"My beliefs concerning the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches have not changed."

Discussion

[Mohler] The Roman Catholic Church teaches doctrines that I find both unbiblical and abhorrent — and these doctrines define nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But The Manhattan Declaration does not attempt to establish common ground on these doctrines. We remain who we are, and we concede no doctrinal ground.

But when Catholic Charities in Massachusetts must choose to end its historic ministry of placing orphaned children in good homes because the State of Massachusetts required it to place children with same-sex couples, this is not just a Catholic issue.

There’s a fine line here. I’m much in sympathy with his desire to do something strong in opposition to recently accelerated anti-Christian trends. But, at the same time, signing comes uncomfortably close to blurring important lines with respect to the gospel. I know Mohler would never do anything he believes obscures the gospel in pursuit of lesser goals (and these are lesser goals), but maybe this move does that… and maybe not. It would certainly have been good if the Declaration included some language officially acknowledging that the groups involved have major and important differences on other matters and that the signatories have no desire to minimize these differences. But unless I’ve missed it, there’s nothing like that in there.
(So Mohler—and probably others—have to make separate public statements clarifying their gospel convictions)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

On one hand, there are principles here that most of us would want to affirm generally. But what I have a problem understanding is why this one statement is more effective than, say, the SBC issuing a statement, Roman Catholic bishops issuing their own statement, etc etc.

The fact is, while Mohler does not wish to blur the lines, the document speaks of recognizing other traditions as “Christian.” It makes statements such as:
Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good.
As much as we have in common on these social issues, the essence of that “Gospel of costly grace” is, in fact, different. The joint names, however, leave the impression that there is some measure of legitimacy lent to those with opposing views.

I wonder what the difference would have been if say, a Mormon would have been included amongst the original signatories.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

[Aaron Blumer] But, at the same time, signing comes uncomfortably close to blurring important lines with respect to the gospel. I know Mohler would never do anything he believes obscures the gospel in pursuit of lesser goals (and these are lesser goals), but maybe this move does that… and maybe not. It would certainly have been good if the Declaration included some language officially acknowledging that the groups involved have major and important differences on other matters and that the signatories have no desire to minimize these differences. But unless I’ve missed it, there’s nothing like that in there.

I think he kind of covered his back when this section was added:
[Declaration] 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 being said, the last line of the quoted paragraph says that all the signers “have the duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord”, which is a worrisome element to me and quite possibly a deal-breaker. When he talks about in defense of these truths, I’m assuming that he’s referring to the statements in the Declaration and not the truths of the gospel.

I understand and sympathize with Dr. Mohler’s plight, and I can certainly understand the good purpose behind this. That being said, I do think that this theological union/association is not something that I could sign off on.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

The Manhattan Declaration reminded me of the rapprochement in recent years in Northern Ireland between Protestants (Ian Paisley) and Catholics. With secularism overwhelming Europe, I’m sure people on both sides wondered, “Who is the enemy we need to be fighting?” The Catholics are dead wrong on the gospel, and I know there is a danger that such cooperation can confuse some as to whether there is agreement or disagreement on the gospel, or it can lead people to believe that the essence of Christianity is holding to certain moral standards, but I can certainly understand why someone like Al Mohler would do what he did and I think as post-modernism increases, such cooperation will probably increase.

I would be more comfortable signing a document if it were broadly theistic or secular, with no mention of the Gospel at all. Something like, “as one nation under God, we believe in the dignity of human life…” Something that an orthodox Jew could sign, for example.

But I agree that this sounds like we all preach the same Gospel and are all essentially part of the same family, something modern Catholics believe (we are labelled as “separated brethren,”) but something many of us do NOT believe (we do not consider most catholics our brothers). We are assumed to be brothers by them, but we do not assume them to be brothers.

"The Midrash Detective"

[Ed Vasicek] I would be more comfortable signing a document if it were broadly theistic or secular, with no mention of the Gospel at all. Something like, “as one nation under God, we believe in the dignity of human life…” Something that an orthodox Jew could sign, for example..

I like this idea as well. What the declaration is really about is Judeo-Christian morality, so it would be better to focus more on that angle. Then, in addition to conservative (small “c”) Jews, Mormons could sign it as well (to some, not a good thing, but Mormonism does embrace most of “Christian morality” and since the aim seems to be a kind of moral solidarity, the more who join the effort, the better). But it wouldn’t even have to use the term “Judeo Christian” anywhere.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

