That’s the title of a new statement that was released today bearing the signatures over 125 Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant evangelical leaders. It focuses on life issues such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and assisted suicide; marriage; and religious liberty, especially in terms of the encroachments of government mandates that would override the beliefs and teaching of religious groups. The whole thing is absolutely worth your time, and if you agree with what you read you have the opportunity to sign it by going here.
It’s too long to look at in detail, but I have to say that my favorite passage, and the one that is making heads explode at places such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is the very last paragraph:
Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.
This seems to me to be a pretty straight-forward statement of what even the Rev. Barry Lynn of AU supposedly professes, which is that there are laws that Christians are bound to disobey is they conflict with what God requires of His people. But to AU, this is all about the theocracy:
At a press conference today, Religious Right leaders and Roman Catholic bishops unveiled a joint statement criticizing laws that allow reproductive choice and same-sex marriage. The “Manhattan Declaration” indicates that participating religious leaders will defy such laws if they conflict with church doctrines.
Americans United charges that the real agenda is not protecting the religious freedom of churches, but rather attempting to impose those doctrines on all Americans by government decree.
Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, “This declaration is certain to be deeply divisive. These religious leaders want to see their doctrines imposed by force of law, and that goes against everything America stands for.
Because as we all know, the only people who are allowed to impose their religious doctrine are the religious left, whose positions on issues are those of the staff of AU, and whose lobbying efforts on behalf of those positions are, therefore, hunky dory with the so-called First Amendment watchdog.
Among the signers are Leith Anderson of the National Association of Evangelicals, Joseph Bottum of First Things, Bryan Chapell of Covenant Theological Seminary, Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship, Archbishop Robert Duncan of the Anglican Church in North America, Maggie Gallagher of the Institute for Marriage, Dr. Robert George of Princeton, Father Johannes Jacobse of OrthodoxyToday.org, Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York, Dr. Peter Kreeft of Boston College, Bishop Martyn Minns of the Convocation of Anglicans of North America, Dr. Albert Mohler of Southern Baptist Seminary, David Neff of Christianity Today, Dr. Thomas Oden of Drew University, Dr. Cornelius Plantinga of Calvin Seminary, Dr. Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, George Weigel of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias, and the Catholic archbishops of Denver, Kansas City, Louisville, Minneapolis, Newark, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington. In other words, a high-powered cross section of both leaders and thinkers among conservative Christians in America. Check it out.
November 22, 2009 at 6:40 am
I know that assisted suicide is sin, but I struggle over the idea that some people suffering from severe pain that cannot be treated by drugs are condemned to suffer. What about the idea of providing the means, but not administering the solution? I just have so much compassion for people in that situation.
November 22, 2009 at 8:15 am
They aren’t. If pain is that severe, at least here, the pain meds are increased until the pain is gone, even if it might hasten death. This isn’t the same thing as actively killing someone.
November 22, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I think that is a more humane approach, Kate; thank you.
November 22, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Interesting that they place Scripture and reason on a co-equal footing. Must have been some Methodists on the writing team.
Given how Mark Achtemeier has recently been pilloried for not even going that far in a recent address to the Covenant Network, I find it hilarious that Carmen Fowler signed on. What a hypocrite. I guess “reason” is fine as long as it leads you to the “right” conclusion, otherwise it is completely untrustworthy and reason enough to tie a millstone around someone’s neck, as she recently suggested.
I do like these sorts of things, though. They serve no useful purpose, are forgotten in a month and make people think they’re actually doing something useful by signing, which often has the useful effect of distracting them from being busybodies, fusspots, tattletales and scolds for a week or so.
November 22, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Here’s a link to Health Canada’s information on palliative care:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/palliat/index-eng.php
I don’t know how it is generally handled in the States.
November 22, 2009 at 5:21 pm
A pretty good document, to be sure, but its ecumenical flavor troubles me. It is difficult to look on the RCC as an ally in the culture wars when they are such an enemy to the gospel. I struggle with that.
November 22, 2009 at 8:32 pm
I think that the RC church has got quite a few things wrong, but “enemy to the gospel” is a bit of a stretch.
November 22, 2009 at 8:54 pm
I agree with Kate.
But then I am a cockadoodie liberal ecumenicist.
November 23, 2009 at 12:14 am
Rome’s Gospel is false to the core.
Co-belligerency on social matters is one thing.
On theology, however, no peace with anti-Nicene Christology of a Gospel-denying hierarchy of Rome, period. Learn your theology and history. End of that discussion.
November 23, 2009 at 4:26 am
I think I agree with Phillip. If Trent did not mark Rome as an enemy of the gospel and not true church, nothing does.
My concern under the co-belligerecny thing is wondering where it could go.
November 23, 2009 at 9:13 am
I believe that “Co-belligerency on social matters” is exactly what the Manhattan Declaration is about, so I’m not sure why the anti-Catholic hysteria is warranted here. And since when is Rome “anti-Nicene”? The Reformers’ arguments with Rome were about ecclesiology and soteriology, not Trinitarianism or Christology.
