The following will sound more jaded than intended.

I don't see myself siging the MP mainly because:

I don't see the point. It seems 'gimmicky'. It feels like one of those Facebook deals where 267,975 people have joined a "Can we find 100 Million people who support life" cause/group.

I don't see the end game. What is their plan? I do see it is copyrighted. Again, I feel t-shirts, mugs, bumper stickers, books, videos, seminars, (anything you can sell in a Christian bookstore), etc. As a matter of fact, I predict this will become (if it hasn't already) a huge money-maker.

Sigh... I am becoming more a believer in the concept of just living it out in your own local. Local family. Local church. Local community. Teach it. Live it. If everyone who has already signed it would do that, we probably wouldn't need a campaign.

Unfortunately, I think organizers of these kinds of things are more interested in the splash than the flow. Everyone wants to launch the next big thing.

Again, I am sorry if that sounded too jaded. But trust me, I just believe in the power of living out the concepts more than the signing of a website document.

If everyone who has already signed it would do that, we probably wouldn't need a campaign.

That's how I feel, too. I didn't sign it because it feels like a big "choose your side" as we continue to ramp up our war against "the other side." We're drawing the battle lines, and you need to decide whose side you're on.

We need fewer lines in the sand, fewer walls to protect us from the world, and more people willing to go into it rather than building up defenses from which we can wage war against it. Our battle isn't against flesh and blood.

I agree with David. I think that signing stuff like this is more of a gimmick then anything. I believe that it is time for the Church to just live these things out and stop talking.

I think that Dieter Zander said it best, "If Christians in the U.S. would be quiet for a year and only do good works, that would be evangelism. Our actions are way behind our words."

I don't see myself signing this thing, because I am choosing to live it out instead.

Ed and David,,

I share the angst against Christian consumerism. And I like the metaphors of splash and flow. But often the splash is needed to create flow, so if the declaration can create a river of people that turns the tide against slaughtered babies in the womb and homosexual "marriages," I'm for it, despite theological differences I may have with others with whom I stand. I too am Reformed (SBC) and on this one I vote with Mohler.

I think David Gould is right on.

I also want to add that I'm weary of these issues defining me as a Christian in America. People in this country already think that "Christian = a person who is opposed to abortion and homosexuality" but couldn't tell you what the Gospel is if their lives depended on it! Clearly, the Scriptures say something about both of those issues, but that's not our whole message. In fact, it's not even the most important part of our message! Christ and him crucified -- where is that in the Manhattan Declaration? When will we get it that any attempt at righteousness apart from the Gospel = moralism, not Christianity?

Furthermore, I think the tendency to parochialism has had its day in America. It's high time we recognized that we are not the majority in Christendom any longer. Christians in Asia and the Global South are making chumps out of us -- they're planting churches and preaching the Gospel while we obsess about political involvement and affix our virtual signatures to online documents of questionable impact and nebulous intent.

It's a red herring.

I recognize the concerns about not defining the gospel, as stated by horton and the others. However, those in common philosophy and goals concerning the 3 main issues addressed by this document must stand together. For crying out loud it was the Mormons who took the biggest beating in California over prop 8. I know they were present for this, but the evangelical was not as loud on a very important issue. Evangelicals need to stop spliting hairs over these moral cultural issues and do something about it while they still can in a free society. If we can't unite under this banner now we may have to wait for a pastor to be thrown in jail over preaching against these issues.

no one will be thrown in jail for preaching the gospel. But, they can be thrown into jail if certain items are legislatively considered hate speech, i.e. "homosexuality is wrong" or even a toned down version of "I think God never intended for homosexuality to be a part of his original design". You can see where I guy may have been fired from his job because of his view...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572862,00.html Listen, I am not some big political activist. I just desire to see the Christian community and whoever will join in to deal with a serious issues growing in our country.
We can unite now and deal with this pressing issue. Sorry for the rant but we must unite when and where we can unite.

