Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and nonbelievers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.Surely all Christians agree with that. However, the next paragraph complicates things:
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, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.That sounds good. Why would that complicate anything? Because a prior paragraph included the following:
We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declarationThis is an ecumenical document uniting Roman Catholics (not merely Catholic or "universal") with Protestants and Orthodox. Is there a time to ignore the Reformation and unite in support of marriage, life and other moral issues? Certainly. But the earlier paragraph says much more:
It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season.How do evangelicals unite with Roman Catholics in that statement? They can't if each understands the doctrines at stake. I can affirm that statement alone, but not in unity with a Roman Catholic. Our gospels are very different; if they proclaim its fullness, we're dead wrong, and vice versa. Some might argue that each group is simply pledging to proclaim their version of the Gospel, but that's not what this document says. It is "our" duty, and "our" Lord and Savior. Of course, many signees of this document were part of Evangelicals and Catholics together (see my comments) and so their willingness to overlook the fundamental doctrinal differences is to be expected.
We may find the divinity of Christ not in his substantial unity with God, but in his filial consciousness and in his unique dependence upon God...To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental. To invest this Christ with such supernatural qualities makes the rejoinder: "Oh, well, he had a better chance for that kind of life than we can possible have." In other words, one could easily use this as a means to hide behind behind his failures. So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied...This divine quality or this unity with God was not something thrust upon Jesus from above, but it was a definite achievement through the process of moral struggle and self-abnegation.According to Scripture, that is the spirit of the antichrist:
1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.King's unambiguous denial of the deity of Jesus is therefore a denial of the trinity, and he is disqualified from the world of orthodox Christianity.
Amen to this, Randy. Although I'm a Canadian, and this doesn't really affect me, I think that a completely generic kind of paper that appeals to "Judeo-Christian values" would actually be easier to digest than this.
It is the gospel and the gospel alone that has the power to transform sinners (and by extension, society), so I'm not sure how negotiating it away in exchange for surface moralism is an effective strategy.
Yo MSQ, I think "attempt to rally or exhort" may have pegged it. I love my atheist, agnostic, Mormon, New Age, and Roman Catholic friends and can come alongside them for a variety of causes, but when you bring in clearly theological language, a joint effort requires discernment. I don't want to be the stick in the mud, but I've got to live with my own conscience.
Matt, you are required to follow the lead of American theologians, remember? I agree with your sentiments.
Randy:
"I can affirm that statement alone, but not in unity with a Roman Catholic. Our gospels are very different; if they proclaim its fullness, we're dead wrong, and vice versa."
That's my homeboy. Personally, I think it's kinda cool to be under several anathemas. I feel like I have objective meaning in my life or something.
Quixote:
"I can't help but think that the urge to create this declaration is itself a sign that the gospel is not widely preached, at least in its faithful form."
Yes...and yet the gospel is more highly accessible here than anywhere. Perhaps it's also a sign that the gospel is not widely *understood*...at least in its faithful form.
The question is rally and exhort to what, and if you follow Carl Teichrib's research, the answer is nothing to do with scripture and everything to do with religion in the global community. The "freedom" rhetoric only goes as far as "man as god."
Matt:
Hey, buddy, happy not-Thanksgiving!
"It is the gospel and the gospel alone that has the power to transform sinners (and by extension, society), so I'm not sure how negotiating it away in exchange for surface moralism is an effective strategy."
Because it's much easier to move from surface moralism as an accepted (subjectivized) standard into The Great Emergence and globalist occultism.
I am such a raving conspiracy theorist today. Surely it couldn't possibly be anything so insidious as that, not with all these good-intentioned people involved. The devil *never* uses good-intentioned people...
Love Beckwith's "moral ecology" as quoted by White. Laden word-choices, oh my.
"I don't want to be the stick in the mud, but I've got to live with my own conscience."
But you're so good at it, Randy. Let me make sure I've got it right though: stick in the mud means "contending for the faith," once and all as delivered to the saints, right?
Oh yeah, I guess I should disclose that I can do no other than enter "seven." :)
"Perhaps it's also a sign that the gospel is not widely *understood*...at least in its faithful form."
Preach it, sister, or should I say our closet C :)
"The "freedom" rhetoric only goes as far as "man as god."
Exactly, and I think Carl was clear to emphasize that his research matches the biblical claim.
"Amen to this, Randy. Although I'm a Canadian, and this doesn't really affect me,"
c'mon, Matt. Where the US goes, Canada goes, right? :)
"It is the gospel and the gospel alone that has the power to transform sinners (and by extension, society), so I'm not sure how negotiating it away in exchange for surface moralism is an effective strategy."
Well said, matt, and as far as I'm concerned, if the gospel requires a "strategy" then it's no different than any other business plan, and certainly not invested with power from on high.
"Oh yeah, I guess I should disclose that I can do no other than enter "seven." :) "
Seven is the answer to everything, as my daughter's told you, Agent 7.
"or should I say our closet C :) "
You can believe whatever feels right to you. It's a post-modern milieu.
Since when are we encouraging women to preach? Really, no, please. Keep that responsibility to yourselves, homeboyz.
"c'mon, Matt. Where the US goes, Canada goes, right? :) "
God help us, we are sunk. BTW, this week Russia invested in our currency to avoid investing in yours...so if I have it straight, China owns you (egads, a sudden motivator for the Dark Man scenario reveals itself) and Da Bear's out to own us.
Ten years ago, the idea of Russia propping up anyone's currency sounded like a joke...
As always, MS and CL, your comments are meaningful and worth perusing. I'm blessed to have you both as new friends! And Matt, you're a better thinker than the average relative. My "stick in the mud" position feels right. A bit muddy, but still right.
As Larry Norman said back when he was alive, "Death is conquered though we slumber, seven is the perfect number." It does seem to reduce the spam quite effectively.
"As always, MS and CL, your comments are meaningful and worth perusing. I'm blessed to have you both as new friends!"
Bickering around the web we go...entertaining, eh? :~D Ah, well, like I told you, he's my brother.
Alistair Begg was present at the gathering but declined to sign.
Dan Phillips at Pyromaniacs has nineteen questions for the signers.
Al Mohler explains why he didn't sign the Evangelical Manifesto, but apparently he applied different standards to the Manhattan Declaration.
Yah Beggsy! Good ol' boy. :~)
Our last pastor was a Scotsman raised in England and come to Canada in his teens. I cannot hear Beggs without hearing him. Same sound, same sense of sarcasm.
Read more.
James White examines Lig Duncan's reasons for signing the Manhattan Declaration.
Hey Randy,
I can't help but think that the urge to create this declaration is itself a sign that the gospel is not widely preached, at least in its faithful form. I suppose what I'm wondering is that if we were preaching it faithfully, why would we feel the need to publicize it? Seems like it would be obvious, since the gospel publicizes itself. Or maybe it's an attempt to rally or exhort? I'm not certain, not being that familiar with it, but the feel of it is too political to suit me. I could be wrong.