EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
Yesterday, I noticed some commentary floating around Facebook about The Manhattan Declaration, and how several conservative theologians are unwilling to sign it (R.C. Sproul, John Piper, and John Macarthur). In case you are unaware of the Manhattan Declaration, it is essentially a statement that affirms the sanctity of life, the meaning of marriage, and the nature of religious liberty. The attempt of this document is to unite believers from Evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox backgrounds together to affirm that the aforementioned are values we affirm and are common to these various branches of Christianity. 
The interesting part comes in the responses of Sproul, Piper and MacArthur, who refused to sign not based on their disagreement with the purpose and intent of the document but on their theological inclination. They seem to believe that in fact they can not partner with Catholics or Orthodox Christians, because they are unwilling to assent to the idea that they are in fact Christians, as they would define the term. Here is a quote from Sproul's blog, "The Manhattan Declaration confuses common grace and special grace by combining them. While I would march with the bishop of Rome and an Orthodox prelate to resist the slaughter of innocents in the womb, I could never ground that cobelligerency on the assumption that we share a common faith and a unified understanding of the gospel." He is unwilling to partner for a good cause that he in fact believes in due to a difference in definitions of the gospel, or understanding of faith. I have to say that this kind of thinking irritates me to no end, and I find it completely ridiculous. He is basically saying that unless he agrees with everything a person thinks, he is unwilling to be recognized as participating in a good cause with them. Unwillingness to associate with someone who believes differently than you is a very dangerous thing. It certainly will not get any desired change accomplished in this world. This closed-minded sort of dogmatic statement will garner no respect, and in fact takes away from the validity and influence of these individuals. I respect Piper and MacArthur for their contributions to theology and Biblical studies, but it is hard for me to see their perspective here.
I
find it quite sad that a document meant to affirm something positive
becomes mired in ridiculous division over definitions. It is no wonder
the world sees the Christian community as so irrelevant. Perhaps they
are right.
Phil |
Comments
Sproul should direct his nitpicking towards his own claims. When he refers to the "slaughter of innocents in the womb," he apparently contradicts his own theology. Shouldn't he say that, far from being innocent, those in the womb are under the wrath of God and deserving of death?
Interesting point. I don't wish to go into that particular theological debate in this post, but I understand what you are saying...
this behavior reminds me that Jesus was hardest on the pharisees when He walked the earth. i'd rather have the lot of the samaritans back in His day. great post phil. i was completely unaware this was even going on (sadly).
jason shafer
If I may, and with all due respect, I believe that you are misunderstanding Sproul's argument. It seems that he is quite willing to "be recognized as participating in a good cause" with Catholics and Orthodox (see above "...I would march with the bishop of Rome and an Orthodox prelate to resist the slaughter of innocents in the womb..."). However Sproul (and presumably Piper and MacArthur) see a problem in that the Manhattan Declaration assumes that Catholics, Orthodox, and Evangelicals all believe the same thing, and to these gentlemen, signing the Declaration is a public affirmation that they also see the three faiths as at least substantially synonymous.
I believe that you are quite accurate in saying "[Sproul] is unwilling to partner for a good cause that he in fact believes in due to a difference in definitions of the gospel, or understanding of faith." I would argue that the definition of the gospel and understanding of faith are essential not only to our theology and doctrine, but indeed our salvation. Furthermore, your comments in the subsequent paragraphs seem to me a non-sequitur. The issue is not that Sproul and others are unwilling to associate with Catholics and Orthodox, but rather that they are unwilling to associate with them if that association necessitates an affirmation that the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of the gospel is the same as the Evangelical, something which the Manhattan Declaration, in Sproul, et. al.'s opinion, clearly requires.
While Sproul, Piper, and MacArthur's interpretation of the Declaration may be debatable, we do ourselves no service in misunderstanding or misrepresenting their intentions in declining to become signatories. In their abstentions, Sproul and others are not being simply stubborn and unwilling to cooperate, but they genuinely believe that they would be betraying their convictions in signing a document that they believe declares Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical understandings of the gospel to be synonymous.
Thank you for you comments. I appreciate your own clarification adding to this discussion.
I do not believe I misunderstood their intentions, I just don't understand their convictions. I understand that they honestly believe they would be betraying their convictions. Perhaps what I do not understand is why this conviction is in existence.
I am unwilling to say that Catholics and Orthodox believers are not Christians, or do not have the same gospel. While there are certainly vast theological differences, which can create barriers, I do believe we are serving the same God. I feel as if they are magnifying these differences to the point of not being willing to cooperate.
I also agree with you that an understanding of the gospel and faith are essential, however I would also be willing to partner with atheists if it meant advancing the cause of something that I felt was honoring to God.
After reading this document, I simply don't find that the document's stated purpose was to say that these three understandings of the document were synonymous, but rather the intention of the document is to assert claims and create unity about the previously mentioned moral issues.
Thanks again for your input. I wish in no way to discount these three men's contributions to faith and scholarship. I truly do respect them, and hope that I have not misrepresented them in any way.
I like Augustine's take on it: "In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, love." Having had innumerable conversations with a good friend who also happens to be a Catholic priest, I feel very confident that he and I both share similar enough understandings of who Jesus is and what he has done for us. He feels the same way about me, and we love each other through and because of Christ. I would never assert that he was not a Christian because he has a different slant on Predestination or Premillennialism or the Pope, etc. For him and for me, belief that Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins, a willingness/desire to live a life of repentance of our sins, and love for God and others is enough to bond us as brothers in Christ.
I consider what the first-century Christians understood about Jesus (and the Trinity) and I sense a great deal of "hands-off-iciousness" on the mysterious aspects of Faith that only God knows fully. I consider what the 16th century Theologians asserted (and demanded) and I scratch my head at their absolute certainty about those same mysterious aspects of Faith. As Jacobus Arminius stated, They should ‘not attempt to investigate the unsearchable judgments of God' (Declaration of Sentiments).
I think the passage of 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 (NIV) lays it out well:
10I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[a]"; still another, "I follow Christ." 13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into[b] the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
We should never be hesitant to join our voices in harmony when it comes to Jesus, Love, and the Truth. Any other course only comes across as hypocritical and Pharisaical, at best. Besides, they are supposed to know we are Christians by our love, not our divisions!
When it comes to the gospel - I have to ask myself a question (being neither a Baptist, Orthodox or Catholic). If someone I loved who did not know Christ, asked me to refer them to a local church where they would have one chance and one chance only to hear the words of life before departing from this world, where would I send them to church? In some churches there is an explanation of the gospel and an invitation to respond - EVERY SINGLE SUNDAY. Throughout all eternity, the inhabitants of heaven will have opportunity to reflect - that it was not the cause of feeding the hungry, rescuing babies from abortion or helping the weak that brought them into eternal life, it was the cause of Christ. Christ who came to save our souls and to transform our hearts - is the reason why the YMCA was founded, the reason why universities and hospitals were founded and the reason why missions exist today. The power to change the world comes from the power of a transformed heart. Feed me today and I will die tomorrow, feed my soul and I will live forever.