November 23, 2009 at 10:52 am
Thanks David,
I didn’t read anything on this Declaration until last night-to busy other places and sick. I also posted it last night. Anytime Timothy George, Thomas Oden, Tim Keller, Peter Kreeft, etc. sign something together I say God is doing something because his good people are at work together.
And yes, I did read it. It is the place we must all stand together.
November 23, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Remarkable. If Spong, or AUSCS, etc. made a statement like this:
“We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person.”
setting Holy Scripture and natural human reason on the same footing, you’d all be setting torches and sharpening your pitchforks (or at the very least, dusting off your millstones.) The light of the truth is grounded in Holy Scripture, but it is not grounded in fallible, depraved, and sinful natural human reason and if anyone else had suggested that was the case, you’d all be spending bushels of electrons fisking this statement paragraph by paragraph.
It almost makes me think that some may have spent more time reading the signatures than reading the declaration itself.
It is remarkable that so-called conservatives seem to ignore traditional Reformed doctrine (does the doctrine of “total depravity” ring any bells?) as long as they can find something anti-gay to cheer about.
November 23, 2009 at 12:51 pm
So you don’t use your reason as you study Scripture? That may explain some things…
Really. They aren’t holding reason up as a source of revelation–that would be Scripture alone, for Reformed folks–but as a means to discern truth, both in the natural world and in the study of Scripture. Your surprise, because it is based on a misunderstanding, is misplaced, and, I suspect, would never have been voiced at all if the subject of gay marriage had not been dealt with in the declaration.
November 23, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Actually, no, I voiced it precisely because reason vs. Scripture is the exact issue that has been used by various signers of this declaration in their vehement rants against Rev. Mark Achtemeier. In other words, once again I’m simply pointing out the obvious hypocrisy, which you missed because you’re too busy towing party lines.
My reading of the statement isn’t a misreading nor is it a misunderstanding. Truth grounded 1) in Scripture, 2) in reason, 3) in human nature. The parallel construction of the phrases (in X, in Y, *and* in Z) makes it clear they are meant to be co-equal. The wording is clear and it places Scripture and human reason as coequal. No qualification is given to show the importance of Scripture. One could have said something that was clearer like “grounded in Holy Scripture, informed by human reason…” but they didn’t.
The most obcvious rebuttal is for one to say they agreed with the overall sentiments of the declaration, but disagreed with that particular sentence. But then, one would have to admit actually disagreeing with the supposedly evangelical overlords, and we all know where that’ll get you (hint, it involves a millstone.)
I have nothing against human reason. I just think that we should be humble about our abilities to use it to discern truth and that we should never believe that our human reason measures up to Holy Scripture. I think it’s remarkable that while conservatives would agree with that statement if it were voiced by someone they consider a conservative, they find themselves forced to defend the exact opposite when being called on it by someone with whom they disagree. I’m not surprised of course. Absolute agreement on all matters and unquestioning adherence to the party line is the hallmark of many of today’s so-called conservatives, and given the horrible treatment of any who dare to question even one of their talking points, one can hardly blame them I suppose.
Still, it’s a little sad when conservatives can’t even defend their own doctrine when they’d actually be right to do so.
November 23, 2009 at 7:40 pm
I hate to agree with Alan (hate is too strong a word) but I find this document woefully inadequate not to mention completely weak in the doctrine department. Here I was thinking only Liberals twisted the obvious meaning of Scripture when I come across the atrocious use of Gen. 1:27 and John 10:10.
Something that just hit me as I was reading it again is the notion that any Protestant could endorse the actions of the Papal state in the 16th and 17th centuries is just appalling to me. Picking out one seemingly good decision (there is no documentation given for the supposed Papal ruling on slavery, especially since the Papal State itself was busy kidnapping people and forcing them into labor in this period of history) and divorcing it from the actions of Rome burning (and worse) Protestants shows that Rome was not exactly concerned about “Life” in the 16th and 17th Century.
The more and more I read this document the more ridiculous I find it.
November 23, 2009 at 7:47 pm
If anti-Catholicism is someone’s most important cause than of course one will not like this declaration.
November 23, 2009 at 7:57 pm
If “anti-Catholicism” is all you got out of my post then I am sorry. It is a sad fact that we are so cozy with those who deny Christ and His Gospel in such an open way. Rome is no better (in fact much, much, much worse) than Louisville or the “Liberals” when it comes to teaching a False Gospel. The idea that Rome has anything to teach on “Life” issues is absurd and belies a frank ignorance with what Rome teaches. Especially when one is trying to point to evidently obscure Papal documents from 400 years ago that carry no weight when Rome was actively engaged in the slave trade and the slaughter of the innocents.
Regardless of the above the theology in this document would get the writer an F on a paper submitted at a Reformed seminary.
November 23, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Good grief … I am proud to call myself a Calvinist but I am not so blind as to deny that Calvinists have also done some pretty rotten things in history.
And in any case, the Roman Catholic Church was virtually alone in opposing Roe v. Wade when it came down in 1973. Where were all of the conservative Protestants then? When I went to the March for Life in DC, who were most of the participants? Calvinists? No, they were too busy arguing about supralapsarianism. It was primarily Catholics who were there. And God bless them even if I cannot participate in some of their liturgical practices.
