Thursday, September 2, 2010

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Want to advertise on Stand Firm? Click here for rates and info

Manhattan Declaration: A Pro-Life Call of Christian Conscience on Abortion, Liberty

Friday, November 20, 2009 • 5:07 pm


Manhattan Declaration: A Pro-Life Call of Christian Conscience on Abortion, Liberty

November 20, 2009

The following is the text of the Manhattan Declaration signed by 149 pro-life and Catholic and evangelical and Orthodox Christian leaders. LifeNews.com supports the pro-life aims of the resolution.

Preamble

Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.

While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages, we claim the heritage of those Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denouncing the Empire’s sanctioning of infanticide. We remember with reverence those believers who sacrificed their lives by remaining in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues, and who died bravely in the coliseums rather than deny their Lord.

After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture. It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade; evangelical Christians in England, led by John Wesley and William Wilberforce, put an end to the slave trade in that country. Christians under Wilberforce’s leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines.

In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings and successfully fought to establish the rule of law and balance of governmental powers, which made modern democracy possible. And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement. The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class.

This same devotion to human dignity has led Christians in the last decade to work to end the dehumanizing scourge of human trafficking and sexual slavery, bring compassionate care to AIDS sufferers in Africa, and assist in a myriad of other human rights causes—from providing clean water in developing nations to providing homes for tens of thousands of children orphaned by war, disease and gender discrimination.

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. In being true to its own calling, the call to discipleship, the church through service to others can make a profound contribution to the public good.

Declaration

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. 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. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

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 non-believers 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.

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.

Life

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27

I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10:10

Although public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction, we note with sadness that pro-abortion ideology prevails today in our government. The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense. Majorities in both houses of Congress hold pro-abortion views. The Supreme Court, whose infamous 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade stripped the unborn of legal protection, continues to treat elective abortion as a fundamental constitutional right, though it has upheld as constitutionally permissible some limited restrictions on abortion. The President says that he wants to reduce the “need” for abortion—a commendable goal. But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available by eliminating laws prohibiting government funding, requiring waiting periods for women seeking abortions, and parental notification for abortions performed on minors. The elimination of these important and effective pro-life laws cannot reasonably be expected to do other than significantly increase the number of elective abortions by which the lives of countless children are snuffed out prior to birth. Our commitment to the sanctity of life is not a matter of partisan loyalty, for we recognize that in the thirty-six years since Roe v. Wade, elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to what Pope John Paul II described as “the culture of death.” We call on all officials in our country, elected and appointed, to protect and serve every member of our society, including the most marginalized, voiceless, and vulnerable among us.

A culture of death inevitably cheapens life in all its stages and conditions by promoting the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature or inconvenient are discardable. As predicted by many prescient persons, the cheapening of life that began with abortion has now metastasized. For example, human embryo-destructive research and its public funding are promoted in the name of science and in the cause of developing treatments and cures for diseases and injuries. The President and many in Congress favor the expansion of embryo- research to include the taxpayer funding of so-called “therapeutic cloning.” This would result in the industrial mass production of human embryos to be killed for the purpose of producing genetically customized stem cell lines and tissues. At the other end of life, an increasingly powerful movement to promote assisted suicide and “voluntary” euthanasia threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons. Eugenic notions such as the doctrine of lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”) were first advanced in the 1920s by intellectuals in the elite salons of America and Europe. Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid-twentieth century, they have returned from the grave. The only difference is that now the doctrines of the eugenicists are dressed up in the language of “liberty,” “autonomy,” and “choice.”

We will be united and untiring in our efforts to roll back the license to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion. We will work, as we have always worked, to bring assistance, comfort, and care to pregnant women in need and to those who have been victimized by abortion, even as we stand resolutely against the corrupt and degrading notion that it can somehow be in the best interests of women to submit to the deliberate killing of their unborn children. Our message is, and ever shall be, that the just, humane, and truly Christian answer to problem pregnancies is for all of us to love and care for mother and child alike.

A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination. The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak. And so we defend and speak for the unborn, the disabled, and the dependent. What the Bible and the light of reason make clear, we must make clear. We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition.

Our concern is not confined to our own nation. Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and “ethnic cleansing,” the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS. We see these travesties as flowing from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the abortion industry and the movements for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and human cloning for biomedical research. And so ours is, as it must be, a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances.

Marriage

The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.” For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:23-24 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:32-33 In Scripture, the creation of man and woman, and their one-flesh union as husband and wife, is the crowning achievement of God’s creation. In the transmission of life and the nurturing of children, men and women joined as spouses are given the great honor of being partners with God Himself. Marriage then, is the first institution of human society—indeed it is the institution on which all other human institutions have their foundation. In the Christian tradition we refer to marriage as “holy matrimony” to signal the fact that it is an institution ordained by God, and blessed by Christ in his participation at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. In the Bible, God Himself blesses and holds marriage in the highest esteem.

Vast human experience confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society. Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits—the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves. Unfortunately, we have witnessed over the course of the past several decades a serious erosion of the marriage culture in our own country. Perhaps the most telling—and alarming—indicator is the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Less than fifty years ago, it was under 5 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. Our society—and particularly its poorest and most vulnerable sectors, where the out-of-wedlock birth rate is much higher even than the national average—is paying a huge price in delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair. Other indicators are widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation and a devastatingly high rate of divorce.

We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage. Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same.

To strengthen families, we must stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the profound beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love. We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce. We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make.

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. In spousal communion and the rearing of children (who, as gifts of God, are the fruit of their parents’ marital love), we discover the profound reasons for and benefits of the marriage covenant.

We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God’s patience, love and forgiveness. We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it. Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts. Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to “a more excellent way.” As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it.

We further acknowledge that there are sincere people who disagree with us, and with the teaching of the Bible and Christian tradition, on questions of sexual morality and the nature of marriage. Some who enter into same- sex and polyamorous relationships no doubt regard their unions as truly marital. They fail to understand, however, that marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and that the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit. This is because the body is no mere extrinsic instrument of the human person, but truly part of the personal reality of the human being. Human beings are not merely centers of consciousness or emotion, or minds, or spirits, inhabiting non-personal bodies. The human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being—the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual—on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation. That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation.

We understand that many of our fellow citizens, including some Christians, believe that the historic definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a denial of equality or civil rights. They wonder what to say in reply to the argument that asserts that no harm would be done to them or to anyone if the law of the community were to confer upon two men or two women who are living together in a sexual partnership the status of being “married.” It would not, after all, affect their own marriages, would it? On inspection, however, the argument that laws governing one kind of marriage will not affect another cannot stand. Were it to prove anything, it would prove far too much: the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No. The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential.

No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage. Marriage is an objective reality—a covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good. If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow. First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized. Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as “marriages” sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non- marital and immoral. Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends. Sadly, we are today far from having a thriving marriage culture. But if we are to begin the critically important process of reforming our laws and mores to rebuild such a culture, the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is.

And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent concern for the common good (not “prejudice”), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. How could we, as Christians, do otherwise? The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God’s creation covenant. Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church. And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.

Religious Liberty

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners. Isaiah 61:1

Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. Matthew 22:21

The struggle for religious liberty across the centuries has been long and arduous, but it is not a novel idea or recent development. The nature of religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself, the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ. Determined to follow Jesus faithfully in life and death, the early Christians appealed to the manner in which the Incarnation had taken place: “Did God send Christ, as some suppose, as a tyrant brandishing fear and terror? Not so, but in gentleness and meekness..., for compulsion is no attribute of God” (Epistle to Diognetus 7.3-4). Thus the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the example of Christ Himself and in the very dignity of the human person created in the image of God—a dignity, as our founders proclaimed, inherent in every human, and knowable by all in the exercise of right reason.

Christians confess that God alone is Lord of the conscience. Immunity from religious coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience. No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.

It is ironic that those who today assert a right to kill the unborn, aged and disabled and also a right to engage in immoral sexual practices, and even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law—such persons claiming these “rights” are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.

We see this, for example, in the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience clauses, and therefore to compel pro- life institutions (including religiously affiliated hospitals and clinics), and pro-life physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other health care professionals, to refer for abortions and, in certain cases, even to perform or participate in abortions. We see it in the use of anti-discrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business. After the judicial imposition of “same-sex marriage” in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching. In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital “civil unions” scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions. In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality. New hate-crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here.

In recent decades a growing body of case law has paralleled the decline in respect for religious values in the media, the academy and political leadership, resulting in restrictions on the free exercise of religion. We view this as an ominous development, not only because of its threat to the individual liberty guaranteed to every person, regardless of his or her faith, but because the trend also threatens the common welfare and the culture of freedom on which our system of republican government is founded. Restrictions on the freedom of conscience or the ability to hire people of one’s own faith or conscientious moral convictions for religious institutions, for example, undermines the viability of the intermediate structures of society, the essential buffer against the overweening authority of the state, resulting in the soft despotism Tocqueville so prophetically warned of.1 Disintegration of civil society is a prelude to tyranny.

As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral. The biblical purpose of law is to preserve order and serve justice and the common good; yet laws that are unjust—and especially laws that purport to compel citizens to do what is unjust—undermine the common good, rather than serve it.

Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel. In Acts 4, Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching. Their answer was, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required. There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself. Unjust laws degrade human beings. Inasmuch as they can claim no authority beyond sheer human will, they lack any power to bind in conscience. King’s willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.

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.

Dr. Daniel Akin President, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Wake Forest, NC)

Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola Primate, Anglican Church of Nigeria (Abika, Nigeria)

Randy Alcorn Founder and Director, Eternal Perspective Ministries (EPM) (Sandy, OR)

Rt. Rev. David Anderson President and CEO, American Anglican Council (Atlanta, GA)

Leith Anderson President of National Association of Evangelicals (Washington, DC)

Charlotte K. Ardizzone TV Show Host and Speaker, INSP Television (Charlotte, NC)

Kay Arthur CEO and Co-founder, Precept Ministries International (Chattanooga, TN)

Dr. Mark L. Bailey President, Dallas Theological Seminary (Dallas, TX)

His Grace, The Right Reverend Bishop Basil Essey The Right Reverend Bishop of the Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America (Wichita, KS)

Joel Belz Founder, World Magazine (Asheville, NC)

Rev. Michael L. Beresford Managing Director of Church Relations, Billy Graham Evangelistic Assn. (Charlotte, NC)

Ken Boa President, Reflections Ministries (Atlanta, GA)

Joseph Bottum Editor of First Things (New York, NY)

Pastor Randy & Sarah Brannon Senior Pastor, Grace Community Church (Madera, CA)

Steve Brown National radio broadcaster, Key Life (Maitland, FL)

Dr. Robert C. Cannada, Jr. Chancellor and CEO of Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando, FL)

Galen Carey Director of Government Affairs, National Association of Evangelicals (Washington, DC)

Dr. Bryan Chapell President, Covenant Theological Seminary (St. Louis, MO)

Scott Chapman Senior Pastor, The Chapel (Libertyville, IL)

Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver, CO

Timothy Clinton President, American Association of Christian Counselors (Forest, VA)

Chuck Colson Founder, the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview (Lansdowne, VA)

Most Rev. Salvatore Joseph Cordileone Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland, CA

Dr. Gary Culpepper Associate Professor, Providence College (Providence, RI)

Jim Daly President and CEO, Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs, CO)

Marjorie Dannenfelser President, Susan B. Anthony List (Arlington, VA)

Rev. Daniel Delgado Board of Directors, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference & Pastor, Third Day Missions Church (Staten Island, NY)

Dr. James Dobson Founder, Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs, CO)

Dr. David Dockery President, Union University (Jackson, TN)

Most Rev. Timothy Dolan Archbishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of New York, NY

Dr. William Donohue President, Catholic League (New York, NY)

Dr. James T. Draper, Jr. President Emeritus, LifeWay (Nashville, TN)

Dinesh D’Souza Writer & Speaker (Rancho Santa Fe, CA)

Most Rev. Robert Wm. Duncan Archbishop and Primate, Anglican Church in North America (Ambridge, PA )

Joni Eareckson Tada Founder and CEO, Joni and Friends International Disability Center (Agoura Hills, CA)

Dr. Michael Easley President Emeritus, Moody Bible Institute (Chicago, IL)

Dr. William Edgar Professor, Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia, PA)

Brett Elder Executive Director, Stewardship Council (Grand Rapids, MI)

Rev. Joel Elowsky Drew University ( Madison, NJ)

Stuart Epperson Co-Founder and Chariman of the Board, Salem Communications Corporation ( Camarillo, CA)

Rev. Jonathan Falwell Senior Pastor, Thomas Road Baptist Church (Lynchburg, VA)

William J. Federer President, Amerisearch, Inc. (St. Louis, MO)

Fr. Joseph D. Fessio Founder and Editor, Ignatius Press (Ft. Collins, CO)

Carmen Fowler President & Executive Editor, Presbyterian Lay Committee (Lenoir, NC)

Maggie Gallagher President, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and a co-author of The Case for Marriage (Manassas, VA)

Dr. Jim Garlow Senior Pastor, Skyline Church (La Mesa, CA)

Steven Garofalo Senior Consultant, Search and Assessment Services (Charlotte, NC)

Dr. Robert P. George McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University (Princeton, NJ)

Dr. Timothy George Dean and Professor of Divinity, Beeson Divinity School at Samford University (Birmingham, AL)

Thomas Gilson Director of Strategic Processes, Campus Crusade for Christ International (Norfolk, VA)

Dr. Jack Graham Pastor, Prestonwood Baptist Church (Plano, TX)

Dr. Wayne Grudem Research Professor of Theological and Biblical Studies, Phoenix Seminary (Phoenix, AZ)

Dr. Cornell “Corkie” Haan National Facilitator of Spiritual Unity, The Mission America Coalition (Palm Desert, CA)

Fr. Chad Hatfield Chancellor, CEO. And Archpriest, St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary (Yonkers, NY)

Dr. Dennis Hollinger President and Professor of Christian Ethics, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (South Hamilton, MA)

Dr. Jeanette Hsieh Executive VP and Provost, Trinity International University (Deerfield, IL)

Dr. John A. Huffman, Jr. Senior Pastor, St. Andrews Presbyterian Church (Newport Beach, CA) and Chairman of the Board, Christianity Today International (Carol Stream, IL)

Rev. Ken Hutcherson Pastor, Antioch Bible Church (Kirkland, WA)

Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr. Senior Pastor, Hope Christian Church (Beltsville, MD)

Fr. Johannes L. Jacobse President, American Orthodox Institute and Editor, OrthodoxyToday.org (Naples, FL)

Jerry Jenkins Chairman of the board of trustees for Moody Bible Institute (Black Forest, CO)

Camille Kampouris Publisher, Kairos Journal

Emmanuel A. Kampouris Editorial Board, Kairos Journal

Rev. Tim Keller Senior Pastor, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (New York, NY)

Dr. Peter Kreeft Professor of Philosophy, Boston College (MA) and at the Kings Collge (NY)

Most Rev. Joseph E. Kurtz Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Louisville, KY

Jim Kushiner Editor, Touchstone (Chicago, IL)

Dr. Richard Land President, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC (Washington, DC)

Jim Law Senior Associate Pastor, First Baptist Church (Woodstock, GA)

Dr. Matthew Levering Associate Professor of Theology, Ave Maria University (Naples, FL)

Dr. Peter Lillback President, The Providence Forum (West Conshohocken, PA)

Dr. Duane Litfin President, Wheaton College (Wheaton, IL)

Rev. Herb Lusk Pastor, Greater Exodus Baptist Church (Philadelphia, PA)

His Eminence Adam Cardinal Maida Archbishop Emeritus, Roman Catholic Diocese of Detroit, MI

Most Rev. Richard J. Malone Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, ME

Rev. Francis Martin Professor of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Heart Major Seminary (Detroit, MI)

Dr. Joseph Mattera Bishop & Senior Pastor, Resurrection Church (Brooklyn, NY)

Phil Maxwell Pastor, Gateway Church (Bridgewater, NJ)

Josh McDowell Founder, Josh McDowell Ministries (Plano, TX)

Alex McFarland President, Southern Evangelical Seminary (Charlotte, NC)

Most Rev. George Dallas McKinney Bishop, & Founder and Pastor, St. Stephen’s Church of God in Christ (San Diego, CA)

Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns Missionary Bishop, Convocation of Anglicans of North America (Herndon, VA)

Dr. C. Ben Mitchell Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy, Union University (Jackson, TN)

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY)

Dr. Russell D. Moore Senior VP for Academic Administration & Dean of the School of Theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY)

Most Rev. John J. Myers Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark, NJ

Most Rev. Joseph F. Naumann Archbishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Kansas City, KS

David Neff Editor-in-Chief, Christianity Today (Carol Stream, IL)

Tom Nelson Senior Pastor, Christ Community Evangelical Free Church (Leawood, KS)

Niel Nielson President, Covenant College (Lookout Mt., GA)

Most Rev. John Nienstedt Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, MN

Dr. Tom Oden Theologian, United Methodist Minister and Professor, Drew University (Madison, NJ)

Marvin Olasky Editor-in-Chief, World Magazine and provost, The Kings College (New York City, NY)

Most Rev. Thomas J. Olmsted Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix, AZ

Rev. William Owens Chairman, Coalition of African-American Pastors (Memphis, TN)

Dr. J.I. Packer Board of Governors’ Professor of Theology, Regent College (Canada)

Metr. Jonah Paffhausen Primate, Orthodox Church in America (Syosset, NY)

Tony Perkins President, Family Research Council (Washington, D.C.)

