truth and love.
Tim @ DNA
December 9, 2009 at 10:34 am
Kim
Tim, I have already looked through some, not all of your materials. I noticed that you have some of the same language and agenda as the NAR.
I am sorry that you think my opinion is hateful, but we as Christians need to test all things and I do wonder about your “set of ideas” the likes of, posted in an earlier comment.
December 9, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Kim
After spending a couple of hours reading pro and con comments and seeing good points from both sides, it was this comment from Steve Camp that stopped me in my tracks. You may or not agree with it……I do.
From Tim Challies site.
http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/the-manhattan-declaration.php
Here is what Steve Camp said about this subject.
“TMD is only ECT and Justice Sunday recycled. Same framers and promoters who are trying to offer political remedy for moral malady.
They are trying to use the carnal weaponry of petition and politic to fight spiritual battles.
This is what I call Evangelical Co- Belligerence (ECB). Since when did yoking with Romanists becomes justifiable necessity in fulfilling The Great Commission or The Two Great Commandments? Is the gospel impotent to regenerate the abortionists heart or those seeking abortion? Is it not able to completely transform someone of same-sex choice?
And to our religious liberty and rights – is not God Sovereign, Lord and Head of His church? If any take away our “right” to pray, we still pray! If any were to take away our right to preach the Word or speak in the name of Jesus, we do not cower from our duty to do so. If they lock us up, I say sweet incarceration. If they beat us, we take the blows for Christ and His glory. And if they kill us, sweet death – absent from the body, present with the Lord! Amen?
So why sign a declaration that means nothing as to real change concerning these spiritual battles and is an afront to the very gospel we say we would die for? Why yoke with angels of light to do God’s will?
Those who have signed this declaration are ashamed of the gospel; don’t trust the sovereign God of the gospel; and deny the efficaciousness of God’s Word. It’s that simple.
Could you imagine John the Baptizer partnering with the brood vipors of the Pharisees for moral, social and political reform? Would our Lord or any of the Apostles do such a unholy thing?
We’re at the crossroads again my brothers; may we be found faithful!”
Yours for the Master’s use,
Steve
December 11, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Craig Lee
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? [2 Corinthians 6:14]
That pretty much somes up my stand on TMD. This is an attempt at false ecumenism.
December 12, 2009 at 8:33 am
word seeker
fundamental truths about justice and the common good,
the sanctity of human life
the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
Do you agree that these three points are areas that can be addressed by the church whether it be through prayer, preaching the gospel (biblically), being an example of an Acts 2 church, one person at a time?
If so do you think you could, in any way, help in addressing these three points, without supporting the document or the people who have signed it, without signing the document.
In fact better yet, why not those on this blog site who are in agreement of the problems with the document, write one yourself that would be more biblically proper and DON”T ASK PEOPLE TO SIGN IT.
Oh wait, what you are saying is it is already written? The scriptures?
December 16, 2009 at 6:08 am
Disciple Nations Alliance
Hi Kim!
I just saw your comment back. The purpose of the quadrants is not to identify which one is correct but to analyze their underlying assumptions and to compare them with biblical truth so that we can know how to defend the biblical ideal for our economy. Clearly, the blog states that there is only one acceptable God-ordained quadrant in that picture.
Thanks,
Tim