On November 20, 2009 The Manhattan Declaration was release and there has been some buzz about this document. The actual title is – Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience. The document was penned by Robert George, Timothy George and Charles Colson and calls Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical Christian to take a stand. The declaration speaks to abortion, marriage and religious liberty, and currently has 120582 signatures.
Dr. Albert Mohler
Download a copy of The Manhattan Declaration.
With that being said there are disagreements amongst evangelical leaders as to whether one should sign the document or not. Professors here at the seminary such as Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. and Dr. Chad Brand have signed and are encouraging others to do the same. On the other hand, leaders such as Dr. John MacArthur and Dr. Alistair Begg are saying the will not sign it. They claim the true remedy to these problems are the gospel and that is not clear enough in the declaration.
Dr. John MacArthur
Dr. MacArthur’s article on not signing the declaration
Dr. Begg’s article on not signing the declaration
At this point I want to pose the question; what do you think? should we sign the Manhattan Declaration, or not? What is the maverick thing to do here? Men who, for the most part, agree on a number of issues are parting ways here.
Thoughts?
Share
Loading ...
Some other names mentioned among the signatories are Wayne Grudem, J.I. Packer, Russell D. Moore, and Rev. Tim Keller. Not to sure if I wouls sign it got to read MacArthur and Beigg’s view first but I think in theory this sounds pretty good just got to read through the fine print.
I asked Paul Edwards, on facebook, what he thought and he said,
“I signed it without reservation. It isn’t a statement for or against the gospel, but certainly is influenced by gospel principles. I am somewhat perplexed by the reaction of Begg and MacArthur. This isn’t ECT – which was clearly a theological statement which I could not have signed. This is a statement about all Christians regardless of denomination allowing a Christian conscience to prevail on the issues of life, sexuality, and religious freedom.”
I’ll sign it just because MacArthur didn’t.
James White on why he didn’t sign it
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3638
p.s. I read and signed it.
I saw this over at Uncommon Descent. The username was “fbeckwith.” I’ll let you guess who that could be. But I thought what he said was rather insightful:
“Here’s what MacArthur writes:
“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.”
Can you imagine if he had said this, instead:
Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to rape, torture, and theft 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.
MacArthur, though a decent man with his heart in the right place, does not seem to understand that “the Gospel” is more than merely getting people into heaven. It is about loving one’s neighbor as oneself, and that requires a concern for the moral ecology of one’s community, since that community, whether we admit it or not, has the power to shape Christian culture and its influence on the wider culture. Consider this example. As a Christian, I have an interest in making sure that the Church’s children grow up to be loving ambassadors for Christ, living holy lives. But that task, that hope, becomes more difficult when they are surrounded by, and saturated in, a wider culture that opposes that hope. To put it another way: it may be the case that the children of one Christian will never have to sit through hours of indoctrination in a public school. But other Christians’ children will. Yet, it the latter children may grow up to date the former children
Shameless plug: I have a book coming out in March with InterVarsity Press–Politics for Christians: Statecraft as Soulcraft–which addresses these and other concerns. See http://tinyurl.com/yhw4o3b“
I signed
As someone who claims to be a Kuyperian Calvinist, I find MacArthur as off based as usual. I think that James White, John MacAthur, and Begg all represent a type of Fundacalvinist. I think their reservation really boils down to linking arms with Catholic and Orthodox “Christians”. They want to maintain that it is a different gospel. The issue really is whether one’s theory of justification of faith alone is the gospel or is the gospel historical events and the proclamation of them–overly simplified argument by the point remains.
Here is Russell Moore discussing Evangelicals and Catholics in the Public Square.
Brady, you use the phrase “fundacalvinist.” Is it just coincidence that these kind of calvinists aren’t signing the declaration, or do you think it’s something inherent to their system? My question is do you think someone who doesn’t hold to calvinism, let’s say someone like Jerry Falwell, would agree with MacArthur, Begg, and White?
Chris, I think that is by no means a coincidence. I do think Jerry Falwell would have signed it (because his son did). It is not the Calvinism per se that makes them not what to sign. It is the Calvinism mixed with some new kind of fundamentalism. Although MacArthur would never say that politics and other areas of the world other than spiritually are unimportant, his argument naturally leads there pretty quickly. He says the true answer to all of these issues is “the gospel.” This seems to get the gospel out of whack and undermine the priorities of the gospel. For example, he then would see all efforts with Catholics as working with those leading people away from the Gospel—why would you link hands with them?
Sproul on why he wont sign:
http://ow.ly/K2y4