Alliances: Old and New
Two "religious news" items came up on my monitor last Friday while I was at work. One, an electronic newsletter from the IRD (Institute on Religion and Democracy), and the other, a press release announcing the "Manhattan Declaration" sent to me by my friend in Chicago who edits Touchstone, and Salvo, two excellent Christian periodicals.
In the IRD newsletter, I learned that certain Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians are lobbying hard for the passage of the trillion dollar health care plan now moving to the U.S. Senate. Boards from these mainline Protestant denominations were angered by the recent U.S. House vote that prohibited government health insurance funded abortions (a pro-life victory won largely by the efforts of U.S. Catholic Bishops).
The other news I received Friday was of the issuing of the "Manhattan Declaration: A call of Christian Conscience." It is an eloquent plea from Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical believers to uphold the sanctity of life, the institution of marriage, and religious liberty. It also includes an emphatic refusal to compromise the proclamation of the gospel.
Old alliances no longer serve. Our Reformed and Evangelical views on these issues seem to align us more closely with the Orthodox and Catholic than with mainline protestant churches, many of which have joined ranks with "liberal elites."
I cannot remember the last time I described myself as a "Protestant." As a child I found the label handy in distinguishing myself from Roman Catholics, but I don't use it these days.
What do you think? Is it safe to publicly align ourselves with others who call themselves believers in order to stand together on the important moral issues of our day? Can we, while holding theological differences, still unite on other issues?
Over 22,000 have signed this declaration since Friday. What say ye... do we sign on, or no. And if not, why not?
In the IRD newsletter, I learned that certain Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians are lobbying hard for the passage of the trillion dollar health care plan now moving to the U.S. Senate. Boards from these mainline Protestant denominations were angered by the recent U.S. House vote that prohibited government health insurance funded abortions (a pro-life victory won largely by the efforts of U.S. Catholic Bishops).
The other news I received Friday was of the issuing of the "Manhattan Declaration: A call of Christian Conscience." It is an eloquent plea from Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical believers to uphold the sanctity of life, the institution of marriage, and religious liberty. It also includes an emphatic refusal to compromise the proclamation of the gospel.
Old alliances no longer serve. Our Reformed and Evangelical views on these issues seem to align us more closely with the Orthodox and Catholic than with mainline protestant churches, many of which have joined ranks with "liberal elites."
I cannot remember the last time I described myself as a "Protestant." As a child I found the label handy in distinguishing myself from Roman Catholics, but I don't use it these days.
What do you think? Is it safe to publicly align ourselves with others who call themselves believers in order to stand together on the important moral issues of our day? Can we, while holding theological differences, still unite on other issues?
Over 22,000 have signed this declaration since Friday. What say ye... do we sign on, or no. And if not, why not?
Labels: Culture War, Guest Post, politics, Witness
posted by Petros at
12:02 AM
9 Comments:
The sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and religious liberty must be fully supported in all good conscience, or I find myself turning my back on what I believe. Can we "join ranks" with them? I have marched in right to life protests against abortion, and preached the gospel at gay right parades, greatly encouraged by Catholic friends and onlookers.
As long as we do not compromise the gospel, and those very important truths that clearly distinguish us from those friends of ours (who do need to hear the only liberating gospel) that err greatly concerning the gospel, and as long as we boldly acknowledge our differences, let us join ranks in those things with which we agree, as we stand against the Enemy. I often imagine one of my family members in need of refuge with only a convent or rectory in sight or reach. I would say to them "run, get to safety, ask for help, yet never forget the gospel, and justification".
I'm rambling, but I hope my point is clear to help the discussion. Hasta luego!
I'll have to respond to this more tomorrow or beyond, but for now let me say this: I have always felt that we may and indeed must engage in what Francis Schaeffer called "co-belligerence" with everybody who might stand with us against evil on a given moral/social issue of our times (I would gladly have worked with Catholics and even atheists to save Jewish lives if I were living in Nazi Germany).
What is different and disconcerting about this latest alliance (at least what I am really ging to have to investigate) is whether or not this declaration assumes something that I cannot sign on to.