Eric M. Pillmore CEO, Pillmore Consulting LLC (Doylestown, PA)

Dr. Everett Piper President, Oklahoma Wesleyan University (Bartlesville, OK)

Todd Pitner President, Rev Increase

Dr. Cornelius Plantinga President, Calvin Theological Seminary (Grand Rapids, MI)

Dr. David Platt Pastor, Church at Brook Hills (Birmingham AL)

Rev. Jim Pocock Pastor, Trinitarian Congregational Church (Wayland, MA)

Fred Potter Executive Director & CEO, Christian Legal Society (Springfield, VA)

Dennis Rainey President, CEO, & Co-Founder, FamilyLife (Little Rock, AR)

Fr. Patrick Reardon Pastor, All Saints’ Antiochian Orthodox Church (Chicago, IL)

Bob Reccord Founder, Total Life Impact, Inc. (Suwanee, GA)

His Eminence Justin Cardinal Rigali Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia, PA

Frank Schubert President, Schubert Flint Public Affairs (Sacramento, CA)

David Schuringa President, Crossroads Bible Institute (Grand Rapids, MI)

Tricia Scribner Author (Harrisburg, NC)

Dr. Dave Seaford Senior Pastor, Community Fellowship Church (Matthews, NC)

Alan Sears President, CEO, & General Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund (Scottsdale, AZ)

Randy Setzer Senior Pastor, Macedonia Baptist Church (Lincolnton, NC)

Most Rev. Michael J. Sheridan Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs, CO

Dr. Ron Sider Director, Evangelicals for Social Action (Wynnewood, PA)

Fr. Robert Sirico Founder, Acton Institute (Grand Rapids, MI)

Dr. Robert Sloan President, Houston Baptist University (Houston, TX)

Charles Stetson Chairman of the Board, Bible Literacy Project (New York, NY)

Dr. David Stevens CEO, Christian Medical & Dental Association (Bristol, TN)

John Stonestreet Executive Director, Summit Ministries (Manitou Springs, CO)

Dr. Joseph Stowell President, Cornerstone University (Grand Rapids, MI)

Dr. Sarah Sumner Professor of Theology and Ministry, Azusa Pacific University (Azusa, CA)

Dr. Glenn Sunshine Chairman of the history department of Central Connecticut State University (New Britain, CT)

Luiz Tellez President, The Witherspoon Institute (Princeton, NJ)

Dr. Timothy C. Tennent Professor, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (South Hamilton, MA)

Michael Timmis Chairman, Prison Fellowship and Prison Fellowship International (Naples, FL)

Mark Tooley President, Institute for Religion and Democracy (Washington, D.C.)

H. James Towey President, St. Vincent College (Latrobe, PA)

Juan Valdes Middle and High School Chaplain, Flordia Christian School (Miami, FL)

Todd Wagner Pastor, WaterMark Community Church (Dallas, TX)

Dr. Graham Walker President, Patrick Henry Univ. (Purcellville, VA)

Alexander F. C. Webster Archpriest, Orthodox Church in America and Associate Professorial Lecturer, The George Washington University (Ft. Belvoir, VA)

George Weigel Distinguished Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center (Washington, D.C.)

David Welch Houston Area Pastor Council Executive Director, US Pastors Council (Houston, TX)

Dr. James White Founding and Senior Pastor, Mecklenberg Community Church (Charlotte, NC)

Dr. Hayes Wicker Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church (Naples, FL)

Mark Williamson Founder and President, Foundation Restoration Ministries/Federal Intercessors (Katy, TX)

Dr. Craig Williford President, Trinity International University (Deerfield, IL)

Dr. John Woodbridge Research professor of Church History & the History of Christian Thought, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, IL)

Don M. Woodside Performance Matters Associates (Matthews, NC)

Dr. Frank Wright President, National Religious Broadcasters (Manassas, VA)

Most Rev. Donald W. Wuerl Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.

Paul Young COO & Executive VP, Christian Research Institute (Charlotte, NC)

Dr. Michael Youssef President, Leading the Way (Atlanta, GA)

Ravi Zacharias Founder and Chairman of the board, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (Norcross, GA)

Most Rev. David A. Zubik Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, PA

Amen
159 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/comments  Bookmark and Share
Comments:

My favorite part:

“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.”

[1] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-20-2009 at 04:12 PM • top

I searched and did not find the word “episcopal” in the signatures list.

[2] Posted by Michael D on 11-20-2009 at 04:28 PM • top

Not that it’s a surprise at all, but there are a notable lack of Episcopalians on the list of signatories.  I may have missed someone, but I saw not one name associated in any way, shape or form with the apostate monstousity that is ECUSA (or TEC if you are so inclined).  This further strengthens the validity of the document as a whole in my humble opinion.

[3] Posted by Sacerdotal451 on 11-20-2009 at 04:31 PM • top

A very strong statement, and made stronger by the wide variety of folks willing to put their names on it.

VERY proud to see my Archbishop’s name there (++Robert Wm Duncan).

The Rev’d Darin R. Lovelace
Iowa

[4] Posted by frdarin on 11-20-2009 at 04:49 PM • top

“If you can make people think they’re thinking they’ll love you. But if you make people REALLY think, they’ll hate you.” Unfortunately, this beautiful and courageous statement is not something that an Episcopalian would even understand.

[5] Posted by JPC on 11-20-2009 at 05:01 PM • top

Thrilling!

[6] Posted by Floridian on 11-20-2009 at 05:31 PM • top

Why aren’t there more female names on the list? It would make a stronger case.

[7] Posted by Fr. Dale on 11-20-2009 at 07:04 PM • top

Wonder why Rick Warren’s signature was not on the list…

[8] Posted by veritas2007 on 11-20-2009 at 07:22 PM • top

This is a list of heavy hitters, and I am glad to see many of “my people” on the list.  Now they all need to get in the pulpits and media and educate their followers about how important it is to take such a stand.  This will have a ripple effect as more will hear and want to be on the Godley side.  There will be hyper-spratist who will stand aloof, but it will still encourage and stiffen them to resist.  This is a declaration of war.  Couple this with the states that say they are going to appeal to the Tenth Ammendment and not allow this “new thang” to take over our country could be interesting.  We need to pray that these leaders don’t go wobbly on us in the future and heat of battle and sacrifice that will follow.  IMHO

[9] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 11-20-2009 at 08:04 PM • top

This declaration needs to go to every newspaper and radio/tv network in the country.  It needs to get maximum exposure in every city and town all over North America.

This declaration is powerful stuff!

[10] Posted by Cennydd on 11-20-2009 at 08:21 PM • top

veritas2007, I wondered the same thing after looking for and not finding Rick Warren’s name.  John Piper was not there either, nor were Mark Driscoll, Brian McLaren, Richard Foster nor Dallas Willard.

Notable absences.

[11] Posted by Floridian on 11-20-2009 at 08:38 PM • top

You can electronically sign the declaration by going to this web site:
Manhattan Declaration
Click on “Sign The Declaration”, fill in:
First Name: 
Last Name: 
Email address:
City: 
State:
Select a state…
Zip:
And key-enter the two spam-stopper words.

From the site: “All information is kept strictly confidential and will not be displayed.”

My comment about the non-display: This serves two purposes - your own privacy and prevention of weirdoes and those adamantly opposed from adding expletives as names.

There are currently a bit over 4000 signatories.

[12] Posted by Bill Cool on 11-20-2009 at 09:13 PM • top

It’s a lead pipe cinch that no one from TEC will ever sign onto this.

[13] Posted by Cennydd on 11-20-2009 at 10:49 PM • top

The original list of signatories were all part of a conference together in NY, so whatever women responded to the invitation to the conference were there to sign. They (we) can feel free to sign on now! Proud, like you, Darin, to see our Archbishop and other Anglican leaders. Also proud that IRD President Mark Tooley is there, and three of our board members, Dr. Robbie George, Dr. Tom Oden, and George Weigel.

[14] Posted by FaithieJ on 11-20-2009 at 11:32 PM • top

I am signatory # 4891.
Fr Rob Eaton, Rector, St John Parish, Tulare, CA

[15] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 11-21-2009 at 12:09 AM • top

veritas2007 (#8) and Floridian (#11), I would not put too much emphasis on the fact that John Piper or Rick Warren are not listed.  The list of signatories is very spotty and seems to consist of those the sponsors of the Declaration, The DeMoss Group had on their list to contact. 

The DeMoss Group’s list apparently included the American Anglican Council, since Bp. David Anderson is listed.  Then since Bp. Anderson is a CANA bishop, this led to Bp. Martyn Minns and Abp. Peter Akinola being included.  Then, since CANA is a part of ACNA, this led to Abp. Duncan being included. 

Notice that no AMiA bishops are included (which is a significant omission), nor are any CP bishops, even though Bp. John Howe was a founder of NOEL, now renamed Anglicans for Life, and is unequaled among Anglican bishops as a pro-life champion.  This tends to support my thesis that the trail went from AAC, to CANA, to ACNA (and no further).

And, while other traditions (Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, independent Evangelicals, and Eastern Orthodox) thought to include seminary presidents among their signatories, the only Anglicans included are bishops, with the exception of J.I. Packer and Joni Eareckson Tada—who were probably invited to sign by their evangelical friends, not by the Anglicans.

I cannot accept FaithieJ’s suggestion (#14) that ALL the participants were at a conference in NYC, since I know some of the signatories were not in NYC on those dates.

[16] Posted by ToAllTheWorld on 11-21-2009 at 12:18 AM • top

This is actually a call to the Church to repent and return to God and to live by a Christian conscience and the common Christian beliefs and values in the our conduct and in our hearts.

This may be one of the last chances for the Church to repent and save our land as II Chronicles 7:14 directs. 

“If MY PEOPLE, who are called by MY NAME, will humble THEMSELVES and pray and seek my face and turn from THEIR wicked ways, THEN I will hear from heaven and forgive THEIR sins and heal their land.”

The LORD looks to His Church to repent and to lead the way to Righteousness, Peace and Joy.  Judgment begins in the household of Faith. 

At this time, the Church is in grave need of repentance.  We, His Church, have forgotten or neglected to cherish, honor and live Holy Truth, Love and Life defined by the nature of our LORD Jesus Christ and by HIS word. 

We have let darkness enter our minds through choices, beliefs and attitudes that depart from Scripture.
We have let darkness enter our relationships through hardness of heart, refusing to love, forgive, refusing to ask forgiveness and refusing to change our hurtful behaviors, through lies and betrayal and disrespect for human beings and for the sanctity of human life.
We have let darkness enter our homes through the effluent spewed in by the media, internet and by neglecting worship of the True and Living God and by not making our homes into holy sanctuaries of peace and love.
We have let darkness enter our churches through unbelief, neglect, apathy, carnality, selfishness, willfulness, giving place to evil and allowing deceptive unbiblical agendas, pagan religions and carnality to pollute and displace the Gospel message and the power of God.  We have worshipped an empty, lifeless and powerless form of godliness, denying the power thereof.’

We must again let Him be the light of the world through us or our nation and the world, our minds and hearts, our families and our churches will grow even darker.  A new dark age is advancing upon us.  Forces of evil are aligning to overwhelm the nations and the world.  For the sake of human civilization, we, the people of God, MUST repent and return to the LORD.

[17] Posted by Theodora on 11-21-2009 at 06:41 AM • top

I’m #1437.

Floridian: There’s no way Brian McLaren would be seen in the company of these troglodytes, even if he agreed with every word. Jim Wallis is another person who, in theory, should be here, but he also wouldn’t be caught dead in the same time zone as these people. I appreciate the fact that Ron Sider, though he has significant disagreements on other issues with many of the people on this list, signed on nevertheless, since he agrees with them on the issues actually discussed.

[18] Posted by David Fischler on 11-21-2009 at 07:45 AM • top

There are so many luminaries who agree with these statements, it would have been impossible for them all to be included in the signatory list.  Discussion of who was not included detracts from the document itself.  There were enough signatories to plant a flag, and that is what is important.

[19] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 11-21-2009 at 07:55 AM • top

Floridian

“Mark Driscoll, Brian McLaren, Richard Foster nor Dallas Willard…”

These guys have very little in common. Brian McLaren is a heretic and would not be in this group. Mark Driscoll is an orthodox Calvinist. Don’t know Richard Foster, but Dallas Willard is an orthodox philosopher

[20] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-21-2009 at 07:58 AM • top

Thank God for these people. What a great declaration - clear and concise. I’m so glad to see so many Roman Catholics and Anglicans among the signatories.

[21] Posted by Nellie on 11-21-2009 at 08:03 AM • top

I also see this as a Call to Conscience - a call to the Church to repent and to return to a sanctified Christian Conscience that conforms to the mind of Christ and the Word of God.

We shall have to look for statements from the people I mentioned above: John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Brian McLaren, Richard Foster, Dallas Willard and other leaders in the Body of Christ in response to this statement.  I hope they will sign this in complete and whole-hearted sincerity, not due to pressure or to save face and I hope and pray they will mean it enough to preach it and call the Church to live it. 

This document is almost a sequel to the Chicago Inerrancy statements, that to my mind, present the basic common Faith, a kind of Vincentian Canon of the Church of the ages.  I would love to see the Chicago Inerrancy documents engaged by the above Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical signers of this document and have them issue a common stand on Scripture, theology and life in the Church.  As I recall, Evangelicals and Catholics have recently done some work in this regard.