Every body of believers in each church have a basic statement of faith and belief. I see nothing wrong with them having one either. I am brought to remember the Council meeting in Acts as James said the following; "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
Like the other brother said, what they state is the obvious for those that know Christ and who He is, and I believe they would agree with the declaration presented here. If we obey the Words of Christ and the Prophets, then if we sign this or not, the World will know where we stand by both our word and our deeds.

I haven't signed it- not that one more name would make a huge difference. I understand those who won't sign it, but let me invite those who won't sign it live in the Northwest for a while. A couple of things I've observed/experienced- a). I have never met an Orthodox Christian- there may be some in the larger cities in the NW, but not in the rural areas I've served...but the Roman Catholic's I have met have been more closely aligned with me on the gospel than they are in other parts of the country- being in a mission setting affects how we present the gospel...b). There is strength in numbers. Look at voting data for Oregon and Washington- the cities, where most of the population lives are by and large extremely liberal (hence, assisted suicide, medical marijuana, civil unions-btw the first civil union recognition appeared on our local paper's society page on 12/6/09) and we conservatives need all the help we can find! The last issue has to do with the heart of the issue- apart from personal transformation by the Holy Spirit as He comes into our lives through our relationship with God by Jesus Christ, there is no hope for our community, or our culture.
I probably won't sign, but I have made the information available to our several in our church who have asked. I would identify myself as 'one of those' who agree in principle with the affirmations the declaration states.

I'd sign if the majority of signers had longer beards than I.

I joyfully signed the Manhattan Declaration.

Here's a good article by Scot Klusendorf titled "Should Christians be Cobelligerents in Ecumenical Coalitions?"

Another article worth reading is by Andrew Sandlin titled "Lordship Salvation is Not Enough: A Response to John MacArthur."

I didn't sign the Manhattan Declaration (MD) for reasons similar to those cited by Begg, MacArthur, James White and others.

Better to be thrown in jail for preaching the gospel than to sell it out for political purposes. Indeed, "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?"

Unless we see a great evangelistic harvest of genuine converts soon, it seems we are headed inexorably down that path regardless. Political action won't stop it, as should be obvious from the very mixed (at best) results of evangelical political action of the last 30 years.

I'm not alleging that all of those who signed are lost, but it does indicate that their priorities are skewed. The MD is cut from the same cloth as ECT, as I noted in my most recent blog post. Those who drafted the MD (especially Colson) have stated that they view it as a theological document, not simply a political statement.

How ironic (and tragic) for people who harp on original intent when it comes to the US Constitution to ignore the original intent of the framers of the Manhattan Declaration.

How ironic (and tragic) for people who beat the drum for "Gospel Centerdness" to sign and promote a declaration that is anything but Gospel centered.

I agree with David,Todd, Laura... there always seems to be another statement, resolution, etc stating our stand against (fill in the blank). The church seems to have, in some senses, abandoned the power of the Holy Spirit for the power of public statement.

The only reason we need these statements is that we have not evangelized our country properly and the only solution to these social ills is to evangelize our country.

I agree with the Declaration in principle, and agree that these are issues we face, but would not sign it because honestly would rather put my name to something that declared God's passionate undying love for our lost world rather than the 35th declaration of what we don't like about our world.

Here's other thoughts worth pondering:

“I see both sides, and it is nearly impossible to force someone to go against their conscience on an issue of this much import. What I don’t understand however is that we cannot cooperate with leaders who have a different message but want to promote the type of society that is in more conformity with God’s laws… but … we *can* somehow (via Romans 13) cooperate with and submit to unbelievers and power grabbers and oppressors who are neither trying to promote Godly laws nor God’s gospel. This is what confuses me. It seems like a choking on gnats/swallowing camels thing.

If we can cooperate as police officers, firemen, doctors, EMT’s, soldiers, seamen, marines, airmen, with unbelievers to defend this country, to save lives, why not in this limited endeavor? If someone was attacking my neighbor, unjustly taking his belongings or killing his children, and my other neighbor called me to help stop it, would I refuse to help because my neighbors are Catholic or unbelievers? Would I even bother to ask? Wouldn’t this be the point at which a pharisee might say I can’t help you pull your donkey out of the well on the Sabbath, lest I violate my God’s command?”

