Gratia et Veritas » Manhattan Declaration

Alistair Begg on the Manhattan Declaration

AJ — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:30:42 +0000

Begg concludes an excellent post on why he didn’t sign the Manhattan declaration like this:

In accord with others who have chosen not to sign, my reservation is not with the issues themselves, or in standing with others who share the same concerns, but it is in signing a declaration along with a group of leading churchmen, when I happen to believe that the teaching of some of their churches is in effect a denial of the biblical gospel. I wonder whether it might not have been more advantageous for evangelicals to unite on this matter, rather than seeking cooperation with segments from Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy and the Latter Day Saints. The necessary co-belligerence, as far as I’m concerned, can never be rooted in a Gospel other than that which has been given to us.

Addendum to my last post (on the Manhattan Declaration)

AJ — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:27:48 +0000

I just read Al Mohler’s explanation of why he signed the MD. (For the record, Mohler is on my top-ten list of modern day Christian heroes. I profoundly respect him and my disagreement with him on this issue doesn’t change my opinion of him at all.) Toward the end of his post Mohler has this to say:

My beliefs concerning the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches have not changed. The Roman Catholic Church teaches doctrines that I find both unbiblical and abhorrent — and these doctrines define nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But The Manhattan Declaration does not attempt to establish common ground on these doctrines. We remain who we are, and we concede no doctrinal ground. (Emphasis mine)

I disagree. I think that the simple act of calling someone a “Christian” does imply common ground on doctrines associated with the gospel (whether intentionally or not). The title “Christian” cannot be separated from the gospel and its associated doctrines (justification by faith alone, etc.). I still think that calling Roman Catholic and Orthodox people “Christian” will inevitability concede the very doctrinal ground that Mohler is so passionate to retain–especially for those who do not understand the gospel.

ANOTHER ADDENDUM: John MacArthur makes essentially the same argument that I do. Worth a read.

Why I wouldn’t sign it (as if it matters)

AJ — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:05:44 +0000

I read the Manhattan Declaration today for the first time. I hadn’t read anything about it to this point, positive or negative, so I didn’t have a strong opinion or inclination about it either way. However, before I read it I did notice that some men whom I highly respect (like Ligon Duncan and Al Mohler) signed it, so I suppose that made me cautiously optimistic about the document’s value.

On the one hand, I thought it was excellent. While I generally have little time for political activism (either fundamentalist or evangelical), I like the idea of Christians making a clear and bold statement to the powers that be about issues that are important to us. It was very well written, and I would encourage you to read it.

But on the other hand I found the document troubling for its implicit affirmation of the Christian status of non-evangelicals such as Catholics and Orthodox. The first line of the declaration, after the preamble, begins like this: “We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians…”. Whether or not the document’s signers intended their signatures to be a statement of evangelical/non-evangelical rapprochement (I’m confident that for some of them it wasn’t), it seems to me to be to imply just that. This is especially true in light of ecuminist Dr. Timothy George’s role in drafting the document.

So why wouldn’t I sign it? Because I would never want my name affixed to a document that begins with the words “We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians…” (emphasis mine). I don’t deny that there are many truly born again Orthodox and Catholic Christians in the world (in spite of, not because of their church affiliation), but I do categorically deny that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are, in any true, biblical sense of the word, “Christian.”

Like everything else, this is, at the end of the day, about Jesus. The Bible is very clear about what it means to be a true follower of Jesus, and it has a to do with a lot more than championing causes Jesus might be in favor of. I can’t help but feel that the Manhattan Declaration blurs the line between true followers of Jesus and those who name his name but aren’t really his (Matt 7:21). I don’t think that you ultimately advance the cause of Jesus by promoting one thing he’s passionate about (justice and moral values) while undermining what he’s most passionate about (the gospel). I’m pretty sure Jesus wouldn’t have signed it.