The Manhattan Declaration presents an authentic and comprehensive Christian stand, from the side of the Angels.  It is aligned with the Word of God and the Gospel of Holy Truth, Love and Life. 

Anything less is a slippery slope that leads to degradation, destruction and death.

The Body of Christ will now have to choose. 

The devil trembles when Christians stand together in holiness and unity for then the power and anointing of God flows down from Heaven.  (Psalm 133)

[22] Posted by Floridian on 11-21-2009 at 08:20 AM • top

PS - I believe we Anglicans are about to hear a strong clear (and much-needed) call from Dean Robert S. Munday. 

The first notes of his trumpet may be heard here:

http://toalltheworld.blogspot.com/

[23] Posted by Floridian on 11-21-2009 at 08:35 AM • top

Michael Youseff, who considers himself an “independent Anglican,” is a signer.

[24] Posted by James Manley on 11-21-2009 at 09:38 AM • top

Fr. Rob,
How did you sign on?  I don’t see links provided either here or at the site referenced by Matt+.

As Fr. Rob’s message demonstrates, there are members of TEC signing on, so let’s leave off the anti-TEC commentary, and restrict our criticism to TEC leadership, or name names.  The last TEC parish I was really a part of was appalled by what was coming out of the diocesan offices and was an active participant in local pro-life activities.  I suspect that is true of some parishes throughout the country.

[25] Posted by tjmcmahon on 11-21-2009 at 09:41 AM • top

I am conflicted by this statement.  It looks and sounds and smells and feels like ECT.  It seems to imply agreement by the signatories on basic essential doctrine.  Co-belligerents in the culture war must have some level of agreement. Otherwise the temporal concerns of the nation will be elevated above the eternal imperatives of the Gospel.  Hence my conflict.  Will the common fight against the Culture of Death ultimately compromise the need to present the Truth to our co-belligerents?  Will we compromise Truth for the sake of unity?  This was precisely the concern that led so many to reject ECT.

Al Mohler (who signed this declaration) presented some thoughts on this matter.  He presents the idea that Standing Apart from one another is just as important as Standing Together.

[S]tanding apart is also a part of our witness to each other and to the larger secular world. If we authentically honor truth, we dare not compromise that which we believe to be true. With this in mind, I offer some humble principles for theological truth-telling among the three traditions here in question.

First, we must be absolutely honest with each other, both in our agreements and our disagreements.

Second, we must strive for genuine understanding, and not settle for caricatures of the other’s convictions.

Third, we must seek to understand the parts in light of the whole. That is, no truth is understood in isolation from other truths. We must aim for the larger understanding.

Fourth, we must hope for the best from each other, and never celebrate the discovery or affirmation of aberrant doctrine in the other.

Fifth, we must be careful with words and specific in clarity. Confusion harms all concerned, and clarity is never to be feared. We must be ready to admit disagreement and agreement where each is appropriate.

Sixth, we must not personalize the issues at stake or the doctrines in question. We cannot afford to speak to each other with a false concern for personal feelings or what the secular world considers the politically correct etiquette. When convictions collide, we may both be wrong, but we cannot both be right.

Seventh and finally, we must be ready to stand together in cultural co-belligerence, rooted in a common core of philosophical and theological principles, without demanding confessional agreement or pretending that this has been achieved. We must contend for the right of Christian moral witness in secular society. We indeed need to be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves to know how to contend for Christian truth in what Robert P. George rightly identifies as “the clash of orthodoxies”

carl

[26] Posted by carl on 11-21-2009 at 09:47 AM • top

#25 tymcmahon asks how to sign the Declaration.

Here is the link:
http://manhattandeclaration.org/decsign.php

[27] Posted by Silver Lake Catholic on 11-21-2009 at 10:08 AM • top

By email, I just received a notice about the health care bill that this Declaration is designed to address in part. 

There may be a procedural vote to bring the Healthcare bill to the floor for debate in the Senate today, Nov. 21.  The Senate vote on passage will probably come right after Thanksgiving. 

At this site (http://www.healthcarevote.com/) you complete and submit a Healthcare survey that will automatically go to your representative to tell them how you feel about healthcare reform before the next vote on the healthcare bill. 

The sender asked that this notice and link be forwarded as widely as possible.

[28] Posted by Theodora on 11-21-2009 at 10:19 AM • top

By the time I got through to sign the Declaration, at 11:25AM, there were 6398 signers.

[29] Posted by Floridian on 11-21-2009 at 10:31 AM • top

Hi Carl,

I don’t think of this as another type of ECT which purported to articulate a general agreement—which turned out to be no real agreement at all beyond, of course, common semantics—with regard to theological issues that have divided Rome from evangelicals since the Reformation. I agree that the ECT was worthy of rejection by evangelicals. But this statement deals with areas in which, genuinely, we do agree. There is no harm, I think, in saying so publicly

[30] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-21-2009 at 10:59 AM • top

How supremely encouraging. In this declaration the Church speaks definitively and prophetically. Thank the Lord.

As our culture rushes to dehumanize man in redefining him apart from God, I was so heartened by how the summary nailed each of the three main points to His creating mankind, in His image.

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 non-believers 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.

Another statement that brought joy to my heart:
“We stand resolutely against the corrupt and degrading notion that it can somehow be in the best interests of women to submit to the deliberate killing of their unborn children.”

I appreciated the acknowledgment of the “critical pedagogical function” of the law. It is so crucial to work against “ground-breaking legislation” because far beyond authorizing mere regulations, our laws become societal sanction for the policies they establish.

The deep, thorough explanation of marriage was superb and ought to hearten and fortify everyday believers with answers to the prevailing view of marriage as a tool for self-fulfillment. The entire document was extremely thoughtful and well-written. Whoever drew this up so eloquently is in my book the Thomas Jefferson of our Declaration of Christian Pro-Life Conscience (and better, as the writer is thoroughly orthodox).

[31] Posted by wingshadow on 11-21-2009 at 11:06 AM • top

Wow .. that is long statement! The signatures are as long as the statement itself!

I don’t have the time to read and ponder the whole thing, but I am curious why fear, I guess I see it more as call to stand in action based on common beliefs verses a confession statement of common beliefs. Meaning if one omitted all Biblical reference, folks could easily sign on, but giving those references is more a statement that it is due to our faith we believe these things.

[32] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 11-21-2009 at 11:08 AM • top

Amen!!  Signed it yesterday and will spend part of today asking our Order to all sign.

[33] Posted by ammakate on 11-21-2009 at 12:09 PM • top

[30] Matt Kennedy

But this statement deals with areas in which, genuinely, we do agree. There is no harm, I think, in saying so publicly

As I said, I am conflicted.  It is imperative that we unite to fight the common evil.  But it did not fail to escape my notice that no Mormons are included in this declaration.  Mormonism is in reality a form of polytheistic paganism cloaked in Christian language.  Yet Mormons would agree with large chucks of this declaration.  Their exclusion from the declaration is intentional and predicated entirely upon doctrinal disagreement.  So a level of doctrinal unity is being presumed in this declaration. 

How far does that presumption extend?  Can Evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox all say the following statement from the Declaration, confident the words have the same meaning to all the signers? 

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.

Can I proclaim the Gospel in its fullness if I ignore the difference between Catholic and Protestant and Orthodox definitions of it?  Dr Mohler’s piece was very helpful to me.  But I remain conflicted. 

carl

[34] Posted by carl on 11-21-2009 at 12:11 PM • top

The original signatories were together at a conference in New York, others were added later, and now anyone who can agree is free to sign. I praise God that evangelicals (and there are some evangelicals with whom I have a heck of a lot more disagreement than any I might have with Catholics—mostly because they do not have any rigorous theological scholarship, which you surely cannot say is missing from Catholic doctrine), Catholics, and Orthodox together. Good grief, instead of looking to see who has not signed it, why not just sign it and be glad for such a powerful statement and witness. Or don’t.

[35] Posted by FaithieJ on 11-21-2009 at 12:34 PM • top

I wouldn’t say that DeMoss sponsored the Declaration. DeMoss is the public relations/promotion firm. The Declaration was written by Robbie George, Timothy George, and Chuck Colson. I think some of the original signatories were invited not just for theological reasons, but because they have been active in Christian witness in public policy.

[36] Posted by FaithieJ on 11-21-2009 at 12:47 PM • top

Thanks for the link, I am 7199.

[37] Posted by tjmcmahon on 11-21-2009 at 12:53 PM • top

FaithieJ

“nd there are some evangelicals with whom I have a heck of a lot more disagreement than any I might have with Catholics—mostly because they do not have any rigorous theological scholarship, which you surely cannot say is missing from Catholic doctrine”

Do you really mean to suggest that evangelicals “do not have any rigorous scholarship?”

I very much hope that you do not.

[38] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-21-2009 at 01:33 PM • top

FaithieJ [35]

“there are some evangelicals with whom I have a heck of a lot more disagreement than any I might have with Catholics—mostly because they do not have any rigorous theological scholarship”

Matt [38] said: Do you really mean to suggest that evangelicals “do not have any rigorous scholarship?”

The semantics of what FaithieJ actually said is that “they [some evangelicals] do not have any rigorous scholarship”. That is certainly true, as it is also true that some <xyz> [insert your own choice of denominational group] do not have any rigorous scholarship. Although true, it is painted with such a wide but diffuse brush stroke as to be pretty much irrelevant.

FaithieJ does not say what Matt implies - that all evangelicals in general “do not have any rigorous scholarship”. That may have been intended, but was not said, and would of course been silly hyperbole.

[39] Posted by Bill Cool on 11-21-2009 at 02:12 PM • top

Hi Bill Cool. I did not “imply” anything at all. I asked.

And my question remains. I just want to know what she meant.

[40] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-21-2009 at 02:14 PM • top

Cennyd,

I am an Episcopal priest and I signed it.  Does that make me a lead pipe cinch or just an anomaly?

Fr. Bill Ledbetter, Los Angeles

[41] Posted by loyal opposition on 11-21-2009 at 02:59 PM • top

I’m still in tec, and couldn’t sign this courageous statement quickly enough.

[42] Posted by dpchalk+ on 11-21-2009 at 04:29 PM • top

8181 signatures!

[43] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 11-21-2009 at 04:43 PM • top

I’m in at 8,565, I think.

[44] Posted by oscewicee on 11-21-2009 at 06:09 PM • top

41 Nope, loyal opposition, it doesn’t.  I was actually referring to those Episcopal prelates who owe their loyalty to your Presiding Bishop.  My error in not making myself clear.

[45] Posted by Cennydd on 11-21-2009 at 06:28 PM • top

And I too signed the declaration.

[46] Posted by Cennydd on 11-21-2009 at 06:30 PM • top

I am #8,791 - still on the books at TEC but not sure I’m still in it

[47] Posted by Annie03185 on 11-21-2009 at 07:00 PM • top

Sorry to keep you waiting, Matt, I’ve been away from the computer. No, of course I do not mean that evangelicals do not have rigorous scholarship—who could look at those such as yourself and say that! But there are evangelicals, particularly outside of the historic churches, who are deficient on that quarter, such as certain sectors of Evangelicalism that are going all “emergent” for example.

[48] Posted by FaithieJ on 11-21-2009 at 11:43 PM • top

I’m about #12,666, signing very late Sat. night.  I am Eastern Orthodox (catechumen).

[49] Posted by Miss Sippi on 11-22-2009 at 12:52 AM • top

Where is Sewanee Episcopal University alumnus Jon Meacham (former trustee, former regent, current search committee for next Vice Chancellor, Sewanee homeowner, editor of failing Newsweep magazine) on this Manhattan Declaration? When will Meacham pronounce to the enlightened, correct thinking, inclusive policy makers how they are supposed to respond? Maybe he’s working up something special to top this

...In the latest issue of Newsweek, editor Jon Meacham explains: “To argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition.” Indeed, he continues, “this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism.”

[50] Posted by EQB Sewanee Stand Firm on 11-22-2009 at 01:03 AM • top

I just signed - #13629. I’m Catholic btw.

[51] Posted by kilash on 11-22-2009 at 04:16 AM • top

This is one of Christendom’s great Declarations. 

It calls for a response, for taking a firm, unmoving, “Here I stand. I can do no other.” kind of position, and for sacrifice, if need be.

Copy it to Word, print, read and study it carefully.  Pray and think about it.  Ask the LORD for wisdom and clarity and for His will in how to respond.

The Manhattan Declaration calls us, if we are Christ’s to take a stand against the culture of death and slavery to carnality and to stand without flinching and equivocating for the right of Christian conscience, religious freedom and the sanctity of human life. 

We must stand as believing Christians NOW if we ever do. 

This is our moment to be faithful if we ever are going to be.

How do you begin to take the stand that this Declaration calls us to do?

If you truly embrace all that the Declaration contains, I have some practical suggestions on how you can translate it into your life after signing it.

Send the Manhattan Declaration as a Word document as an attachment to everyone on your email and postal lists along with the link to sign it and a brief letter explaining what it is and why it is important. 

If you do not now belong to a pro-life group like Anglicans for Life, join or talk with your pastor about forming one in your church.  If he is opposed, form a group in your neighborhood or city. 

Get together with your group to pray and study, and to counsel together how to act, wisely and lovingly. 
Contact Georgette Forney at the Anglicans for Life website (http://www.anglicansforlife.org/index/)
There is good information to help you and your church become active in the cause of LIFE. 

You or your group can send or hand deliver the Declaration to all the churches in your town.  OR, make an appointment for two of you to go and speak with the pastors and give them a copy of the declaration and other pro-life books and brochures.  If they equivocate or decline, ask them why and write down their reasons.  Pray with your group for these pastors and ask God to work in their hearts and how you can meet and answer their objections at a later time, after the Holy Spirit has worked.

If you have been pro-abortion, influenced someone to have an abortion, or were involved in the abortion busines, or had an abortion or more than one, and you can see how your heart and life have been affected, there truly is help and healing in God’s merciful abundant grace of forgiveness and redeeming, restoring love. 
 
Contact Georgette Forney at Anglicans for Life.  Go to go the Silent No More site. (http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/)

There are healing and educational groups and resources at many crisis pregnancy centers and churches for post-abortion-minded or abortion-wounded people.  You will not be shamed or scolded, only helped, healed and embraced by the love of God.  I know, for I am one of those people whose heart, soul and life was scarred and changed by abortion.

The Lord Eternal, Who is Love, Truth and Life, be with thee and with thy spirit.  Amen

[52] Posted by Floridian on 11-22-2009 at 07:01 AM • top

I signed it very early this morning after a thorough reading and due consideration of the public signers. I have commended it to many others and will continue to do so. The citations to early church understanding and practice in these matters is key and serves to help us find common ground with our brethren of different traditions. Today I remember CS Lewis (22 Nov 1963). As I compose this post I am re-reading potions of Mere Christianity by Lewis and cannot help but believe that he would have found this Declaration to have been in that realm of merely Christian.  His purpose was “to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times.” Certainly the Declaration meets that goal.
Thank you.
Mark

[53] Posted by Mark Carroll on 11-22-2009 at 01:32 PM • top

I’ll be reading this carefully and I expect to sign it in a little while.  Thrilled to see ++Duncan and +Minns on this list along with other Anglican leaders.  Awesome.