Here are my opinions on the Sodom and Gomorrah Declaration:

If my reading of the Bible and, especially, end times is correct, we will never win the culture war or create heaven on earth. Why not spend our blood, sweat, and tears winning souls and loving the lost into a relationship with the only One that can change them instead?

Why not make a declaration that announces that we, as Christians, are finally going to do something about how many kids languish in the foster care system here in the U.S.? That we want 'true religion' as defined in James 1:27? The Bible is my declaration. I find no need to create a declaration beyond it, nor any need (or command in it) to start a political action committee.

And to the young man fired over expressing his offendedness over his manager's recent gay marriage, could it be that God allowed you to be fired from Brookstone because you weren't going to be someone that could effectively witness to a gay person? At the very least, the Bible states we will be persecuted for our faith (and we shouldn't count it surprising.)

Why do we all want to live in a Jesus Country Club when that's not what the Bible tells us?

TUAD,

I have no problem cooperating with those of other faiths on a whole host of issues. What is objectionable is when it's done under the banner of Christianity with those who have a different definition of what a Christian is.

Colson thinks it's only necessary to affirm the Apostle's or Nicene Creed to be able to cooperate under the banner of Christianity and thus affirms Rome's and EO's Christianity. I disagree. This is a case in which Truth Divides, or should.

Those evangelical signatories to the MD in the Southern Baptist Convention and elsewhere are blowing trumpets with an uncertain sound on this issue. Those who purport to be Gospel centered who signed are working at cross purposes to say the least.

(Note: Link to my blog entered correctly in this comment.)

Christian,

Please reflectively read the articles posted in my 9:52am comment above.

Pax.

As to our Reformed brothers' objection, the word "Gospel" isn't even in the MD, is it?

I think it's a very good, very needed document. I'll sign it.

Gay Activists Target Signers Of The Manhattan Declaration

By Susan Brinkmann, For The Bulletin

Monday, December 07, 2009

Same-sex marriage proponents are threatening to cause disruptions in the diocese of every bishop who signed the Manhattan Declaration, a statement calling on Christians to stand up for their belief in the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty.

A post appearing on GayBuzz.blogspot on Nov. 28 calls upon gay activists to punish Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of the Catholic Diocese of Oakland, Ca., for signing the declaration.

“It is time we let Bishop Cordileone know there are consequences for his actions,” the blogger states. “Is anyone up for a rally in front of the Oakland Diocese or a disruption of services? Let me know and I’m happy to help organize.”

After listing an address where people could write to the bishop, the blogger goes on to say: “By the way, here are the other Catholic cardinals and bishops who signed the Manhattan Declaration.” Listed are the names of the 17 bishops who signed the Declaration to date.

The blogger goes on to cite Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate who refers to the 152 framers of the document as “zealots” who “drafted, approved and signed their Declaration of War on full civil rights for gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans last week. They threw in some other societal beefs, just to try and mask the overriding issue, their fervent opposition to same-sex marriage.”

From here.

Neil,

The document does reference the Gospel and even specifically states, "It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness..." and this is what troubles me. I was excited when it first came out and I signed it, but after reading the concerns of others I have re-examined it and I don't feel quite comfortable with it, but I don't wish to totally dismiss it either. I do not wish to ride the fence, but I am truly torn here.

Thanks to Polarbear for the reply. I had only read the first page (A CALL OF CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE) on http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/.

I have a whole lot more to read!

Several thoughts:

1. Will people some day look back and see the signing of the "Manhattan Declaration," as a watershed event in the transformation of the cultural woes listed in the declaration?

2. I'm very inclined to join (and have joined) the people mentioned in the declaration to fight the problems mentioned in the declaration. I'm less inclined to sign my name to it. I'm not sure why that is?

3. I see Chuck Colson's name. Reminds me of his work with ECT. Wonder why his penchant for these kinds of documents?

How does this declaration help us achieve our mission? Who is the 'declaration' for... us or them? If it is for us, then we have strayed further than I had thought. If it is for them, it seems redundant.

