Why I'd like to Sign the Manhattan Declaration, but a Few Reasons Why I Can't
Regarding the Manhattan Declaration (MD) I feel the need to post some thoughts for your consideration. Having read a number of articles pro and con on the merits of signing the MD, I have thus far decided against doing so. If you will indulge, let me give you several reasons why I would like to sign this document, and then a few reasons why I cannot in good conscience do so.
Please be ready for a more lengthy post today as I will not be able to post again on this matter in the near future. So if it takes a few days to digest this, feel free. You may want to read it in two sittings, first taking in the reasons why I'd like to sign; then reading the reasons why I don't believe I can.
Reasons why I'd like to sign the MD:
1. I am strongly pro-life, pro-family, and pro-freedom. Any chance one gets to support these values is worth seizing and supporting if at all possible. As one who has been involved in pro-life efforts for decades (ranging from preaching to letters to newspaper editors to active long-term support of a pregnancy center, to doing ethics talks at a local hospital to spending time in jail for the unborn, I would applaud every voice that joins in in the fight for life. I'd honor every God-glorifying action that defends the helpless and/or strengthens family and freedom.
2. As a matter of biblical principle, I stand against big government and the assault on freedom that MD opposes. It would be a delight to sign on to this publicly declared commitment to obey God rather than government. I'd love in this way to let the world know where I stand at this historical crossroads; one at which I am very convinced that persecution for faithful faith is soon to come.
3. I am a peace and unity lover. If there could be a way to declare my unity with all believers in the true gospel of God's pure grace, and at the same time express solidarity in common cause against the encroaching darkness, I would leap at the chance with a thrilled heart.
4. I respect many of those who have signed the MD and would be honored to have my name next to theirs. For reasons that some have expressed, but I cannot accept, many good solidly evangelical people have signed this document and I would love to join them.
5. I have no pleasure in being misunderstood as narrow-minded and marginalized as a provincial evangelical hick (as I know I am by some). There's no joy in being labeled, scolded, and derided as "doctrinally narrow" or "unloving" or "bigoted" or "Luther wannabes" as I and others like me have been. When one's heart is for love and peace in the Church, one's heart breaks when it is accused of obstructing the very unity it seeks.
For these reasons and more, I'd love to sign on to MD, but for reasons of conscience I cannot do so. Among these reasons are the following (if you're just joining the conversation please read my heart from my previous post and comments before reading the following):
1. I believe the MD blurs and fuzzies the gospel. By calling social issues (however important they may be) "the gospel" MD confuses Christian ethics with what is the actual good news of our faith. The gospel is not the "sanctity of life" or the preservation of the family or defence of freedom. The gospel is that Christ died for sinners, and rose from the dead so that all who believe in His finished work alone for their salvation may be forgiven of all sin. The gospel is that sinners are justified by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone.
MD also blurs the gospel when it implies that those who preach another gospel are "Christians" and "brothers". MD states:
Paul would have called those who preach another gospel by very different names than "Christian" and "brother" (see Galatians 1:6-9 and Philippians 3:2). Every indicator is that the people Paul opposed so fiercely were right on nearly every doctrine except justification. He says nothing about them being anti-trinitarian or opposing the deity of Christ or denying any other cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith. Their only error was that they mixed grace with works/merit. That error was enough to elicit from him shocking epithets. He did not consider them brothers. Another way of putting this is: I have hard time seeing Paul signing this document if he were present today.
2. As a shepherd of sheep, my daily task is to lead my flock into the green pastures of the gospel. My sheep have a hard time keeping the gospel clear in their own minds. It's amazing how stubborn the tendency to fall back into legalism is. We are prone to measure ourselves before God by how we perform today. I love my sheep so much that I do not want to send any mixed signals about the gospel. The gospel must stay pure and central and all-important or else the road to legalistic bondage will once again be traveled by the ones I love.
3. I believe that the gospel is under full-scale attack on numerous fronts, so I cannot be unguarded in the fight. From the New Perspective on Paul to an increasingly popular rejection of the doctrine of imputation to the Roman Catholic system of merit to cheap grace theology I see the enemy assaulting the gospel from all sides. This is not a day for blurriness and neglect for the sake of lesser matters; it's a day for bold, unadulterated gospel proclamation.
4. I cannot sign the MD simply as a matter of personal integrity. Whatever may be the definitions some signers may be giving to the terms "Christians" and "brothers", I know that the history of key signers and spokesmen shows an understanding of those terms that I cannot accept. Thus to sign a document as a statement of unity when I know that at best, I mean something different than other signers, and in actuality I may mean and think the opposite, would be to compromise my integrity. I'd have to sign with my fingers crossed behind my back, which as you can guess I'm not able to do.
Well enough of this for now. Such conversations are never pleasant though sometimes needed. Whatever our conclusions may we be sure to always speak with respect and love for all men, even for those with whom our differences are matters of life and death.
Please be ready for a more lengthy post today as I will not be able to post again on this matter in the near future. So if it takes a few days to digest this, feel free. You may want to read it in two sittings, first taking in the reasons why I'd like to sign; then reading the reasons why I don't believe I can.
Reasons why I'd like to sign the MD:
1. I am strongly pro-life, pro-family, and pro-freedom. Any chance one gets to support these values is worth seizing and supporting if at all possible. As one who has been involved in pro-life efforts for decades (ranging from preaching to letters to newspaper editors to active long-term support of a pregnancy center, to doing ethics talks at a local hospital to spending time in jail for the unborn, I would applaud every voice that joins in in the fight for life. I'd honor every God-glorifying action that defends the helpless and/or strengthens family and freedom.