[54] Posted by Karen B. on 11-23-2009 at 04:07 AM • top
[55] Posted by Chris on 11-23-2009 at 12:57 PM • top

This morning there were over 31,000 signatures.  Now, at 3:02pm, there are:  48,020 signers

[56] Posted by Floridian on 11-23-2009 at 02:02 PM • top

subscribe

[57] Posted by ewart-touzot on 11-23-2009 at 04:17 PM • top

Alastair Begg wouldn’t sign it.  Matt+, do you have any further insight or understanding as to why he couldn’t bring himself to do so?  I respect his decision but I’m a little disappointed.

[58] Posted by Jill C. on 11-23-2009 at 05:05 PM • top

Hi Jill,

It looks like Begg decided not to sign for some of the same reasons that gave Carl pause above. He was afraid that signing the statement might give the false impression that evangelicals and Catholics share the same fundamental beliefs.

I do not agree that this statement does that for the reasons I noted above in my discussion with Carl, but certainly respect his decision and there is no question that he would be willing to exercise the same sort of civil disobedience if necessary.

[59] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-23-2009 at 05:09 PM • top

I will back up then and read your discussion with Carl.  (Somehow that got overlooked here!)  Thanks Matt!  smile

[60] Posted by Jill C. on 11-23-2009 at 05:12 PM • top

Alistair Begg wrote:  “... I cannot in conscience sign on with those with whom I have fundamental disagreements on the nature of the Gospel. (I just re-read Calvin in the Institutes, Book IV, section 18.)”

Ultimately, the Gospel is the issue and it needs to govern issues of lesser or secondary importance, including those mentioned in this document.  It is my prayer that the truth of God’s Word will bring the Gospel to bear on these important issues that are affecting our culture today.  Alistair Begg”

[61] Posted by Floridian on 11-23-2009 at 05:13 PM • top

Alistair Begg is friends with many of the framers of the declaration, and was at the meetings.  It is significant that he has not said that he disagrees with anything said in the declaration, just that he did not feel comfortable signing the document with leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, with whom he disagrees on other issues.

I am a fan of Begg, but at this stage in our cultural battle, the combined force of the Roman Catholic and orthodox Protestant communities need to be joined. Begg also has a unique constituancy,and has pragmatic considerations that may not be shared in full by others. 

I encourage all to sign.

[63] Posted by Going Home on 11-23-2009 at 05:37 PM • top

I believe this document to be a political declaration more than a theological debate.  It is a statement of the sanctity of life and how it cannot be separated from life’s creator.  I think not to sign it lest someone think Catholics and Evangelicals could actually converse is insulting and demeans the whole process. 

Carl, I very seldom disagree with you but I very much consider your reaction to this document as petty, missing the impact of this moment.  The culture of death must be confronted in the unity of the Christ, not our in our theological pride and purity.  It is time to stand up, even if you really don’t like the one standing by you.

[64] Posted by Elizabeth on 11-23-2009 at 05:38 PM • top

Hi Elizabeth,

I think you have missed both Begg’s and Carl’s point.

Begg did not say that he would not sign it “lest someone think Catholics and Evangelicals could actually converse…”

The words you put into his mouth are “insulting” and far mroe demeaning than anything Begg said.

Begg is a man of conscience. Why not respect that instead of berating him? The same is true for Carl.

[65] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-23-2009 at 05:45 PM • top

Fr Matt,

The time is here to take a stand together, not make excuses why I cannot.  Again- I believe this to be more a political statement- to declare to a dying world just how important life is.  The world sees Christianity as wimpy, compromising and willing to set aside Truth in order to be accepted into the the “enlightened “culture”.


I am glad these are men of conscience, having read many of Carl’s posts I would totally agree.  But this document is not directed to theologians or even Christians.  It is directed to those in power who serve a different master and expect the Church to fall in line without complaint and even in complicity. And the idea that Catholic and Protestant might actually stand together will surprise them.

The battle is joined and we need to know who is truly the enemy.

[66] Posted by Elizabeth on 11-23-2009 at 06:05 PM • top

Matt,  Elizabeth spoke carelessly perhaps.  But, pared down to essentials, the script goes something like this.  Catholic,” I am against abortion and gay marriage, I’ll sign this statement”  Orthodox , “I am against abortion and and gay marriage, I’ll sign this statement.:”  Evangelical other than Begg: “I am against abortion and gay marriage; I’ll sign this statement.”  Begg: “I can’t sign this statement because I disagree with the Catholics and the Orthodox about justification.  I don’t see how signing this statement in any way implies that he does agree with them about other issues.  His action makes me feel as if he regards Catholics (not sure if the Orthodox are really on his radar screen) sort of the way we all regard Mormons, as not really Christians.  While the Catholic Chruch does not need his approval, I find it a little painful that he would think that.
Susan Peterson

[67] Posted by eulogos on 11-23-2009 at 06:10 PM • top

Hi Matt,

I think you missed Elizabeth’s point.  This declaration is really more of a political statement on some moral and legal debates confronting our society than it is a theological one.

Alistair Begg doesn’t agree with Roman Catholics on some issues of the Gospel.  (Presumably he would agree with them on the points in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creed, even though, as a Baptist, he doesn’t say the Creeds.) He does agree with them on the questions of abortion and the definition of marriage. 

No one with any sense would construe his agreement on this declaration as a blanket endorsement of everything Roman Catholics believe.  One of the strengths of a Declaration like this is when people who might have differences in other important areas can, nevertheless, say, “But on THIS we speak with one voice.”  It is the kind of witness our society needs.  Begg is totally within his rights not to sign, but I am disappointed that he didn’t.

Robert S. Munday+

[68] Posted by ToAllTheWorld on 11-23-2009 at 06:18 PM • top

Church.
And actually there is nothing to keep Mormons from signing this statement; they probably agree and their political help would be useful.  But when it starts out by talking about the martyrs in the arena, it is uncomfortable to think of Mormons as Christian martyrs.  Although I suppose there have been adherents of various heresies through the ages who died rather than renounce the name of Christ.  Perhaps a Mormon would do so, or think he ought to and try to, which is all we can say we would do.  Still, there is a feeling of discomfort about it.  Begg has that feeling about Catholics, as I interpret it.  This is a shock to me, as we include the names of some of these martyrs in our Eucharistic canon, and certainly think of them as Catholics!  From that point of view, it is painful to me that he thinks so.  From a political point of view,  such division is unfortunate, as Elizabeth says.
Susan Peterson

[69] Posted by eulogos on 11-23-2009 at 06:25 PM • top

Many heroes of the faith. I humbly added my name to the list, number 59198.

[70] Posted by robroy on 11-23-2009 at 06:36 PM • top

Dr. Munday,

I think I understood her well enough…

I disagreed with Carl above because I do not think the statement touches on issues over which Catholics and evangelicals disagree. And I think I disagree with Begg on this as well. I do not think that signing this would compromise or even give the appearance of compromising gospel essentials.

But, right or wrong, Begg does. This does not make him “petty”

What Elizabeth failed to understand is that neither Begg nor Carl were being “insulting” or “demeaning”. Begg’s conscience would not allow him to sign the document. That is not an insult nor is it smallish or petty.

Elizabeth went so far as to put words and sentiments into Beggs mouth that went far far beyond anything that Begg did or would say which is more insulting than anything Begg did.

So, I think I understood well enough and I stand by my statements above.

[71] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-23-2009 at 07:02 PM • top

Elizabeth,

This is way out of line:

“The time is here to take a stand together, not make excuses why I cannot.’

What on earth are you talking about? Do you know anything at all about Alistair Begg? Do you think he is lying about his conscience? That is what your statement suggests.

And it is both false and insulting.

“Again- I believe this to be more a political statement- to declare to a dying world just how important life is.”

So do I.

“The world sees Christianity as wimpy, compromising and willing to set aside Truth in order to be accepted into the the “enlightened “culture”.”

I think the world sees Christians as narrow minded bigots.

“I am glad these are men of conscience, having read many of Carl’s posts I would totally agree.  But this document is not directed to theologians or even Christians.”

Great that you see it that way. So do I.

“It is directed to those in power who serve a different master and expect the Church to fall in line without complaint and even in complicity. And the idea that Catholic and Protestant might actually stand together will surprise them.”

I think so.

“The battle is joined and we need to know who is truly the enemy.”

Yes, all this is true and also utterly irrelevant to your strange comments about Begg.

[72] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-23-2009 at 07:08 PM • top

eulogos,

yes, I agree that Begg’s logic is flawed. I do not agree that his reasons for not signing constitute an “excuse”, nor are they “petty”, “insulting” or “demeaning”

[73] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-23-2009 at 07:10 PM • top

After all is said and done, I can’t help wondering what the end result from the Manhattan Declaration might be, aside from the probable condemnation which I’m sure will come from the left….a reaction already appearing on “progressive” blogs.

[74] Posted by Cennydd on 11-23-2009 at 07:11 PM • top

[64] Elizabeth

The culture of death must be confronted in the unity of the Christ, not our in our theological pride and purity.

The question is not one of theological pride or purity.  It is a question of the necessary pre-requisites for unity.  The necessary pre-requisite for unity is a common Gospel.  As I said above, it was no accident that Mormons were excluded from this declaration.  If Mormons had been included, the original list of 149 signers would have been reduced to zero.  Why are Christians divided from the Mormons?  It is simply because Christians and Mormons preach different Gospels.  No amount of agreement on the Culture of Life can overcome that profound and fundamental divide. 

For there to be unity between Catholic and Protestant, they must share a common gospel.  We then arrive at the hard question that the signers of ECT tried very hard to cover up:  Do Catholics and Protestants teach the same Gospel?  It is impossible - impossible - to read the Canons on Justification from the Council of Trent and conclude that they do.  The division between Protestant and Catholic is just as fundamental as the division between Protestant and Mormon or Catholic and Mormon.  There are vast areas of theological agreement between Protestant and Catholic, far in excess of any agreement that could ever be found with Mormonism.  But so long as the Council of Trent stands unrepudiated, there is not and can never be any agreement on the Gospel.  As a result, there can never be spiritual unity. 

Another hard question then appears.  If we do not share common Gospels, are we not then required by the imperative of the Gospel to evangelize each other?  The answer to this question is “Yes, we are.”  A false Gospel does not save.  If a man believes a false Gospel, it is incumbent upon the Christian to present to that man the true Gospel in its place.  To the extent that this declaration presents the divide between Catholic & Protestant as anything other than fundamental, this declaration subverts the divine imperative to evangelize.  We are tempted to pretend that spiritual brotherhood exists where it manifestly does not exist.  Such unity can only exist in the presence of a shared Gospel. 

We, Catholic & Protestant alike, see the common evil and desire to defeat it.  But this desire cannot be realized at the expense of the Gospel.  We cannot pretend that Catholic and Protestant are two different portions of the Universal Church simply because they find themselves in a common foxhole in a culture war.  Not so long as Trent stands as the defining document of the Gospel according to the Roman Catholic Church.  I look forward to the day when Trent falls. 

I realize this is a hard post and that it will not make me popular.  The thread has largely been a love feast of unity, and I am here all by myself, with no support whatsoever, throwing a dead animal in the punch bowl so to speak.  But there it is.

carl

[75] Posted by carl on 11-23-2009 at 07:11 PM • top

Cool statement.

RE: ““... I cannot in conscience sign on with those with whom I have fundamental disagreements on the nature of the Gospel. (I just re-read Calvin in the Institutes, Book IV, section 18.)”

I personally have “fundamental disagreements on the nature of the Gospel” with many many Protestants.  But I could sign the statement with them.  Heck I could sign the statement with fundamentalists from Bob Jones University [in my town].  So I could definitely sign it with orthodox Roman Catholics [who are strikingly similar, I might add].

But conscience is conscience.  If he can’t do it, he can’t do it.

This gets back to “strategery” it seems to me, and I can’t diss people on strategery.  If people can’t in conscience remain in TEC, then they just can’t.  One may be sorry over that, but still . . . you can’t force someone to somehow shift their conscience’s witness.

[76] Posted by Sarah on 11-23-2009 at 07:23 PM • top

I realize this is a hard post and that it will not make me popular.  The thread has largely been a love feast of unity, and I am here all by myself, with no support whatsoever, throwing a dead animal in the punch bowl so to speak.  But there it is.

Now Carl, stop that, it’s not like you!!

We’ve gone round and round on this one and I have no interest in if 1st Order (like Mormon) or 2nd Order again here, but Matt+ has been supporting you, like he generally always does, with anyone who espouses Calvinism (as he’d jump in to defend David, when he posted something more straight-up Reform that contradicted Anglican articles). I’ve taken the contrary position and had zero, nada, zip help, where you can always count on Matt+, even when he disagrees with you, like now.

Snap out of it man!

[77] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 11-23-2009 at 07:36 PM • top

Fr Matt,

I did not say anyone was “petty”.  I said the reaction to the document was “petty”, as in small and narrow.  I do not see it as a matter of anyone’s conscience but world view, or lack thereof.  I certainly did not intend to question anyone’s integrity and I apologize that it sounded that way. 

As for taking a stand- well I do not know Alistair Begg.  Perhaps he has taken a stand, with consequences, that I know nothing about.  Feel free to enlighten me.  I know you have done that and I am embarrassed by the times I should have and did not.  I know I have hidden behind words that were true so others would not associate me with the “rabble rousers”. 

I view this document as Christianity’s declaration of independence from this culture of death, and, just as with the original declaration of independence, there will be consequences and everyone has their own reasons for signing or not, including what the neighbors will think.

Harsh? Judgmental?  Probably.  But this has been nailed to the Church doors and I wonder how much NRA has right in all of this.

Lizzy

[78] Posted by Elizabeth on 11-23-2009 at 07:48 PM • top

“I said the reaction to the document was “petty”, as in small and narrow.”

“petty” and “small” have a moral component to them. If it is a matter of conscience for Begg then it would be far more “petty” and/or “small” to sign than not to sign.

“I do not see it as a matter of anyone’s conscience but world view, or lack thereof.”

It really doesn’t matter how you see it. Begg says that it is, for him, a matter of conscience. Whether you see it that way or not is totally and completely irrelevant. For Begg it is a matter of conscience and unless you mean to call him a liar, then you would do well to take him at his word rather than suggest he is “making excuses”.

“I certainly did not intend to question anyone’s integrity and I apologize that it sounded that way.”

I understand that you do not mean to call anyone’s integrity into question, but you did and you continue to do so in your most recent comment.

“As for taking a stand- well I do not know Alistair Begg.”

Correct.

“Perhaps he has taken a stand, with consequences, that I know nothing about.  Feel free to enlighten me.”

I have posted numerous sermons by Begg on this website in which he has shown himself a bold and articulate defender of evangelical orthodoxy. You can enlighten yourself by searching the archives.

“I know you have done that and I am embarrassed by the times I should have and did not.  I know I have hidden behind words that were true so others would not associate me with the “rabble rousers”. “

In Begg’s case, as he says, it is simply a matter of conscience not cowardice or fear.

[79] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-23-2009 at 07:59 PM • top

Fr. Matt,

“In Begg’s case, as he says, it is simply a matter of conscience not cowardice or fear.”

I am sure you are right- I would have no way of knowing otherwise and I wish him well.  May he live long and publish often.

Lizzy

[80] Posted by Elizabeth on 11-23-2009 at 08:13 PM • top

This is an excellent defense of the Christian Faith. I am so glad to hear Christians speak so forthrightly. We have needed to hear this for a long time.
There was a discussion of the Manhattan Declaration on the Bill O’Rielly show tonight and O’Rielly asked a significant question “is it too late”? I pray that it is not.

