In November 2009, a group of evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox leaders released a document, the Manhattan Declaration, which expresses concern with regard to abortion, the homosexual movement, and religious freedom. Signed initially by about 140 leaders, it has now been signed by many thousands of people.

Despite much with which traditional Protestants might agree in this statement, I find myself having to decline from joining the other signatories. For this document promotes an ecumenism that would no longer distinguish between the genuine Biblical faith (as represented by historic Protestantism) and damnable heresies (such as the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church).

Now, let me be clear —- I am dead set opposed to abortion and the homosexual agenda, and am concerned about the increasing threats to our ability to preach and promote a Christian world-view. (Those interested may want to check out a couple of my articles, “Equal Rights for Homosexuals!” and “Luther Must Be Spinning in His Grave”, in the “From the Pastor’s Desk” section of our congregation’s website.)

However, there is something even more important than these issues, and it is the true gospel of Jesus Christ. I don’t think that the Apostle Paul would have regarded the Judaizers of his day, who were trying to subvert the Galatian church, as being genuine Christians. Nor should we regard those who anathametize Protestant teaching on justification by faith alone as being genuine Christians. Paul is clear: “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:9).

In the early 1980s, at the Westchester County (N.Y.) courthouse in White Plains, I helped lead an anti-abortion rally that featured both Roman Catholics and evangelicals. In helping to co-ordinate that event, and in drafting a statement signed by more than 50 evangelical leaders in our county, I was careful not to give the impression that the two groups were doing anything other than sharing the same platform in order to address, from each group’s perspective, a pressing moral and social issue. I was following the pattern of the late Francis Schaeffer, who wrote that Christians may be able to advocate similar positions with those who are opposed to them on the basis of “co-belligerency”, but not on the basis of an alliance. (For Schaeffer, Scripture and gospel were the twin issues that defined the divide between faithful confession and faithless denial.) But the evangelicals —- including a number of high-profile Calvinists -— who signed the Manhattan Declaration, by placing their signatures on this document along with Roman Catholics and those of an Orthodox persuasion, have given the impression that evangelicals and Catholics and Orthodox really are together.

It is easy to understand why a document such as this Declaration, with its clarion call for morality and accountability and courage, could appear to be such a welcome development. Nevertheless, it does not change the fact that this document not only is deficient, but also insidious -— it threatens to entrap people by confusing them as to what the fundamental issue is, viz., the gospel itself founded on the doctrine of sola scriptura.

At best, this document is a band-aid which will not cut out and extirpate the cancer of our culture. Only the gospel -— that is, the true gospel, not some seeming replica with which Roman Catholic apologists can agree—will avail. The need, as always, is for a consistent adherence to and proclamation of that gospel. And preaching the truth necessarily entails pointing out the soul-destroying errors of systems such as Romanism which deny the truth as it is in Jesus.

Sincerely,
Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D.D.
Stated Supply, North Atlanta Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA)

I realize that this is not quite relevant to the discussion at hand, but I’m working through your required reading for your upcoming class at Westminster Seminary California on “Machen and Modernism.” Your understanding of Machen and his understanding of ‘Christ and Culture’ were magnificent, par excellance. It was interesting reading it during this entire MD debacle, with such a grand confusion of the kingdoms, social activism dwarfing doctrinal precision and particularity, all done in the name of “the gospel.” There truly is nothing new under the sun. Your analysis is much appreciated, and I’m looking forward to your class in January.

Jordan

I didn’t say you did. I just excerpted a part of Dr. Nielson’s article.

“Jon and Truth Unites, by your reasoning how do you understand the efforts of Christ and the apostles? They didn’t seem to leave much of a trail of affirmations or social reform. Couldn’t you at least make room for their approach as legitimate? (Please remember, their society was more hostile to Christians than ours.)”

DGH, I’ll reply in the same manner as you: “DGH, I didn’t say that the efforts of Christ and the apostles were illegitimate.”

I.e., that’s a false imputation. And false imputations are not conducive to productive and fruitful discussion.