That is: does it assume that we are brothers in faith with "Christians" of an Orthodox or Roman Catholic persuasion?
Does this declaration signed by many who proclaim a different gospel state either explicitly or implicitly that the theological differences that distinguish true evangelicals from Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism are not enough to make some of us "Christians" in a biblical sense, and some heretics?
Folks, the gospel is too precious for us to send a message that those who preach faith and works to get to heaven are "brothers in faith". Paul would have very, very different things to say about them (see Galatians 1 and Philippians 4:2ff), and I am afraid we must too.
I'll have to wait to say more after I've read the Declaration carefully and had a chance to investigate.But until then we must realize that while we must do all we can to stand for life and freedom in our time, we can never do so at the expense of a clear, strong and uncompromised gospel of grace.
History tells me that many who have signed this statement do not have a similar conviction--and I do not want to give away the heart of my faith to sign on the dotted line, even though I think I would give my life as readily as any of these signers over the issues about which they are concerned.
More later.
If I were helping to track down a murderer on the loose in my neighborhood, I really wouldn't care who rallied with me in the cause. Be it athiests, Jews, Muslims, Hindi's, Romanist's or for that matter, whoremongers. It is always right to do the right thing. The problem arises when the "press" shows up to interview the trackers down involved in the manhunt. We don't need to align ourselves with a political or religious cause just to stand against an evil cause. Often in political history, those who have differed in many ways, have united against a common evil. We all remember the famous quote by Edmond Burke, "all it takes for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing".
The concern for doctrinal purity is a real one. "Evil companions corrupt good morals" (Prov.) I don't pretend to have the final answer in this very real question posed by our brother. Do I really need to "sign" something to take my stand against evil? God is watching and knows my heart better than I do, whether or not I stand firmly against evil. This much I do know, I am to love the Lord my God with all my heart soul and might, and my neighbor, as myself. My concern for doctrinal purity is seen in my association with my local church. This was an ongoing problem that the Billy Graham Crusade faced back in the 50's through the 80's. It is a similer issue in principle. They had so many sponsors under the guise of "Christianity", that those who "came forward" at the crusades were sent for follow up to various churches. Catholic, Church of England, protestant, or whomever supported the crusade in that locale. (For a more detailed account of this dilemna, read Iain Murray's Evangelicals and Evangelicalism published by the Banner of Truth.)The issue is clearly a "big" one. These are my "small" thoughts.....
JR
Thank you Tom, Tim, and John. Your comments are good reminders, and welcomed cautions.
I believe if the question were put to any of these signers: "Can you get to heaven apart from the shed blood of Jesus Christ?" they would answer "NO! Without the work of Christ on the cross, there is no hope of salvation."
This kind of discussion is always a little hard. It may be that I have a number of Catholic and Orthodox friends, with the same roots as I have; men who I believe love the Lord, and serve the Lord. These men are trusting Christ for salvation, their lives seem full of grace and good works, yet remain in these traditions.
Really, it wasn't my desire to raise this issue at this time... I was looking for blog material late on Sunday evening, and thought I'd bring up this "Manhattan Declaration." One of my long time friends is a contributer to the wording, and an original signer.
Recently at a Community Bible Study gathering, I found myself listening to a question posed by a leader: why did John send TWO men to ask Jesus "who are you?"
Meanwhile, our culture and our nation are crumbling around us - we used to be dying by a thousand cuts. Now we are dying by great swaths cut by huge swords.
Since the church at large, if there is such an animal, tends to remain silent or avoids these linchpin issues from the pulpit, and certainly makes small efforts to make public our responsibility to be salt and light to the culture, what alternative would you propose? We are not uniting with non-believers by signing such a document, but we are agreeing to take a stand on key tenants of the Christian faith - the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, and the call to resist tyranny of the most insidious kind.
What would call us to hesitation in doing so? The worry of what others might think, or how they might interpret it? Have we finally reached the point where we are fearful as believers to speak out, to take a stand, to anticipate the predictable attack by the press? Since when did we as Christians decide that we had to be appropriately positioned to avoid or mitigate what the media will say?