BTW, earlier I typed MP when I should have typed MD. Maybe I was thinking Manhattan Project... Freudian slip? LOL.

TUAD,

I'm pretty familiar with Andrew Sandlin's positions. He used to be an associate of the late R.J. Rushdoony, the father of Christian Reconstructionism and has basically morphed into a neocon in that he now supports the GOP. In contrast many other theonomists have supported the Constitution Party, which was basically started by Recons. Thus his support of the MD isn't surprising.

Sandlin attempts to enlist the late John Murray to help him make his case. Murray was one of the early professors at Westminster Theological Seminary and a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Now a cursory reading of Murray's "Principles of Conduct" will reveal that he indeed saw the Lordship of Christ as having a wider impact than MacArthur does (at least in practice.) This is the difference between the essentially postmillennial Reformed "world and life view" vs. a dispensational Baptist's view of the church's role in the world. Nevertheless, I seriously doubt that John Murray or even R.J. Rushdoony would have signed the MD. Michael Horton and his associates are also Reformed but have very different ideas on the church's role in culture, taking what is essentially more of a Lutheran view.

Many of us who oppose the MD have have said over and over that we would prefer that the statement have included Mormons, Jews and others who are concerned about these issues and been issued as a statement by concerned citizens, not as Christians. Indeed Mormons were reviled over their support for Prop. 8 in California.

That the MD was sent forth under the banner of Christianity and was limited to evangelicals (whatever that means these days) RC and EO demonstrates the ecumenical intent of the drafters of the statement, who have all been involved in Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT.)

Neil Johnston,

Since I am a Baptist, I wouldn't consider myself Reformed. I spent several years as a Reformed Presbyterian, and it encompasses more than just the 5 points, IMHO, particularly when you take the original Reformed confessions into account.

That issue aside, the gospel is indeed mentioned in the MD and is also strongly implied several times. Read the entire statement, not just the summary. It includes the words "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."

I posted other pertinent excerpts here: http://onepilgrimsprogress.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/the-manhattan-declaration-ect-in-miniature/

Preaching moralism is not the Gospel. Indeed, the only NT precedent I can find for it is the Pharisees.

I submit that the confusion over the gospel that is evident with things like ECT and the MD are the result of the moral crusading of the past 30 years by evangelicals, efforts that have all too often seen the gospel neglected in favor of other causes, however noble. I submit that if groups like Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and the Concerned Women for America were half as concerned about the Gospel as they were with America that America would likely be much better off, and would be more moral as a result.

Ask the average man in the street today what he thinks of when he hears Southern Baptist, and you're likely to hear something about boycotts of Disney. Ask him what an evangelical is and you're likely to hear something about Republicans and abortion.

Again, Colson (one of the framers of the MD) contradicted Mohler's apologetic for signing and stated that the Manhattan Declaration is a theological document. Those of us who oppose the MD do not believe that there are no individual Christians in Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. But as institutions they do not agree with evangelicals (i.e. Bible believing Baptists, Reformed, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans etc.) on the way of salvation. Thus the reference to them as Christian in the document is illegitimate.

If these evangelical ecumenists really believe that Rome confesses the same gospel that they do, then what reason do they have for not repairing the schism and crossing the Tiber as Francis Beckwith, Randall Terry and several others have? Is it due to mere personal preference? Mere loyalty to their ecclesiastical heritage? Fear that their ministry will lose donations from evangelicals? I don't include all the signers of the MD here, but primarily the evangelical drafters of the MD, who were also involved with ECT.

I have to confess that, distasteful to my Baptist views as it is, I prefer the old theocratic Reformed view as given in the original Westminster Standards and Solemn League and Covenant to this modern mushy theologically indistinct evangelical activism, with its obscured and superficial gospel. In many cases is nothing more than an appeal to get back to the way it was in the 1950's, and an idealized, sanitized view of that decade at that. At least full blown theocracy is more intellectually honest and coherent.