[81] Posted by Betty See on 11-23-2009 at 08:20 PM • top

68683!!! Run the good race…keep your eye on the prize!

[82] Posted by Gordy on 11-23-2009 at 09:51 PM • top

“There was a discussion of the Manhattan Declaration on the Bill O’Rielly show tonight ” Well, hopefully the diviseness that remains in the Body of Christ won’t become a topic of discussion.

[83] Posted by FaithieJ on 11-23-2009 at 10:32 PM • top

Sorry for that spelling! It’s late. Make that divisiveness.

[84] Posted by FaithieJ on 11-23-2009 at 10:33 PM • top

I was #68,908.
Susan Peterson

[85] Posted by eulogos on 11-24-2009 at 01:49 AM • top

#73—the most tangible result could be in the outcome of the abortion funding and conscience provisions in the health care legislation.  We will have to see how that comes out.

The Declaration also helps bring clarity to the great divide in the US church community. The “mainline” churches are clearly underrepresented in their signatures, and the consensus of the leaders of many of the mainline churches would be directly contrary to the principles outlined in the document.

[86] Posted by Going Home on 11-24-2009 at 02:40 AM • top

Going Home,
It may be useful for you to be more specific when you refer to the “mainline churches”. I do agree that this document does provide clarity and makes legislators mindful of who (and how many)oppose legislation that would fund abortion with tax dollars. This is a “virtual” way to march on Washington. I would also hope that all of us who have “signed” this declaration would conduct ourselves in a righteous manner that would not discredit the declaration and the others who have signed it. Satan and the secularists are always looking for an opportunity to discredit our witness. My concern at this point is that the negative impact of pending legislation may be worse than the existing situation it was intended to address.

[87] Posted by Fr. Dale on 11-24-2009 at 07:04 AM • top

Faithie, I agree that it is good when Christians stand together and proclaim our common Faith and I hope that we will realize that we as Christians can and should respect each other regardless of denomination, for instance those who have benefited from “rigorous theological scholarship” can also learn from Christians who have rigorously studied the Bible. There is much that we can and should learn from each other.
It seems to me that the preamble to this declaration is as important as its political statement, in that it reminds Christians of all denominations of our heritage and the benefits our Christian faith can provide in the future.

[88] Posted by Betty See on 11-24-2009 at 09:18 AM • top

87—Dcn Dale, I agree with your concerns regarding the health care legislation.

In regard to your other question, I was pleased to see a prominent PCUSA pastor (Newport Beach, a great church!), as well as the Asbury professors as original signatories.  Like the rest of us, I regret there are not more leaders within those two denominations willing to take a public stand on the right side of these issues. As we all know, this statement would be anathema to TEC’s leadership. I would also be surprised to find that any United Church of Christ, or Disciples of Christ, or Lutheran (other than Missouri Synod) leaders have signed.

So, sadly, that is the divide. The leadership of the DOC, UCC, Episcopal Church and ECLA are on the other side of these issues, although remnants of brave folks within the congregation disagree and are fighting the good fight.  The PCUSA is moving in that direction.  The UMC seems to have a stronger base of orthodox Bishops and ministers, but varies widely by district, and continues to receive a stream of ministers from liberal seminaries (not counting Asbury).  It is very much in play.

On the other side I would list Southern Baptists,  Roman Catholic churches, Orthodox churches, the Free Evangelical Church, Assemblies of God, Church of God in Christ, larger non-denominational churches, independent Churches of Christ, and mainline “breakaway” churches, such as the PCA, ACNA and a few others.  I am not familiar enough with the other Baptist organizations to know where they would land.

[89] Posted by Going Home on 11-24-2009 at 04:06 PM • top

There were 91,461 signers at 5:00pm.

[90] Posted by Theodora on 11-24-2009 at 04:08 PM • top

#89. Going Home,
In terms of Lutherans, in addition to the LCMS, I’m almost certain the WELS folks would also agree with the Declaration.

[91] Posted by Fr. Dale on 11-24-2009 at 04:38 PM • top

Dcn Dale—educate me on the WELS

[92] Posted by Going Home on 11-24-2009 at 06:52 PM • top

[92] Going Home

WELS is the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.  It is smaller than Missouri, and generally considered to its theological right.  Wisconsin stereotypically looks on Missouri with suspicion. 

A small vignette to illustrate.  I married into LCMS from (what is now) ELCA.  One of my groomsmen was engaged to a woman from WELS.  When they were planning their wedding,  they gently explored the idea of having champagne at their wedding.  The bride’s parents were not amused.  So they mentioned that my wife and I had champagne at our wedding, and that we were Lutheran.  The conversation continues:

“What Synod are they?”

“Missouri.”

“Well, you know what those Missouri people are like!”

It’s true, of course.  You can never be sure what those Missouri women will put in the casserole, or the jello.  wink

carl

[93] Posted by carl on 11-24-2009 at 07:08 PM • top

Going Home,
Carl has given you a case study example but as someone who was in WELS, I can say the folks I knew there when I was a member in WI and here in CA were the blue collar, dirt-under-the-finger-nails serious Christians. They have their own version of the Boy Scouts and do not commune with any other Lutherans. At one time they had altar and pulpit fellowship the The LCMS and even the same Hymnal. They generally have church schools when they can afford them and are more prominent in Wisconsin (obviously) than here in California. They are salt that has not lost its saltiness. God bless them all.

[94] Posted by Fr. Dale on 11-24-2009 at 07:30 PM • top

I just tried to sign (it’s up to over 97,000), but five times it told me that I had typed the two spam filter words incorrectly.  Possibly true the first time, but I was scrupulous the next four times.  Oh well, maybe the system is overwhelmed by the response - I’ll try again later.

[95] Posted by Lakewood on 11-24-2009 at 08:00 PM • top

[95] Lakewood - I’ve seen signs that their server or data base is running near or at the choking point - for instance, I’ve seen data base errors displayed on the web page. The web site has been quieter earlier in the day or very late.

[96] Posted by Bill Cool on 11-24-2009 at 10:04 PM • top

It is now quite fast and has instructions for web sites that want to link to it. I suspect that they have increased their capacity somehow.

[97] Posted by Bill Cool on 11-24-2009 at 10:09 PM • top

Thanks, Bill Cool, for the advice.  Everything was working smoothly at 6:15 a.m. and I was signer number 106,342!

[98] Posted by Lakewood on 11-25-2009 at 05:16 AM • top

This is a stunning Christian Declaration of Faith that calls Christians to take a stand on the basic tenents of their faith. Let us at SF remain focused on what unites us in this statement, not what divides us, and support this declaration.

[99] Posted by bradhutt on 11-25-2009 at 05:47 AM • top

When you type the words for the filter, type them as one word, and it’ll go through… it seemed kind of weird, but it worked…

[100] Posted by AquinasOnSteroids on 11-25-2009 at 11:35 AM • top

The number of signatories has more than doubled since this time two days ago, from 62,680 to 131,243 tonight.

[101] Posted by Theodora on 11-25-2009 at 08:26 PM • top

“We cannot pretend that Catholic and Protestant are two different portions of the Universal Church simply because they find themselves in a common foxhole in a culture war.”

You know, Carl, a lot of people would read this with your other comments in this thread and paraphrase it as “Catholics are no more Christian than Mormons are.”

Just out of curiosity, are the Orthodox ahead of or behind the Methodists?

[102] Posted by Ed the Roman on 11-27-2009 at 11:20 PM • top

[102] Ed the Roman

When have I ever made a secret of this?  Why do you think I am called an ‘anti-Catholic?’  I assert that the definition of the gospel is fundamental to the definition of ‘Christian.’  Mutually exclusive gospels cannot wear the same label.  Trent insures that Protestant and Catholic possess mutually exclusive gospels.  One of us is fatally wrong.  One side or the other is by definition not Christian.  This was received understanding on both sides as little as 50 years ago.  It is an historical fact that the delegates to Trent would have considered me a heretic doomed to Hell.  A RC even 100 years ago would have considered me a heretic doomed to Hell.  Consistent RCs today consider me a heretic doomed to Hell.  These are not a shocking or novel assertions. 

What then has changed?  The culture has changed.  Christendom is no longer dominant, and we both find ourselves on the wrong end of the cudgel.  The common fight in the culture war has led to a powerful desire to submerge essential differences in the name of unity in the temporal fight.  We want to see our cultural and moral allies as our spiritual brothers.  After all, we have so much in common.  Hence ECT.  Hence the problematic portions of this document.  It’s a very natural and normal desire to want to look past the difficult issues of doctrine and base spiritual unity on shared morality.  It’s a very natural and normal desire to want to infer a common spiritual identity from a common answer to the question “How should we then live?”  It’s simply wrong to do so.  We all recognize the difficulty with Mormons.  But not one person on this thread has taken up the challenge to demonstrate how Sola Fide can be reconciled with the historical infallible canons of Trent.  Unless and until that question is answered, there can be no spiritual unity between Protestant and Catholic. 

The Gospel is the center of the Christian faith.  If the Gospel is not definitional of the Christian faith, then what is?  And if the Gospel is broad enough to encompass both Sola Fide and the sacramental system of Rome, then what is the definition of the Gospel?  And why should it be that all my arguments would be accepted without question if only they were directed at the false gospel of liberalism instead of the false gospel of Roman Catholicism?  And they would be accepted.  I have used them many times.  Who here has called me out for doing so? 

We must be consistent.  What we say to the left hand, we must also say to the right.

carl

[103] Posted by carl on 11-28-2009 at 01:24 AM • top

Consistent RCs today consider me a heretic doomed to Hell. - carl

Purgatory, Carl. Purgatory.

[104] Posted by Rocco on 11-28-2009 at 04:20 AM • top

Carl,
I would like you to briefly articulate the “Mutually exclusive Gospels” you claim are expressed in Protestantism and Catholicism. I also don’t believe you can presume to speak for all protestants as a Calvinist.

[105] Posted by Fr. Dale on 11-28-2009 at 07:18 AM • top

Hi dcn Dale,

I don’t know of any protestant denomination that does not formally, at least, accept the doctrine of sola fide—the doctrine that God declares sinners just through the instrument of faith alone apart from works.

This is not “Calvinist” it is simply the defining issue of the Reformation and every church I am aware of that springs out of the reformation (arminian and calvinist) accepts sola fide.

Rome explicitly rejected Sola Fide at the Council of Trent and she still today rejects Sola Fide as her Catechism makes clear.

So on that basis alone, I think Carl’s statement is factually true.

[106] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-28-2009 at 07:46 AM • top

I do not think this means, by the way, that there are no believers within the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox churches—of course there are—nor do I think all protestants are believers—of course they are not—it is to say that those believers in Roman Catholic churches are saved despite the doctrine of Rome not through it.

[107] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-28-2009 at 07:50 AM • top

RE: “I assert that the definition of the gospel is fundamental to the definition of ‘Christian.’  Mutually exclusive gospels cannot wear the same label.”

I think not.

Not only do I think not, but I think that actually Carl thinks not too.

First, people can actually have the wrong definition of the gospel and still have put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ to save them.  And at that point, they are fellow Christian believers.

Second the issue before us with the Manhattan Declaration is *not* “do they have the same definition of the gospel as we do?” but “are they fellow Christian believers?”

And I suspect that most of the signatories are the latter.

Were we to have a Manhattan Declaration in which only people with the correct beliefs about the gospel were to be allowed to sign, then I of course could not sign along with most of the separatist fundamentalist Protestants who reside in this fair city of mine.  We believe “mutually exclusive gospels.”

But thankfully I would be able to sign on the basis of my fellowship with them as Christian believers, not on the basis of their dreadfully flawed “gospel.”

[108] Posted by Sarah on 11-28-2009 at 07:59 AM • top

Also, what Matt said above in #107.

Again, the signatories of the Manhattan Declaration appear to be saying “we are fundamentally divided over the gospel and indeed there is a massive chasm but we do acknowledge one another as brother and sister Christians and therefore we are uniting against the anti-Christians in their deliberate war against our values.”

[109] Posted by Sarah on 11-28-2009 at 08:02 AM • top

Matt,

To paraphrase the Gipper “There you go again.” As for the Sola Fide thing, I know you are aware of a more important declaration than the one being discussed here, namely, “The Joint Declaration on the Document of Justification” from 1999 between the RCs and Mother Church of the Reformation, the Lutheran World Federation which the Methodists also later accepted.

Now back on to your slanderous “believers in Roman Catholic churches are saved despite the doctrine of Rome not through it.” First, I would ask all ACs
“How’s that Canterbury thing working out for ya?” Second. Reformation names the disunity in which we currently stand. Those who remain in the Protestant tradition want to say that Reformation was a success. But when we make Reformation a success, it only ends up killing us. After all, the very name ‘Protestantism’ is meant to denote a reform movement of protest within the Church Catholic. When Protestantism becomes an end in itself, which it certainly has through the mainstream denominations in America, it becomes anathema.

For example, note what the Reformation has done for our reading texts like Luke 18:
9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.‘13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ 14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Protestants automatically assume that the Pharisees are the Catholics. They are the self-righteous people who have made Christianity a form of legalistic religion, thereby destroying the free grace of the Gospel. We Protestants are the tax collectors, knowing that we are sinners and that our lives depend upon God’s free grace. And therefore we are better than the Catholics because we know they are sinners. What an odd irony that the Reformation made such readings possible. As Protestants we now take pride in the acknowledgment of our sinfulness in order to distinguish ourselves from Catholics who allegedly believe in works-righteousness.

Unfortunately, the Catholics are right. Christian salvation consists in works. To be saved is to be made holy. To be saved requires our being made part of a people separated from the world so that we can be united in spite of — or perhaps better, because of — the world’s fragmentation and divisions. Unity, after all, is what God has given us through Christ’s death and resurrection. For in that death and resurrection we have been made part of God’s salvation for the world so that the world may know it has been freed from the powers that would compel us to kill one another in the name of false loyalties. All that is about the works necessary to save us.

At least Catholics have the magisterial office of the Bishop of Rome to remind them that disunity is a sin. You should not overlook the significance that in several important documents of late, the Popes have confessed the Catholic sin for the Reformation. Where are the Protestants capable of doing likewise? Anyone here at SF? Any Uber-Evangelicals here at SF? Do you feel no sin for the disunity of the Reformation? Do you not know how to confess your sin for the continuing disunity of the Reformation? Perhaps you would not know how to do that precisely because you experience of unity and that’s ok with you.

The magisterial office — Protestants often forget — is not a matter of constraining or limiting diversity in the name of unity. The office of the Bishop of Rome is to ensure that when Christians move from Sao Paulo, Brazil to Binghamton, New York, they have some confidence when they go to church that they will be worshiping the same God. Can anyone in TEC or the AC say that today? Because Catholics have an office of unity, they do not need to restrain the gifts of the Spirit. It is extraordinary that Catholicism is able to keep the Irish and the Italians in the same church. What an achievement! Perhaps equally amazing is their ability to keep within the same church Jesuits, Dominicans, and Franciscans.I think Catholics are able to do that because they know that their unity does not depend upon everyone agreeing. Indeed, they can celebrate their disagreements because they understand that our unity is founded upon the cross and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth that makes the Eucharist possible. They do not presume, therefore, that unity requires that we all read Scripture the same way.

[110] Posted by Auggie Webster on 11-28-2009 at 08:41 AM • top

Hi Auggie,

I’ve read and studied the joint declaration quite a bit thank you…it represents nothing but a semantic agreement by some Catholic theologians and some Lutherans. There is no substantive movement.