Would you refuse to sign this document because, say, Glenn Beck signed it?
The issues that separate us can be convenient excuses to avoid confronting evil, IMHO. The church has failed on this front for decades. I find this document to be a breath of fresh air - finally, Christians are standing up and drawing a line in the sand.
Chuck Colson's Breakpoint today is dead on:http://www.breakpoint.org/commentaries/13547-childishness-and-tolerance
Signing a document is indicative of nothing necessarily. Taking a stand against evil is actually taking a stand against evil, not "saying or signing" that you are. I don't need to sign anything to love and promote truth, I simply need to love and promote it. The church has not failed to be anything that it was intended to be. Please be careful of accusing my Lord of being impotent. On the contrary, He is omnipotent. The true church has never failed to be what God intended it to be. It actually prevails against the gates of hell. How do I know this you ask? Because she serves an all powerfull, all sovereign, God who accomplishes all that He intends through her. God is moving through the church to accomplish His will. I suppose this brings us back to the age old question, who or what really is the church. Blessed are they who hear and obey the word of God. As for signing a piece of paper that "talks the talk", I'll do my best by the grace of God to "walk the walk"instead.
My thoughts....
JR
JR, there are many ways to take a stand against evil. Speaking out against it, as this document clearly does, and signing on in agreement, are two valuable ways of opposing evil.
You seem to suggest that only two options are open to us... that we "either" talk the talk, or walk the walk. We ought to do both.
I've never much cared for the expression I sometimes hear: "Preach the gospel... and use words if necessary." I think some folks just don't want to lay down the gauntlet. Not having to take a stand, verbally, is a safe and welcome idea for some people.
This document is a "declaration" and it does not purport to be more than that. We can appreciate it for what it is, surely. To set out the issues, to confront evil, and to declare our position is a critical step in taking further, more physical measures.
Few, I think, have "walked the walk" the way Chuck Colson has. An amazing, energetic man, winning the lost and obeying the command of our Lord to visit the prisoner-- and yet he finds it important enough to give time and attention to putting out this Manhattan Declaration.
The written word is powerful. Would any of us have stopped Luther on his way to the church door and said, "look Martin, this is all well and good, but rather unnecessary... tuck those 95 points back into your coat and just walk the walk instead.
Signing this thing doesn't mean, as far as I can see, that we are compromising the Gospel. It only means that we want to be salt and light in an increasingly depraved culture. And that we are willing to work with others who name the name of Christ, and declare the Bible to be the very Word of God.
I love you JR! (by the way, who is Rob?)
Some original signers of the Manhattan Declaration:
Mark Bailey (Pres. D.T.S., Dallas)
Gary Bauer
Ken Boa
Steve Brown
Chuck Colson
Jim Daly (Focus on the Family)
James Dobson
Dinesh D'Souza
William Edgar (Westminster)
Jim Garlow
Wayne Grudem
Tim Keller
Jim Kushiner (my friend)
Peter Lillback
Josh McDowell
Russell D Moore
Marvin Olasky
J. I. Packer
Tony Perkins
His Emminence Justin Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop, Philadelphia
(thought you might enjoy that one JR!)
Joseph Stowell
Joni Earickson Tada
Ravi Zacharias (a favorite of mine)
Albert Martin (just KIDDING!)
Peter, your sense of humor grows with each new day. I must confess I was a bit angered by the comment that the church had failed her mission. Perhaps I overspoke and need to confess the sin of overreaction here. I had in mind the Parable our Lord spoke regarding the two servants. One said, "I will go and do what you have commanded" and never went. The other said, " I will not go, but eventually did what his master asked of him. Which one was the obediant servant, the one who "said" he would obey? Or the one who actually obeyed?
Now, concerning the Godly men who signed this document, I would presume only good from them in the issues of their stand. My push, if you will, was against those who might feel that signing a petition has absolved them of any further activity in the matter.
For the record, you have prevailed in your retort. I stand "adjusted". Thank you Peter.
My thoughts....
JR
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home