BTW, I love FPR and wish I had time to read more of it…

Good man, Jon. Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and Niel Nielson, all signed the Manhattan Declaration because they wanted to speak up too.

The appeal to salt and light seems to distinguish the two outlooks. One says that there is “being called to another world AND lighting up this one” as if these is some sort of disconnect between these things. The other is more organic and says that there is “lighting up this world BY calling it to another one.” The former outlook doesn’t seem to take into account that if both un/believers can do whatever “lighting up this world” seems to mean then there is nothing distinctively Christian about it. But only Christians, by the narrow definition of the gospel, can point the temporal world to the eternal one.

Life and marriage are common and temporal goods that everyone can affirm, but they pale in comparison to eternal life. Or does anyone imagine that Christ’s call to hate our temporal lives and marriages and lay them down as a prerequisite to eternal life means something else?

http://archives.wittenburgdoor.com/archives/ecumenism.html

There it is without punctuation. Darn machines.

I disagree with much of the content of the Manhattan Declaration. But I disagree even more with the “targeting” Daniel writes about. All political discourse has consequences, but to set someone up artificially for “consequences” because a citizen (even a bishop is a citizen) exercises their rights of free speech and assembly is a dangerous form of totalitarianism and enforced conformity. It is also terribly, terribly childish. We don’t all think alike, and we don’t have to. There is no groupthink in a republic. If we didn’t have disagreements and things to discuss, there would be no need to vote at all.

I find it hypocritical for a church which believes it is the only True Church Established by Christ and the Apostles to sit down with clergy from “not-churches” to sign a common statement, without giving up its claim to an exclusive franchise. I find it hypocritical for churches capable of evangelizing Ireland, reporting that people there “don’t know Jesus as their savior” to sit down with representatives of the “Whore of Babylon.” For God’s sake, these guys can’t even agree on how many books there are in the Bible. (For a humorous bit of self-promotion, check out this theme at
http://archives.wittenburgdoor.com/archives/ecumenism.html).

Also, I am unreservedly pro-choice, in the libertarian constitutional sense that first trimester abortion, some second trimester decisions, and decisions where the mother’s life is in danger, are none of the business of The State.

Finally, I am sick of organizations and causes, from treatment of animals to gay rights to poor picked on oppressed Christians, wrapping themselves in the mantle of the Civil Rights Movement. It is more or less accepted that the Civil Rights Movement was A Good Thing, therefore it is a cheap short-cut to end debate on any subject by referencing The Civil Rights Movement. Any cause worthy of support will seek vindication on its own merits, not by drawing analogies. Each one is quite different.

Perhaps that is why Pope Benedict gave preeminence to charity over truth in his last encyclical, as did the writer of 1 Cor. 13 (”If I have not love, I am a noisy gong”), and John’s gospel, where God is identified as love.

Love is preeminent over knowledge, not truth. For Christ is identified as the truth in John’s gospel, and 1 Cor 13 tell us love rejoices with the truth. So I would be wary of placing “charity” over and against “truth.” You can have knowledge without love. But love rejoices with the truth.

Statements like the Manhattan Declaration and the writings of natural law scholars like R. George, G. Grisez, and J. Finnis, while useful in many regards, do not foster the sort of unity or “communion” of hearts that is central to the Church’s temporal and eternal mission. Natural law arguments like those in the Manhattan Declaration typically involve believers asserting various truth claims against a rival group, leaving the argument at a rational, intellectual level that seems somehow unsatisfactory or inadequate (even if the assertions are true). Perhaps that is why Pope Benedict gave preeminence to charity over truth in his last encyclical, as did the writer of 1 Cor. 13 (“If I have not love, I am a noisy gong”), and John’s gospel, where God is identified as love. While respect for human life, conjugal love, etc. are vital to a just and healthy society, and the drafters of the Manhattan Declaration are right to defend those truths, a public discourse that is based on truth assertions will, in my view, always fail to be compelling, in part, because the human person is made for something more than rationality – he is made for love. In my view, a public discourse that invites skeptics to consider and pursue the development of a society built on love, rather than morals truths, is more likely to be compelling.