2. You are confusing the broader definition of salvation with justification and its immediate effects. Of course salvation involves works. We are saved not only from hell but also from the power of sin. The problem is that Rome conflates the two. At justification, sinners are saved from hell through faith alone on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. We are declared just in Christ.

Then begins the process of sanctification during which the Holy Spirit sometimes by himself and sometimes through the vehicle of our works cleanses us of sin and breaks the chains of disobedience…We certainly cooperate, by grace, with this process of being saved from the power of sin.

But this process of sanctification has no bearing on our eternal destiny. That is decided at the point and moment of justification when Christ’s righteosness is imputed to us and our sins are imputed to him.

So Justification is by faith alone through Christ alone—and that determines our eternal destiny

Sanctification is a cooperative work between regenerate sinners cooperating by grace with the Spirit to break free from the bondage of sin.

Both are part of the broader process of “salvation” and yet the works of sanctification by whcih we are saved from the power of sin through the grace of God have no bearing on our justification and salvation from hell which is through the instrument of faith alone.

[111] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-28-2009 at 08:53 AM • top

3. Do you even know what the word “Slander” means?

[112] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-28-2009 at 08:54 AM • top

Here is the key section from the Joint Declaration:

“Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works…”

There is absolutely nothing new in this. The fathers of Trent could have signed onto this very document while at the same time rejecting sola fide.

Catholics and Lutherans and all other western Christians have always believed precisely what this says…that we are justified by faith…and yet, it says nothing whatsoever with regard to whether this faith is the sole instrumental cause of Justification.

[113] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-28-2009 at 09:08 AM • top

Without going into great detail, it does appear to me that the Manhattan Declaration is not about the various Christian interpretations of “the Gospel” or the “Five Sola’s”. Its declaration is that we, like William Wilberforce in his day, are willing, even constrained, to stand against major evils in our society.

We are constrained to do this because we follow a God whose book to us is laced with his repeated proclamations about showing mercy to the defenseless, and other themes that are congruent with what is stated in the Manhattan Declaration. This is the God whom those who originally signed the declaration know sent his son who, as the early creeds say, was crucified, died, was buried and rose again. This is that Jesus who showed mercy to the defenseless and desperate whom he met and who said “Go and do likewise”.

We agree on much.

Especially, as this declaration emphasizes, we agree that we should stand for the Kingdom of God when our culture is agreeing with evil, just as Wilberforce and others stood against the slave trade in England. I can stand together with those who disagree about some key phrasing in the Nicene Creed, the authority of the bishop of Rome, Sola whatever, the distinction between salvation and sanctification, the Council of Trent, etc., if we are standing against the vile evils of our culture.

[114] Posted by Bill Cool on 11-28-2009 at 09:32 AM • top

Do you? How would you characterize “believers in Roman Catholic churches are saved despite the doctrine of Rome not through it”. After you find that perfect definition in your Webster’s, then look up “obfuscate”, “splitting hairs”, “choke on a gnat”, “sophistry”, “fideism”, “denomination”, “23,000”, and “Michael Servetus”.

[115] Posted by Auggie Webster on 11-28-2009 at 09:42 AM • top

Oh, I almost forgot, look up “Augustine Webster” while you’re at it.

[116] Posted by Auggie Webster on 11-28-2009 at 09:46 AM • top

Hi Auggie,

you have already, alongside your strange bitterness, a seeming inability to discuss and debate like an adult. And you seem not to be able to grasp some of the more simple distinctions between Roman Catholics and protestants, so I’ll leave the dictionary to you since you seem to need it.

What I will do is give you a warning. You’re next post may be your last if you refuse to change your attitude.

[117] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-28-2009 at 09:51 AM • top

Thank you, Matt!  I might not have been quite as nice as you are, were I in your place.  But then, we are Christians.

[118] Posted by Cennydd on 11-28-2009 at 10:04 AM • top

Amen, Sarah. (#108)

[119] Posted by wingshadow on 11-28-2009 at 10:06 AM • top

And Amen to #109 too!

[120] Posted by heart on 11-28-2009 at 10:12 AM • top

[108] Sarah

First, people can actually have the wrong definition of the gospel and still have put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ to save them.  And at that point, they are fellow Christian believers.

Mormons and JWs and liberal Christians will all say they “put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ to save them.”  So the statement is insufficient on its face.  It depends upon unspecified definitions.  To make the statement sufficient, we must flesh out the meanings of the words.  Try as we might, we cannot escape the fact that saving faith implies specific doctrinal content.  A Christian believes certain things as a necessary result of his regeneration. 

It was Paul who said:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel — which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.  Galatians 1:6-7


What was the other gospel?  The addition of circumcision to faith.  The circumcisers didn’t deny the necessity of “putting their faith and trust in Jesus Christ to save them.”  They simply wanted to add circumcision to faith.  And Paul called it anathema.  Who has added more to faith?  The circumcisers, or Rome?

Second the issue before us with the Manhattan Declaration is *not* “do they have the same definition of the gospel as we do?” but “are they fellow Christian believers?”


That’s the problem.  It implies that a difference over the definition of the Gospel is a non-essential difference.  But I do not understand how we can consider the difference with Rome to be non-essential even as we accept that Paul considered his difference with the Judaizers to be essential.  Rome adds more to faith - the entire system of sacramental grace, meritorious works, suffering in purgatory, indulgences to name but a few - than the Judaizers ever dreamed of adding.

carl

[121] Posted by carl on 11-28-2009 at 10:19 AM • top

Matt,

In order to avoid the axe, I will not respond and will only remind you that my now three (only three) posts have been in direct response to your three (maybe, perhaps, slightly, possibly, if you are of a certain sensitive disposition, bitter?) comments:

1) “believers in Roman Catholic churches are saved despite the doctrine of Rome not through it.”

2) “Do you even know what the word “Slander” means?”

3) “seem not to be able to grasp some of the more simple distinctions between Roman Catholics and protestants, so I’ll leave the dictionary to you since you seem to need it.”


OK, back to the initial issue at hand, namely your first comment ““believers in Roman Catholic churches are saved despite the doctrine of Rome not through it.” No response to the substance of the longest comment on this thread? Namely, is the Roman magisterium and primacy a good or bad thing and why? Also, you seem to be saying that the Lutheran and Catholic theologians and all their hard work just missed the point, they should have been discussing whether “faith is the sole instrumental cause of Justification”. This kind of hairsplitting the Catholic (and apparently the Lutheran World Federation) can avoid and creates a quite different attitude among Catholics about their relation to Christian tradition and the wider world. Protestants look over to Christian tradition and say, ‘How much of this do we have to believe in order to remain identifiably Christian?’ That’s the reason why Protestants are always tempted to rationalism: they think that Christianity is to be identified with sets of beliefs more than with the unity of the Spirit occasioned through sacrament.

Moreover, once Christianity becomes reduced to a matter of belief, as it clearly has for Protestants, they cannot resist questions of whether those beliefs are as true or useful as other beliefs we also entertain. Once such questions are raised, it does not matter what the answer turns out in a given case. As James Edwards observes, “Once religious beliefs start to compete with other beliefs, then religious believers are — and will know themselves to be — mongerers of values. They too are denizens of the mall, selling and shopping and buying along with the rest of us.”

In contrast, Catholics do not begin with the question of “How much do we need to believe?” but with the attitude “Look at all the wonderful stuff we get to believe!” Isn’t it wonderful to know that Mary was immaculately conceived in order to be the faithful servant of God’s new creation in Jesus Christ! She therefore becomes the firstborn of God’s new creation, our mother, the first member of God’s new community we call church. Isn’t it wonderful that God continued to act in the world through the appearances of Mary at Guadalupe! Mary must know something because she seems to always appear to peasants and, in particular, to peasant women who have the ability to see her. Protestants would not have the ability to see Mary because we’d be far too embarrassed by that vision.

Therefore Catholics understand the church’s unity as grounded in reality more determinative than our good feelings for one another. The office of Rome matters. For at least that office is a judgment on the church for our disunity. Surely it is the clear indication of the sin of the Reformation that we Protestants have not been able to resist nationalistic identifications. So we become German Lutherans, American Lutherans, Norwegian Lutherans. You are Dutch Calvinist, American Presbyterians, Church of Scotland or American Methodist, which has precious little to do with English Methodism. Likewise with the American Anglicans, English Anglicans, Scottish Anglicans, etc., almost appear to be different species, not to mention the differences between All Saints Pasadena and the Falls Church.

[122] Posted by Auggie Webster on 11-28-2009 at 10:32 AM • top

Auggie,
Adoption of the name of a 16th century Catholic priest (and saint and martyr of the Catholic Church- although, since executed by the English Crown, not seen as such by Anglicans, one suspects) does not carry with it any particular authority. 
Given the topic of the thread, it might be more constructive to call to prayer those who feel they cannot sign the document on theological grounds. It is necessary to see that what one person defines as a “second order” issue that will succumb eventually to ecumenical dialogue is defined by another as a first order issue that defines “the Church.”  If you look at your own writings, you may recognize that you have several “first order” issues yourself.
For me, this is a document that is “signable” by Catholic archbishops, the Dean of Nashotah (not listed, but I’m making an assumption based on his comments above), JI Packer and Peter Akinola.  Theologically, I fit in there somewhere.  Personally, I would have been drawn to sign this on a secular basis of First Amendment liberties, alone.  I do not feel I must agree with every jot and tittle of the document.
The importance of the Manhattan statement is that when all is said and done, there are likely to be millions of Americans who will have put their name to a “line in the sand”- and politicians will understand that for Christians, some “first order issues” transcend denominational lines.
So, let us pray that all our brethren come to see this as the Holy Spirit working to draw us together as one Church, as our Lord has called on us to be.

[123] Posted by tjmcmahon on 11-28-2009 at 10:52 AM • top

Hi Auggie,

Your responses have been uniformly ill mannered including your false accusation of slander which will not be repeated.

“No response to the substance of the longest comment on this thread?”

This thread is not about your long comments. It is not about the Magisterium. It is about the Manhatten Declaration. When you make longish rambling and rude comments about off topic subjects, you should not be surprised when they are ignored or passed over.

“Namely, is the Roman magisterium and primacy a good or bad thing and why?”

What an odd question. As an evangelical, the Magisterium assumes an authority it does not possess and often teaches error on the basis of that authority. I have no objection to the established teaching office of any church. I do have an objection to the Roman Magisterium because it claims the authority to teach infallibly.

“Also, you seem to be saying that the Lutheran and Catholic theologians and all their hard work just missed the point, they should have been discussing whether “faith is the sole instrumental cause of Justification”.”

um….since that is precisely the issue that has divided Rome from protestantism for 500 years and since the two groups of theologians were meeting in hopes of coming to some sort of resolution to that dispute then, yes, it should have been addressed.

What you seem to miss is that this document DID address it. And punted. It simply restated truths that both sides have always affirmed. That’s fine and good but does nothing to resolve the controversy.

“kind of hairsplitting the Catholic (and apparently the Lutheran World Federation) can avoid and creates a quite different attitude among Catholics about their relation to Christian tradition and the wider world.”

Auggie, again, you need to bone up a bit on the Reformation. Sola Fide is not a “hair” to be split. It is the entire head of the debate. Rome is very careful about her definitions, which is a very good thing, and she does not at all glaze over this important debate. The catechism, again, reaffirms her traditional stance.

“Protestants look over to Christian tradition and say, ‘How much of this do we have to believe in order to remain identifiably Christian?’”

What on earth are you talking about? Do you know all Protestants? Which Protestants do that? Can you provide some formal doctrinal statements from any Protestant body that backs up your assertion? If so please do. Otherwise, your comment is little more than a baseless stereotype.

“That’s the reason why Protestants are always tempted to rationalism: they think that Christianity is to be identified with sets of beliefs more than with the unity of the Spirit occasioned through sacrament.”

Again, what on earth are you talking about? Where did you dream up this false dichotomy between “beliefs” and “the unity of the Spirit occasioned through the sacrament”?

Huh? What on earth are you talking about? Please provide some backing or some sort of evidence for the idea that protestants reduce all thigns to “belief” to the exclusion of Spirit and sacrament.

and are you suggesting that one is opposed to the other? Does the Catholic church eschew “belief” in favor of the sacraments and the Spirit? What a strange thing to say? Augustine Williams was martyred because he believed in Roman Catholic doctrine. That is not a bad thing. Belief is good and it is not at all opposed to Spirit and Sacrament. Strange that you should even suggest it.

“Moreover, once Christianity becomes reduced to a matter of belief, as it clearly has for Protestants, they cannot resist questions of whether those beliefs are as true or useful as other beliefs we also entertain.”

Wow, Auggie, this is simply incoherent. Which protestants “clearly” do this?

What “questions” are you talking about?

“Once such questions are raised, it does not matter what the answer turns out in a given case. As James Edwards observes, “Once religious beliefs start to compete with other beliefs, then religious believers are — and will know themselves to be — mongerers of values. They too are denizens of the mall, selling and shopping and buying along with the rest of us.”

Truly you have a dizzying argument.

“In contrast, Catholics do not begin with the question of “How much do we need to believe?” but with the attitude “Look at all the wonderful stuff we get to believe!” Isn’t it wonderful to know that Mary was immaculately conceived in order to be the faithful servant of God’s new creation in Jesus Christ! She therefore becomes the firstborn of God’s new creation, our mother, the first member of God’s new community we call church. Isn’t it wonderful that God continued to act in the world through the appearances of Mary at Guadalupe! Mary must know something because she seems to always appear to peasants and, in particular, to peasant women who have the ability to see her. Protestants would not have the ability to see Mary because we’d be far too embarrassed by that vision.”

Where, again, do you get the idea that Protestants approach the faith with any less joy?

“Therefore Catholics understand the church’s unity as grounded in reality more determinative than our good feelings for one another.”

that’s nice. I am happy for you. It is of course true of Christians in general. In fact, I don’t know of any Christians for whom this is not true…but oh well

“The office of Rome matters. For at least that office is a judgment on the church for our disunity. Surely it is the clear indication of the sin of the Reformation that we Protestants have not been able to resist nationalistic identifications. So we become German Lutherans, American Lutherans, Norwegian Lutherans”

As opposed to Irish Catholics, Italian Catholics, Polish Catholics, Dutch Catholics, French Catholics etc…

” You are Dutch Calvinist, American Presbyterians, Church of Scotland or American Methodist, which has precious little to do with English Methodism. Likewise with the American Anglicans, English Anglicans, Scottish Anglicans, etc., almost appear to be different species, not to mention the differences between All Saints Pasadena and the Falls Church.”

I suppose the difference between various protestant churches is as vast that between the church of the Puppet Mass and the church of the Tridentine Mass..

[124] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-28-2009 at 11:05 AM • top

RE: “How would you characterize “believers in Roman Catholic churches are saved despite the doctrine of Rome not through it”.”

Um . . . the same way I would characterize “believers in Protestant churches are saved despite the Protestant doctrine not through it.”

Kind of a “duh” question there . . .

Neither informed Protestants nor RCs believe that the other has correct doctrine.  *Therefore* despite the other’s incorrect doctrine both sides believe there are Christian believers in the other side.

What Matt said was perfectly standard belief—for both sides, as a matter of fact, and certainly not “slander.”

RE: “No response to the substance of the longest comment on this thread? Namely, is the Roman magisterium and primacy a good or bad thing and why?”
’ That would be because it was an *irrelevant* comment.  Who cares?  That has nothing to do with Matt’s pointing out that we are utterly divided on the nature of the gospel but nevertheless there are those who are fellow Christian believers despite their false doctrines.