November 23, 2009 at 8:19 pm
You miss the point John. Regardless of the motives behind this document it is a sub-standard one.
As far as “Where were the Reformed in 1973″? That is kind of a non-sequitur. I know the RPCNA fought Roe v. Wade from day one and members of the ARP that did as well. The OPC also.
November 23, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Ben you are the one who acted offended when the declaration said some nice things about the Catholic Church. From what I read I thought you made that the issue. But of course conservative Protestants also did some rotten things in history, didn’t they … and you didn’t protest when the declaration singled out William Wilberforce for praise, did you?
The fact is, all Christian traditions have things they can be hold up as Christlike, and other things they should be ashamed of. The Roman Catholic Church has good aspects and Reformed churches have bad aspects. I never imagined that would be a controversial statement because it just seems so self-evident.
November 23, 2009 at 8:41 pm
BTW, how many members did the RPCNA, OPC and some of the APR have in 1973 compared with the SBC, UPCUSA, PCUS, UMC, ECUSA, UCC etc, all of which, proudly Protestant as they were (well, maybe the ECUSA was not so proudly Protestant), affirmed the unlimited abortion license of Roe v. Wade? While individual Protestants certainly opposed that decision, and God bless them, by and large, Protestant America sided with the culture of death in 1973. Catholic America, by and large, sided with the culture of life. That has to mean something. At least, it does to me.
November 23, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Well for the most part the SBC, UPCUSA, PCUS, UMC, ECUSA, and the UCC denied the Gospel and were manned by unbelievers so why would they go against Roe v. Wade?
Should we be shocked that those who deny Christ and His Gospel also deny care of the unborn?
November 23, 2009 at 8:57 pm
But according to you, Ben, Rome is “much, much, much worse” than “liberals” when it comes to “teaching a false Gospel.”
And yet somehow Rome got the sanctity of life right and most Protestant churches got it wrong in 1973 (some churches like the SBC have since shifted to the pro-life position, and God bless them for that).
By their fruits you will know them …
November 23, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Anyway I think we are just chasing our tails here. We are obviously not going to come to agreement on this particular issue. Peace out.
November 24, 2009 at 8:38 am
Careful Benjamin. If you don’t tow the party line, you know what happens, right? I’ll give you a hint, it involves a millstone.
I’m sure David would simply respond to you as he did to me, that the only reason you voiced your concern was because gay marriage was mentioned (because of course, no one could possibly honestly dare to question this declaration’s perfect iron-clad theology.)
They’re going to take away your members jacket if you don’t start agreeing.
November 25, 2009 at 12:39 am
MY goodness!! When did this blog get taken over by Jack T. Chick?? (GRIN). Remember, they took out calling the pope “Antichrist” from the Westminster Confession a while ago!!!
November 25, 2009 at 7:34 am
Does it mean anything that Rome teaches a false Doctrine and leads millions to perdition by its denial of the Christian Gospel? Did Trent not happen or was it repealed when I was not looking?
Do we care about the Gospel or has it been reduced to second place behind ethics?
It seems to me that some have made Sanctification and Good Works a far second to Justification and the Gospel.
November 25, 2009 at 7:43 am
Here is a link to John MacArthur’s reasons for not signing this document.
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3641
November 25, 2009 at 4:03 pm
OK Mr. Glaser,
What “false doctrine” does Rome Teach and how does it “deny the Christian Gospel.” This is a serious question by one who has served in Lay Positions in Presbyterian (and affirmed belief in the Westminster Confession) and Anglican churches (and affirmed belief in the 39 Articles) both of which are more or less “Reformed.” I may disagree with some emphasis which the Church of Rome places on some things but I don’t see a denial of the Gospel. So, and again, this is a serious request for education, how does the Church of Rome deny the Gospel?
Thank you so very much.
November 28, 2009 at 1:05 am
The declaration says absolutely nothing about the Roman Catholic Church, except that they oppose government regulation and endorsement of the three things most Christians acknowledge as SIN.
So…some who call themselves Christians won’t approve the declaration, or sign it, just because RC leaders did sign it!!! Remember, your baptism was to wash away your sin, NOT to drown your brain. And no, I am not RC.
November 28, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Chip,
With all do respect you simply cannot possibly affirm and believe (and understand) what the WCF (or the 39 Articles) teach and not also believe that Rome teaches a false Gospel and denies what the Scriptures teach concerning salvation.
Responding in this format does not allow a full articulation of exactly all the points which Rome disagrees with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and in fact teaches contrary to it but I will provide a couple links that will do so.
(These are PDF’s)
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/Ref-RomeChart1.pdf
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/Ref-RomeChart2.pdf
http://www.reformationtheology.com/2008/12/ten_differences_between_the_re.php
November 30, 2009 at 1:58 pm
[...] 2009 Posted by Hampton Morgan in Uncategorized. trackback My friend David Fischler, who blogs at The Reformed Pastor, alerted me to The Manhattan Declaration, a recently published statement of Orthodox, Catholic and [...]