The opportunity for broader secular, theistic, or “Judeo-Christian” statements, if you will, already exists within a political party system. I still think that when you enter into these kind of partnerships (where you are signing because of the influence you have as a church leader), you end up lending the other church or religious leaders (and the systems they represent) a measure of credibility when your name appears alongside theirs. Again, why could not a church group like the SBC- already amongst the largest organized religious bodies in the USA- issue a similar statement under their own auspices? If Southern Baptists make their statement, while Roman Catholics make a similar one, and then the Orthodox, EFCA, etc etc, it would seem to me the cumulative effect is the same, without the confusion such an ecumenical effort creates.
[Albert Mohler] But when Catholic Charities in Massachusetts chose to end its historic ministry of placing orphaned children in good homes because the State of Massachusetts required it to place children with same-sex couples, this is not just a Catholic issue. The orphanage could have easily been Baptist. When Belmont Abbey college in North Carolina is told by federal authorities that it must offer abortion services in its insurance plans for employees, this is no longer just a Catholic issue. The next institution to be under attack might well be Presbyterian. We are in this together, and we had better be thankful that, in this case, we are not alone.
Again, I applaud the concerns motivating Mohler here. But would his feelings and subsequent personal actions been any different if instead of Catholic Charities, it had been Stars of David International? If instead of Belmont Abbey, it had been Brigham Young? I would hope that he would oppose these injustices and seek to defend the rights of Jews and Mormons under US rule of law while simultaneously not signing any document that would recognize them as partners in the gospel or generally serving the same Divine Being.
[Mohler] I was encouraged that we could stand together to make clear that to come for one of us on these issues is to come for all. At the end of the day, I did not want my name missing from that list when folks look to see just who was willing to be listed.
So, since we don’t see someone like say, John Piper, or Phyllis Schlafly, or John MacArthur as original signatories (not to mention Fundamentalist leaders)… are we to conclude that they have deserted these issues? I think he overstates what is communicated by someone unwilling to sign, and overstates by a very large margin.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

[Greg Linscott]
[Mohler] I was encouraged that we could stand together to make clear that to come for one of us on these issues is to come for all. At the end of the day, I did not want my name missing from that list when folks look to see just who was willing to be listed.
So, since we don’t see someone like say, John Piper, or Phyllis Schlafly, or John MacArthur as original signatories (not to mention Fundamentalist leaders)… are we to conclude that they have deserted these issues? I think he overstates what is communicated by someone unwilling to sign, and overstates by a very large margin.

Good point. Knowing what I do about MacArthur, I’m thinking that he was probably approached and declined to sign. I know Mohler and MacArthur are friendly, since he’s spoken at several of MacArthur’s Shepherd Conferences.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

I think the scenario Greg describes would also have been better, though maybe not the best option. These separate statements could even have been coordinated without being a single statement.
I do think, though, that this would mute the effect somewhat. It’s harder to get half a dozen statements noticed in the media and noticed by policy makers. Since political parties are separate entities from religious groups (and lately there isn’t a party that is showing much resolve on these things), it adds something important to have major religious groups saying something more or less in unison. I’m not convinced this can’t be done in a way that avoids lending credibility where we don’t want to. In theory, it should be possible to fashion it in a way that only lends credibility to the ideas themselves.
But it is a tricky thing certainly… and this particular declaration doesn’t achieve that.
I wouldn’t be surprised if, by now, Mohler is also thinking there might have been a better way.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Um, would Jesus have signed this:

“Sons of Abraham, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Pharisees, Saduccees, Essenes, and evangelical Messiahists who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of haShem, the Creator and Redeemer of Yisrael, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

Would he have stood to oppose the Zealots or the Herodians?

Later, did Paul stand with the Zealots in the First Jewish-Roman war?

Where a nation has been, is, and is going are factors. It’s one thing to take a laissez-faire approach toward a government that always been thoroughly pagan (Roman empire) and not quite the same thing to stand by silently while a once thoroughly Christian (in morality) nation moves further and further from those roots. Mohler is right to speak up and to try to make his voice louder by joining other voices. It’s really just the gospel-blurring nature of this particular document that is the problem.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[B Thomas] Signing the declaration does not end abortion or make same-sex marriage illegal. And, not signing the document does not promote abortion or sanction same-sex marriage.

Agreed. It may help some toward that end though or at least help people think more clearly about the matter and strengthen the resolve of some who might be teetering. And sometimes it’s important to speak out even when it’s certain that it will not result any change…. sort of like Jeremiah was sent to preach a message he was told in advance would be rejected. Sometimes it’s just wrong to be silent even when we can’t tell what good it will do to sound off.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Aaron Blumer]
[B Thomas] Signing the declaration does not end abortion or make same-sex marriage illegal. And, not signing the document does not promote abortion or sanction same-sex marriage.

Agreed. It may help some toward that end though or at least help people think more clearly about the matter and strengthen the resolve of some who might be teetering. And sometimes it’s important to speak out even when it’s certain that it will not result any change…. sort of like Jeremiah was sent to preach a message he was told in advance would be rejected. Sometimes it’s just wrong to be silent even when we can’t tell what good it will do to sound off.

It seems to me though, Aaron, that B Thomas is making the point that the benefit of “speaking out” in this specific venue is unclear. Little was said that was not already known before about the position “Christianity” (using the term in a loose sense) in America would hold. And as I have noted earlier in this thread, there are other religious movements in the US that would share similar values. For example, I’m sure there are legitimate believers who publicly oppose same-sex marriage. I’m also hopeful that most would not conclude that because a common opponent is shared, that official cooperation with http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR20090 the efforts of the Mormon church is required.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Thanks for that, Brenda. Mac’s perspective is interesting and thorough.
[MacArthur] The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.