2. As a matter of biblical principle, I stand against big government and the assault on freedom that MD opposes. It would be a delight to sign on to this publicly declared commitment to obey God rather than government. I'd love in this way to let the world know where I stand at this historical crossroads; one at which I am very convinced that persecution for faithful faith is soon to come.
3. I am a peace and unity lover. If there could be a way to declare my unity with all believers in the true gospel of God's pure grace, and at the same time express solidarity in common cause against the encroaching darkness, I would leap at the chance with a thrilled heart.
4. I respect many of those who have signed the MD and would be honored to have my name next to theirs. For reasons that some have expressed, but I cannot accept, many good solidly evangelical people have signed this document and I would love to join them.
5. I have no pleasure in being misunderstood as narrow-minded and marginalized as a provincial evangelical hick (as I know I am by some). There's no joy in being labeled, scolded, and derided as "doctrinally narrow" or "unloving" or "bigoted" or "Luther wannabes" as I and others like me have been. When one's heart is for love and peace in the Church, one's heart breaks when it is accused of obstructing the very unity it seeks.
For these reasons and more, I'd love to sign on to MD, but for reasons of conscience I cannot do so. Among these reasons are the following (if you're just joining the conversation please read my heart from my previous post and comments before reading the following):
1. I believe the MD blurs and fuzzies the gospel. By calling social issues (however important they may be) "the gospel" MD confuses Christian ethics with what is the actual good news of our faith. The gospel is not the "sanctity of life" or the preservation of the family or defence of freedom. The gospel is that Christ died for sinners, and rose from the dead so that all who believe in His finished work alone for their salvation may be forgiven of all sin. The gospel is that sinners are justified by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone.
MD also blurs the gospel when it implies that those who preach another gospel are "Christians" and "brothers". MD states:
We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations...
We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers...
Paul would have called those who preach another gospel by very different names than "Christian" and "brother" (see Galatians 1:6-9 and Philippians 3:2). Every indicator is that the people Paul opposed so fiercely were right on nearly every doctrine except justification. He says nothing about them being anti-trinitarian or opposing the deity of Christ or denying any other cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith. Their only error was that they mixed grace with works/merit. That error was enough to elicit from him shocking epithets. He did not consider them brothers. Another way of putting this is: I have hard time seeing Paul signing this document if he were present today.
2. As a shepherd of sheep, my daily task is to lead my flock into the green pastures of the gospel. My sheep have a hard time keeping the gospel clear in their own minds. It's amazing how stubborn the tendency to fall back into legalism is. We are prone to measure ourselves before God by how we perform today. I love my sheep so much that I do not want to send any mixed signals about the gospel. The gospel must stay pure and central and all-important or else the road to legalistic bondage will once again be traveled by the ones I love.
3. I believe that the gospel is under full-scale attack on numerous fronts, so I cannot be unguarded in the fight. From the New Perspective on Paul to an increasingly popular rejection of the doctrine of imputation to the Roman Catholic system of merit to cheap grace theology I see the enemy assaulting the gospel from all sides. This is not a day for blurriness and neglect for the sake of lesser matters; it's a day for bold, unadulterated gospel proclamation.
4. I cannot sign the MD simply as a matter of personal integrity. Whatever may be the definitions some signers may be giving to the terms "Christians" and "brothers", I know that the history of key signers and spokesmen shows an understanding of those terms that I cannot accept. Thus to sign a document as a statement of unity when I know that at best, I mean something different than other signers, and in actuality I may mean and think the opposite, would be to compromise my integrity. I'd have to sign with my fingers crossed behind my back, which as you can guess I'm not able to do.
Well enough of this for now. Such conversations are never pleasant though sometimes needed. Whatever our conclusions may we be sure to always speak with respect and love for all men, even for those with whom our differences are matters of life and death.
Labels: Abortion, Culture War, Gospel, Social Action
posted by Tim Shorey at
10:08 AM
2 Comments:
Pastor Tim, your points are biblical, pointed, simple to understand and refreshing to hear. As much as I have personally learned and profitted at the feet of some of the signers of the "MD", and with as much respect as I have for them and their ministries, I must join hands with you on this matter. The gospel is under attack in my own heart (remaining corruption) on a daily basis, I don't need extra help from a conglomerate of excessively latitudinarian men (and women).
Thanks for keeping a close watch over the sheep. And speeking of sheep, I recently took my grandaughter to Holmdel Farm to "watch the sheep". My wife after about 10 minutes of watching them all run in different directions after the next new handout of grass from the children, remarked, "so this is what God choose to call us". Each one ran in his own direction. What confusion. Not a real flattering image of human nature.
Thank God for good shepards.
My thoughts....
JR
Thanks Tim, you explained yourself very well there.
Right after reading your thoughts, I went to Al Mohler's blog from this past Monday (11/23). "Why I signed the MD." You must have seen it too. It was our own web site that pointed me there.
No doubt, he is one of those men you have in mind (in your 4th point) as someone you would be honored to place your name next to.
I understand your qualm with the declaration, but I think I understand Mohler's position too. He summarizes the reason for his support in the last paragraph of that post.
Interesting to see two men I respect taking different approaches here. I don't plan to spend any further energy on this, but I've appreciated the discussion, and your heartfelt convictions.
Thank you again pastor.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home