TUAD,

The mere fact that liberals oppose something doesn't make it praiseworthy.

Would that the Gospel be the offense, and not moralistic diatribes that often appear to stem primarily from despair over the moral decline of the USA.

There was widespread moral decline in 18th Century Britain and America, but Wesley and Whitefield and others responded with Gospel preaching, and not with moralistic crusades that usually neglect the Gospel, and merely assume it. In what is rapidly becoming a post-Christian age, assuming the Gospel is particularly inappropriate.

I believe it was J.I. Packer that several years ago stated a need to rechristianize the American milieu. ECT and the MD aren't the means God ordained to do that.

Ed said, "Almost all of the objections I have read come from the Reformed wing of evangelicalism."

Actually, it's not just the Reformed camp who has been divided on the MD. I would contend that many politically "moderate" evangelicals have been noticeably absent from the list of signatories including respected scholars like David Gushee, Jim Skillen, Mark Noll, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Stephen Monsma, J.P. Moreland, Os Guinness, Dallas Willard and Darrell Bock, not to mention other influential evangelical voices like Rick Warren, Joel Hunter, Bill Hybels, Gary Haugen and Rich Stearns.

This doesn't mean Manhattan isn't an amazing feat of coalition-building across Evangelical-Catholic lines (Neuhaus would be proud), but such a narrow range of policy emphases might explain why many, including yours truly, are reluctant to sign on.

Regent College theology prof John Stackhouse called the MD "strangely useless"

http://stackblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/the-manhattan-declaration-a-waste-of-everybodys-time/

Jonathan Merrit of the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative says the statement is unlikely to "sway a new generation of Christian leaders who take a broader view of cultural issues facing us today."

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/11/manhattan_declaration_unlikely_to_inspire_young_christians.html

It would be interesting to find out how many people became Christians, either directly or indirectly, because of Wilberforce's persistent political actions to end slavery.

I wonder if we would view these signers differently it they were signing THE IRAN DECLARATION or THE NORTH KOREA DECLARATION? Just a thought!

I signed it (I'm sure it was on the 11 p.m. news so I didn't really have to say that, right?)

Sure, it's not a complete statement of faith, but when does it have to be? If citizens wanted to demonstrate against a Dirty Book Store in my neighborhood, would I have to be sure the Petition included the 5 points of Calvinism or all the points of the BF&M? Or that every signer agreed with me soteriologically?

(I don't have any idea what I'm talking about; I just wanted to say "soteriologically".)

HEY! I like the security word. It's "sounded oracling". So you guys better pay attention.

Bob Cleveland: "I signed it.

Good!

"Sure, it's not a complete statement of faith, but when does it have to be? If citizens wanted to demonstrate against a Dirty Book Store in my neighborhood, would I have to be sure the Petition included the 5 points of Calvinism or all the points of the BF&M? Or that every signer agreed with me soteriologically?"

Excellent satire oftentimes makes the most effective riposte against wayward arguments.

"Christian" in his above statements pretty much sums up my sentiments on the issue. I will not sign the document because it assumes the gospel and assumes all 3 faiths mentioned are proclaimers of the gospel. They are not.

Brother Ed, I did a write up a week ago or so on why I would not sign. I basically give similar reasons as MacArthur, Begg, White, Horton, etc.

Thanks for furthering the discussion...I think. ;)

Ed, I did sign it - not because of adherence to Christ, just because the 3 stated values are being diminished by many current government leaders. They seem to listen to large numbers when looking at issues.

If, by not signing, I encourage more eroding of these values, is that a good thing?

No, I chose not to sign it. It is just more culture war. I do not have the stomach for much more of that. So we get the laws changed, make our country more moral......people are still without Christ. We take our eye off the ball so easy its amost becoming pathetic.

Why does it have to be either/or?

So many here who are against it have said things like "no more cultural war, no more activism, I just want to preach the gospel."

Why can't a person sign the document, participate in the legislative process, try to end the horror that is abortion and all the while love your homosexual neighbor and love your neighbor who had an abortion and share the gospel with people in a loving way?