Further, I’m at a loss as to why this thread is turning into the favorite “RC versus Prot” thread.  That’s not what the thread is about and if I were Matt I’d warn Auggie for trolling and move on.

The topic of this thread is not the Magisterium.

[125] Posted by Sarah on 11-28-2009 at 11:39 AM • top

RE: “Mormons and JWs and liberal Christians will all say they “put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ to save them.”

Sure—the only question is “do we believe them”—and of course we do not, because the Mormons and JWs don’t believe the Nicene Creed and the libs are deconstructionists.  But I didn’t think your argument was about RCs not believing the Nicene Creed nor that they were deconstructionists.

RE: “So the statement is insufficient on its face.”

Not at all.  I believe—and those who have signed it believe—that the signatories are indeed fellow Christians.  You do not, apparently.  That’s fine—but that does not make the statement insufficient at all.  It merely means you don’t believe these are fellow Christians—and I and others do.

Were I to believe that they are not fellow Christians I could not sign it either.  But I do.

RE: “Try as we might, we cannot escape the fact that saving faith implies specific doctrinal content.”

Nope—beg to differ.  Since I assume that we are agreed that those who are mentally deeply deficient can put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ—without being able at all to articulate or even “believe” specific “doctrinal content”—we can indeed “escape the fact.”

RE: “And Paul called it anathema.”

Indeed he did—but he did not say “and you Galatians who are being led astray are not fellow believers”—to the contrary he exhorted them because they were fellow believers while drawing a sharp contrast between the deceived fellow believers and the non-Christian deceivers.

RE: “It implies that a difference over the definition of the Gospel is a non-essential difference.”

Not at all—indeed the differences are essential which is why I could never join the Roman Catholic church and why we are to exhort those who are believers in the falsehood of the underlying doctrines.  But I have to confess that there are fellow Christian believers in that church despite their doctrine.  And that is why those people [Roman Catholics] and Protestants like me could sign the Manhattan Declaration. 

RE: “Rome adds more to faith - the entire system of sacramental grace, meritorious works, suffering in purgatory, indulgences to name but a few - than the Judaizers ever dreamed of adding.”

Very true.  But then . . . I am intimately familiar with the separatist fundamentalist Protestants in my own fair city who have done as bad.  It is malevolent.  It is harmful.  It is pernicious.  It is horrifying.

But can they be fellow Christians?

Yes indeed. 

Could I sign the Manhattan Declaration with them?

Yes I could, despite their pernicious, deceitful, harmful, bitterness-causing, horrifying additions to the gospel.

[126] Posted by Sarah on 11-28-2009 at 11:49 AM • top

Carl states [#103]:  “But not one person on this thread has taken up the challenge to demonstrate how Sola Fide can be reconciled with the historical infallible canons of Trent. Unless and until that question is answered, there can be no spiritual unity between Protestant and Catholic.”

I agree that “sola fide” in its most strict form cannot be reconciled with Trent’s Decree on Justification and associated Canons Concerning Justification.

But I hasten to add that “sola fide”  in its most strict form also cannot be reconciled with Matt. 19:17Mark 9:41, Rom. 8: 12-13, 1 Cor. 9:24-27Heb. 10:35-36James 2:24, and a host of other passages from Scripture.

I think that as a practical matter, most orthodox Protestants actually agree with the Decree on Justification.  But many haven’t read it and know its contents only from polemical references.  I would recommend a careful reading of not only Trent’s much-cited Canons Concerning Justification, but also the Decree on Justification itself.  It is the latter document that really explains the Catholic Church’s position and demonstrates its scriptural basis.

[127] Posted by Silver Lake Catholic on 11-28-2009 at 11:53 AM • top

I wrote a post to this thread which somehow disappeared when I pressed submit.  It was meant to go after Matt’s comment #106. 
In it I said that slander is a false statement, known to be false by the speaker,  and said with the intent to injure.  Therefore Carl’s statements which were seconded by Matt cannot be called slander.  However they are very painful for this Catholic to hear.  How ironic and sad that at a time when the Catholic church has said officially that Protestants are Christians by their faith and baptism and are our brothers in Christ,  some Protestants will not say the same of Catholics. 

  The ancient creeds of the church speak of the nature of God, of the incarnation of the second person of the trinity,  of His death and resurrection,  and coming again in glory,  of the community of believers, and of the last things.  The “good news” concerns the work of Christ for us.  This is why earlier in this thread (or on the other one on this topic?) I referred to the resurrection troparion “Christ is risen, Christ is risen, Christ is risen from the dead.  By death He conquered death, and to those in the tombs, he granted life. ”  I suggest that this is the “good news”  which we can all proclaim. 

Susan Peterson

[128] Posted by eulogos on 11-28-2009 at 11:55 AM • top

Hi eulogos, I think you may have misunderstood me. I do not think that Catholics are “non-Christian” and I consider you a sister in Christ as you consider me a brother. But we disagree about how that status came to be. If you believe me to be a believer, it is not because of the doctrine I espouse—if you are a faithful Catholic which you are—then to consider me a brother you must do that “despite” the doctrine I espouse. Not becasue of it. This is just a matter of course.

In fact the Catechism says much the same thing—God’s grace is operative to save within Prot denominations despite our flawed theology.

The same, I think, is what I was trying say about believers such as yourself in the RCC.

[129] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-28-2009 at 12:03 PM • top

How did we get from being saved by Jesus Christ to being saved by correct doctrine? It is simply a stretch to imply that at the Council of Trent the Roman Church decided to adopt a false gospel because it rejected Sola Fide. To say that Roman Catholics can be Christians in spite of their doctrine is no different than saying that Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons can be Christians in spite of their doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church is a Christian Church. I believe to suggest otherwise is to risk grieving the Holy Spirit.

[130] Posted by Fr. Dale on 11-28-2009 at 12:27 PM • top

RE: “How ironic and sad that at a time when the Catholic church has said officially that Protestants are Christians by their faith and baptism and are our brothers in Christ,  some Protestants will not say the same of Catholics.”

Woh woh . . . I have said the precise opposite on this thread. Matt too.

It is the Wicked Protestant Calvinist Truly Reformed Non-Anglican Carl who appears to be saying such things.

We should all pray for him.

On another note, not content with trolling and being banned three weeks ago for that, Auggie returned and started trolling again—unable I suppose to stay away and cease with his one-note samba.  I thought his bitterness and trolling sounded familiar.

Just as I said before . . .

I’m slowly beginning to review Mencken’s definition of the Puritan to define [some] Roman Catholics: Roman Catholicism: The haunting fear that some Protestant, somewhere, may be happy.

[131] Posted by Sarah on 11-28-2009 at 12:29 PM • top

[130] Dcn Dale

How did we get from being saved by Jesus Christ to being saved by correct doctrine?

I didn’t say a man is saved by doctrine.  I said that a man who is saved must of necessity believe certain things.  Regeneration is logically prior.  Examples.  A man who is saved will not deny that Jesus rose from the dead.  A man who is saved will not deny the Trinitarian nature of God.  A man who is saved will not assert that his own works played any part in his righteousness before God.

For the record, I agree with every word of Matt’s post [107]. 

carl

[132] Posted by carl on 11-28-2009 at 12:48 PM • top

“John said to Him, ‘Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to hinder him, because he was not following us.’ But Jesus said, ‘Do not hinder him, for there is no one who shall perform a miracle in My Name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is for us.’” Mark 9:38-40

I would find these verses applicable to true believers of any stripe being able to take a moral stance together in the name of Christ. Certainly the world cannot parce the valid theological differences we have with one another, but will register that we are standing in unity for His immutable truth and Lordly claim upon mankind. Whether one’s doctrine is weighted toward Eph. 2:8,9 “By grace you have been saved by faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, that no one should boast” or emphasizes James 2:14 “What use is it, my brethren, is a man says he has faith but has no works? can that faith save him?”, if he can say, without the death of God the Son to pay for my sins I am lost, I am inclined to err on the side of calling him a brother in Christ and stand with him against the devices of this godless age.

[133] Posted by wingshadow on 11-28-2009 at 12:52 PM • top

Carl, Carl,  I know you are a man of principle, but you make me so sad.  I know the idea you have of what the Catholic Church is and what it teaches is false.  You might be able to cite chapter and verse (or section and line and canon number) from Trent,  but we aren’t really speaking the same language.  It is sort of like a story my father told me of how when he was in the deep south during the war,  he told a man that he would like to take his sister to a dance.  The man punched him.  Apparently he should have asked the man if he could “carry” his sister to the dance, and “take” meant something dishonorable. 

I can assure you that we Catholics believe that we are saved by Christ alone, not by our own works.  I can assure you that we believe that we are saved by grace alone.  Any good works that we do, are all His works in us, the work of grace.  I like Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, so I will take an example from the Byzantine liturgy.  The priest offers communion saying “Holy gifts for holy people”  or “Holy things for the holy.”  (depending on the translation.)  The people respond, “One is Holy, One is Lord, Jesus Christ, for the glory of God the Father, Amen.”
So does that mean that no one will go to communion?  No,  we are a holy people because we are His people,  as the BCP says “He in us, and we in Him.” 
Catholicism traditionally thought in terms of salvation as the whole process of sinful man being made righteous before God.  Coming to believe and entering into the community of the saved through the waters of baptism,  is hardly considered separately from the process of growth in holiness, or sanctification.  If you ask on what ones eternal destiny depends, it is upon being “in Christ.”  Baptism, called the sacrament of faith, is the beginning of being “in Christ.”  However catechumens, those who had expressed their desire for baptism, were and are considered, already part of the Church, already “in Christ.”  They are said to have the “baptism of desire.”  Baptism and faith are so closely united that those who have faith in a sense already have baptism, should they die before the sacrament.  So the greatest sinner, once he has said in his heart that he believes in Jesus Christ and wants to be baptized and be a follower of Christ,is thereby “in Christ” and if he dies the next moment has an eternal destiny with God in heaven. 
And of course he has that eternal destiny only because of Christ’s death for him and not for anything he has done.  But whether he lives or dies,  he is not yet made holy,  and how can he stand in the presence of God?
He is “in Christ”  but Christ’s rule has not yet been extended to all the corners of his being, into the nooks and crannies of his will.  I am using the expression “in Christ” and you would say that he was “covered by Christ” .  But do you think that this man who dies right after he comes to belief will be forever in heaven a pile of dung covered by snow?  Do we want to spend eternity as a pile of dung inside?  Wouldn’t the presence of God’s glory burn away, sterilize and purify all that dung?  If you say yes, but God does it in an instant,  I say that we are now talking about e-ternity,  a time outside of time.  Who knows what an instant is, or duration,  in eternity?  Purgatory is just the expression of the understanding that God’s glory will burn away and sterilize and purify all the dung in which believers are still mired at the time of their deaths.  If we live a while after we come to belief,  a little bit of that purification can take place here, but it is all God’s work, a work of grace, a work of the Holy Spirit.  Since it is God’s work, it is good, and deserves (or merits) to be called good.  These works of God in us are part of the total process of our salvation from sin,  but they certainly are not a way that we “earn” salvation! 
The only real difference I see is whether once one is “in Christ”  one can step outside again.  I believe that we are free to do so, although I think that grace is offered to us again and again to repent and come back to Him, and that He is with us sometimes when we think we have left Him. 
Of course it has to be true that ultimately all is in His will and that those whom He has chosen will be His.  But I think we humans have to live with a prospective point of view; our reality is that we can choose to continue to follow Him or to reject Him, to continue to accept Him as our Lord, and to accept his death for us, or not to do so.  The retrospective point of view, in which all our choices turn out to have been in His will, and in which our whole path is seen as having been leading to heaven or hell all along, and therefore “in Him” or not “in Him” all along,  does not seem to me to be available to us “up front.” 
I do see us as genuinely differing over this. 

I don’t see this difference as being such that we aren’t believing the same gospel.  I am sad if you do. 
In Christ,
Susan Peterson

[134] Posted by eulogos on 11-28-2009 at 01:11 PM • top

132. carl,

I assert that the definition of the gospel is fundamental to the definition of ‘Christian.’  Mutually exclusive gospels cannot wear the same label.  Trent insures that Protestant and Catholic possess mutually exclusive gospels.  One of us is fatally wrong.  One side or the other is by definition not Christian.

Here you state that correct doctrine determines whether you are a Christian or not. Additionally, you state from your perspective that Roman Catholics are not Christians.
You have thus made “correct doctrine” the true Gospel but have really turned the Gospel back into the Law.

[135] Posted by Fr. Dale on 11-28-2009 at 01:20 PM • top

sub

[136] Posted by AndrewA on 11-28-2009 at 01:53 PM • top

[135] Dcn Dale

Here you state that correct doctrine determines whether you are a Christian or not.

The difference is found in the separation between ‘determines’ and ‘gives necessary evidence of.’ 

Let me illustrate.  Some three years ago, I made my very first post on FrJakeStopsTheWorld.  The subject was “Who is a Christian.”  In that post I made reference to a sermon given at the National Cathedral in which the speaker flatly denied John 14:6.  I said on FJSTW that any man who denies the Lord Jesus is the Only Way to the Father testifies against his own claims to Christian faith.  The push-back was both expected and harsh.  But who here would dispute the truth of my statement?  What conservative would affirm the Christianity of a man who denies John 14:6

I have said this very thing to liberals over and over again in various forms, and no conservative has ever contradicted the truth of the claim.  The assertion of the uniqueness of Christ is a self-evident doctrinal pre-requisite for proving the validity of a claim to Christian faith.  How many times on this very board has KJS been accused of being a non-Christian counterfeit for denying exactly this doctrinal claim?  Weren’t we all mounting the barricades against apostasy when she declared personal salvation through Christ to be ‘the Great Western Heresy?”  She makes a doctrinal claim, and we say “No Christian could ever make that claim.  The falsehood of her faith is revealed by the content of her statements.”

And yet when I hold the RCC to the exact same standard, then the objections arise.  I say “The man that predicates his salvation on a combination of faith plus works has testified against the validity of his faith.”  The RCC explicitly affirms Faith plus works.  Whether individual RCs do so is not for me to judge.  This is why I say that I have no doubt about the existence of believers in the RCC.  But I know what the church in Rome infallibly teaches, and so I can say this without fear.  “The man who claims allegiance to the gospel as taught by the Church of Rome - with its sacraments, and works, and indulgences, and purgatory - that man testifies against himself.”  I say it for exactly the same reason we all of us condemned KJS as an apostate, and on the very same grounds.

Sarah called me a “Wicked Protestant Calvinist Truly Reformed Non-Anglican.”  I am all those things.  But she left out one important qualifier.  I am consistent.  It is the self-evident lack of consistency applied to our cultural allies that is so disturbing.  We apply one standard for our opponents in the culture war, and another for our allies.  This should not be.

carl

[137] Posted by carl on 11-28-2009 at 02:20 PM • top

You know our enemies just delight in reading things like this when the Declaration signed by more than 100,000 Christians is good news indeed. Here we are arguing among ourselves who or what is a Christian, while our church is being taken away from us in the night.

[138] Posted by bradhutt on 11-28-2009 at 03:37 PM • top

Carl,
So once again you have offered another doctrinal test. First it was Sola fide[#103] then Jesus arose from the dead [#132], then Jesus is the only way[#137]. You remind me of a lady I know who never married because every man she ever dated had this or that fatal flaw. How much core doctrinal agreement do you have to have with someone to call them a Christian? How much other stuff are you willing to call “adiaphora”? Some would say only John 3:16 and some would say the Nicene Creed, some would say the Augsburg Confession. Those that recite the Athanasian Creed state that a Trinitarian faith is necessary for salvation. Now you can say that good doctrine flows from right belief or vice versa or both. You can also say that you are consistent. It is about purity of doctrine for you. It is about your need to tithe your dill.

[139] Posted by Fr. Dale on 11-28-2009 at 03:52 PM • top

subscribe

[140] Posted by merlenacushing on 11-28-2009 at 04:36 PM • top

In this discussion about how correct the doctrine of someone else must be for me to associate my signature with them, for some reason my thoughts keep turning to the thief on one of the other crosses. To summarize: 1) he told the other thief they were getting what they deserved and that Jesus had done nothing to deserve punishment, 2) he pleaded that Jesus would remember him when Jesus came into his kingdom, and 3) Jesus promised him that he would be with Jesus that day in Paradise.

I would want to join with anyone who had even that miniscule understanding of the gospel if we were called to stand together against the evils of society.

[141] Posted by Bill Cool on 11-28-2009 at 06:49 PM • top

[139] Dcn Dale

Yes, that’s pretty much what the liberals on FJSTW said to me as well.  They called me a narrow-minded, arrogant purveyor of the New Puritanism.  They said I should be more humble in my understandings of Scripture.  Then they accused me of bibliolatry.  It amazes me that we will fight tooth and nail to defend the biblical prohibition against homosexuality, but get all fuzzy and soft over the greater issue of defending the definition of the Gospel.

I have become too much the focus of this thread.  I think it best to withdraw at this point.  The issues I considered important have all been developed, and nothing more needs to be said.  Let the reader decide.

carl

[142] Posted by carl on 11-28-2009 at 07:10 PM • top

#141. Bill Cool,

I would want to join with anyone who had even that miniscule understanding of the gospel if we were called to stand together against the evils of society.


I am with you on that 100%

[143] Posted by Fr. Dale on 11-28-2009 at 07:24 PM • top

Carl,  you go on saying the Catholic Church teaches things that she does not teach as you are understanding them.  I tried to put these doctrines in different words in #134 above, but I don’t find any indication that you read what I wrote.

Here are some words from someone who was declared a saint by Rome,  a saint in the sense of one whose sanctification was far advanced in this life.
She was declared a saint when elaborate procedures for investigating the life and writings of the person to be declared a saint were already in place.  As you may know, those procedures include a “devil’s advocate”  whose job it is to find and argue any possible impediments in the person’s life or writings,  either bad behavior or heresy.  The following words of St. Therese of Liseaux gave the investigators no pause:
Four months before her death, she wrote, “I am very happy that I am going to heaven; but when I think of this word of the Lord, ‘I shall come soon, and bring with me my recompense to give each one according to his works’  I tell
myself that this will be very embarrassing for me, because I have no works…Very well! He will render to me according to His works for Himself. ” [Histoire d/une ame, :. 302] 
In her “Offrande a l’Amour misericordieux”  she writes “In the evening of this life I shall appear before Thee with empty hands, because I do not ask Thee, Lord, to count my works.  All our just acts have blemishes in Thine eyes.  Therefore I want to wrap myself up again in Thy justice and to receive from Thy love the eternal possesion of Thee Thyself. ” 

Somehow the Devil’s Advocate was not able to argue that these statements of hers were heresies against the doctrines of Trent.  Why not?  Perhaps they do not mean what you think they mean? 

The same source where I found these quotes from St. Therese also cites from Catholic liturgy (the pre VII liturgy, as the source was written in 1957) as follows.  Collect for the 5th Sunday after Epiphany “Guard thy family in persevering piety, so that they will rest only in the hope of thy heavenly grace…”  the collect of Sexagesima Sunday “O Lord God, who seest that we put not our trust in anything that we do…”  collect for the second Sunday in Lent “O God, who seest that of ourselves we have no strength….”  and the Common of Confessors, ” that we who put no trust in our own justice…”

Is the Church which prays that we “put not our trust in anything that we do”  nor “in our own justice”  really a Church which teaches works righteousness? 
Susan Peterson

[144] Posted by eulogos on 11-28-2009 at 11:03 PM • top

[144] eulogos

I regretted not responding to you.  Perhaps it was a mistake not to do so.  So I will retreat a little from withdrawing from the thread at least for this post, and for your sake, because I hold you in respect.

A few years back, my company trundled about 60 people from my department into a large meeting room for its annual “United Way” campaign.  They were actually bringing in a living breathing representative to answer questions, and I determined in my mind that I would ask him about abortion.  Expecting a hostile reaction from some in the crowd, I made note of the location of my allies in the room.  I included among that number several Evangelicals, and every faithful Roman Catholic present.  These were men I knew I could count on to publicly support me if anyone objected to the question.  Afterwords, some of the RCs thanked me for asking the question.  These are my friends - men I knew would stand in the gap with me.  I want them to be my brothers.  I hate the separation between us.  You have no idea how much it hurts me to make the arguments I have made on this thread.  But I am bound.  I cannot do otherwise.  Truth is what it is.

There is no doubt in my my mind that I understand and accurately present Roman Catholic teaching as presented in the councils, and dogmas, and catechism of the RCC.  RCs tell me as much.  I have heard the arguments you made.  They simply do not withstand historical examination.  They do not correspond to the historical teachings of the RCC.  The arguments you made do not account for the meritorious works that men do of themselves, and for which they objectively merit eternal life.  It is the ‘works’ aspect of RC justification that I simply cannot get around.  It is driven into every aspect of the sacramental system.  If Rome wishes to retreat from her previous position on this matter, then many things are possible.  If individual RCs say in contravention of Trent “My works do not form any portion of the basis for my standing before God.  I stand soley in the alien righteousness of Christ” then many things are possible.  Not until.

One other thing.  When I use the term ‘Catholic’, I use it in a technical way to describe a generic individual who believes the dogmas and doctrines that a RC is bound to believe under penalty of anathema.  What any individual RC believes is beyond my knowledge.  What the RCC teaches is open to public examination.  The later is what I judge, and judge harshly. 

carl

[145] Posted by carl on 11-29-2009 at 12:37 AM • top

Thank you for that further explanation, Carl.  I understand much better what you are saying.

[146] Posted by heart on 11-29-2009 at 05:13 AM • top

I think that the Scriptural witness that sodomy is to be opposed (perfect unanimous condemnation) is clearer than the Scriptural witness to sola fide, whose advocates do need to address things like “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.” (Rev. 22:12, AV) and “Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.” (James 2:118, AV).

[147] Posted by Ed the Roman on 11-29-2009 at 07:12 AM • top

#145. carl,

These were men I knew I could count on to publicly support me if anyone objected to the question.  Afterwords, some of the RCs thanked me for asking the question.  These are my friends - men I knew would stand in the gap with me.

And this is where you are not consistent. Why should you expect them to stand with you in support? After all, they don’t believe the way you do. Apparently, in standing with you, they are less concerned about purity of doctrine than you are. It is not a personal conscience issue for them as much as it is a brother issue and speaks volumes about the “individualism” of Protestantism. This is an important discussion and not just a distraction from the Manhattan Declaration.

[148] Posted by Fr. Dale on 11-29-2009 at 08:02 AM • top

Sorry for the typo on the James cite.  Should be 2:18.

[149] Posted by Ed the Roman on 11-29-2009 at 08:48 AM • top

I will shew thee my faith by my works

Hence, works SHOW faith.  However, they do not accomplish what is accomplished through faith; they simply SHOW it.

my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be

Hence, we are given REWARD according to our works.  However, we are given SALVATION by grace through faith.  I submit that reward and salvation are two distinct things.  I am happy to receive both from the One who gives them.

[150] Posted by Chazaq on 11-29-2009 at 09:09 AM • top

I signed(192808)...looks like the number doing so has nearly doubled since 11-24.

[151] Posted by merlenacushing on 11-29-2009 at 04:41 PM • top

I hope that individuals who are interested in the “Manhattan Declaration” will continue to comment here.
Please don’t forget the subject of this thread, which is the “Manhattan Declaration”.
I hope we don’t get sidetracked by subjects like individualism. The Presiding Bishop has made a statement on the subject of individual salvation and those who wish to discuss the pros and cons of individualism might find that thread a more appropriate place to comment.

[152] Posted by Betty See on 11-30-2009 at 07:52 PM • top

#152,

The Presiding Bishop has made a statement on the subject of individual salvation and those who wish to discuss the pros and cons of individualism might find that thread a more appropriate place to comment.

Individualism is a big part of what is wrong with TEC and why many won’t sign the Declaration even though they agree with the three points of Life, Marriage and Liberty.
Please don’t assign yourself the job of “SF Blog Cop”.

[153] Posted by Fr. Dale on 11-30-2009 at 08:31 PM • top

Tonight, the number of signers is over 214,000

[154] Posted by Floridian on 11-30-2009 at 08:42 PM • top

I don’t think I’ve seen reasons not to sign that are clearly distinguishable from “I will not be publicly associated with those people.”  Over weighty doctrinal matters to be sure, but over matters that are not within the scope of the declaration.

It’s not as bad as refusing to sign the Declaration of Independence because Jefferson was a Deist, but it’s a bit like that.

[155] Posted by Ed the Roman on 11-30-2009 at 10:42 PM • top

“believers in Roman Catholic churches are saved despite the doctrine of Rome not through it”

Nobody is sustained by the vitamin theory of nutrition.  They are sustained by food.

Nobody is saved by a doctrine.  They are saved by Jesus.

[156] Posted by Ed the Roman on 11-30-2009 at 11:25 PM • top

Unlike Carl, I would have absolutely no problem signing the declaration. Even so, I think we’re failing to give Carl credit for bringing up a very important and disturbing point. In his own words:

It amazes me that we will fight tooth and nail to defend the biblical prohibition against homosexuality, but get all fuzzy and soft over the greater issue of defending the definition of the Gospel.

What he wrote is not quite true - there are a few central Gospel issues, like the uniqueness of Christ, His deity, and His physical resurrection, which we defend quite militantly (as we should!) - but the thrust of his statement is still correct. Homosexuality is a quaternary issue at best, yet somehow it gets top billing. Meanwhile, as for primary issues like the process of salvation? Ah, forget about that - at least we’re all pro-life, generically conservative, and think homosexuality is sinful. We’re rapidly approaching the point where it seems as if you’re a Christian as long as you can be accurately described as ‘theologically conservative.’

I see this statement as a fundamentally good thing. As many have said, these 100+ people have drawn a line in the sand, and have spoken prophetically. But why are we only allowed to speak prophetically and forcefully on issues that all conservatives agree upon? Why is any stand which decidedly separates ‘theological conservatives’ considered taboo? Unlike Carl, I’m not willing to flatly claim that Roman Catholicism isn’t Christianity. But neither am I ready to write off the entire Reformation as pointless, and all quibbling over precise Gospel definitions as pure minutiae.

Recently, pro-abortion figures have tried to push “common ground” initiatives. They claim that what unites us on abortion is ultimately more important that what divides us. Overwhelmingly however, pro-lifers have recognized these “common ground” overtures as the utter shams they are. In the realm of abortion, absolute truth must be maintained even if at the expense of a faux-“unity.” Is it really too much to desire the same level of absolute commitment to the Gospel?

[157] Posted by LDW1988 on 12-01-2009 at 12:38 AM • top

[157] LDW1988

Homosexuality is a quaternary issue at best


Thank you for this post.  My only quibble is that homosexuality is far from a quaternary issue.  It is idolatry, and arguably more serious than adultery. 

carl

[158] Posted by carl on 12-01-2009 at 12:54 AM • top

From the Manhattan Declaration authors and organizers:

To all signers of the Manhattan Declaration:

Thank you for signing. We are now over 200,000 strong-and counting, for which we give thanks to God.

We have received thousands of e-mails asking what’s next - a good question. The goal of those of us who drafted and signed the document is not just to get a lot of names on a manifesto, gratifying though that is. We are seeking to build a movement - hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Catholic, Evangelical, and Eastern Orthodox Christians who will stand together alongside other men and women of goodwill in defense of foundational principles of justice and the common good. These are people who could expose the lie which so many in our culture have embraced about self being the center of life; and then winsomely present, in the words of St. Paul, “a more excellent way.”

We are looking for people who will work in every possible arena to advance the sanctity of life, rebuild and revitalize the marriage culture, and protect religious liberty.

So what’s next for you? Let us offer some specific suggestions. More will undoubtedly follow in the weeks ahead.


Pray. We can do nothing apart from God. So lay this before the Lord every chance you have, and ask your friends and prayer chains to do the same thing.


Study and learn about these issues. We see the Manhattan Declaration as a great teaching and reference source. Share it with others. Only after you have tried to teach it to someone else will you have really learned it. And go deeper in your own study. There are many organizations that offer excellent resources in support of these foundational truths. If you can’t find resources, the Worldview Resource Directory we’ve assembled might be helpful.


Come back to http://www.manhattandeclaration.org if you want help in answering questions others pose to you. We’ve posted a FAQ (frequently asked questions) tab on the home page, but most people signed the statement before this was added. So revisit http://www.manhattandeclaration.org - and watch for other resources we will be posting.


Invite all of the friends on your e-mail lists to go to http://www.manhattandeclaration.org, read the Declaration (that’s most important) and sign it.


Talk to your pastor or small group leader in church. We have heard from a number of pastors who are already referring to this document in their sermons and using it in their teaching. We’ve also heard from bishops and other church leaders who are planning ecumenical gatherings in their areas of responsibility. Some are talking about campaigns to equip the faithful. Other pastors are asking their congregations to sign the document, and become informed. Go to your pastor; urge him to do this. You can really help in this area. Suggest it, and then volunteer to be a part of it. Step forward as a leader.


If you belong to a civic group like Kiwanis or Rotary, and you have regular meetings, that’s a great forum in which to share information about the Manhattan Declaration. Explain to people what you’ve signed and why you’ve signed it. A lot of people are asking about this statement, its meaning and purpose. Educate them.


Letters to the Editor can be a very effective way to spread information about important issues. According to some sources, more people read the Letters to the Editor columns than the editorials.


Watch the issues being debated in the public arena, particularly as the health reform bill is moving through Congress. As a citizen you have a duty to let your representatives know what you think about the issues, particularly on profoundly important moral questions like those being raised now.


Get on Facebook or any other chat rooms or blogs that you have access to. Social networking, as we are learning, can have a powerful impact.


Finally, talk to your neighbors. Robert Naisbitt wrote that fads begin from the top down, movements from the bottom up. We are convinced that societies are changed over the backyard fence, standing around the barbeque grill, and sitting in the barber shop or hair salon. Learn to be an advocate in any environment.
In conclusion, in asking you to sign we were not just asking you to raise your hand, but to raise your voice. Great changes in society have often come about when Christian people unite in this way - think of the Wesley awakening, the Celtic revival, or movements for social justice and civil rights in our own country. We believe God is looking for good men and women who will pledge (as you have done in signing the Manhattan Declaration), never to compromise the gospel, and to become well-informed, effective advocates true and godly principles.

This is a message of hope for every area of human life and endeavor, and a call to discipleship for every believer.

God bless you.

Dr. Robert George
Dr. Timothy George
Chuck Colson

[159] Posted by Floridian on 12-03-2009 at 05:42 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.