For those of you who might be interested in the implications of key conservative evangelicals signing the Manhattan Declaration, then read the following
Michael Horton's article opposing the declaration
R.C. Sproul's article opposing the declaration and calling upon his friends who did sign it to remove their names from the document
Lig Duncan's article explaining why some members of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals signed the document
I have read all of the above and would like to make a few clarifications regarding the implications of the wide array of disagreement between key evangelical leaders.
1. The signers of the document have made it clear (at least the key ones who have written articles defending why they signed it) that they disagree with Roman Catholics on the Gospel. They make it clear that their signatures in no way whatsoever support, affirm, or even astuciously imply that they are one with the Roman Catholics on the Gospel.
2. Therefore, the consciences of the signers (who have defended why they signed the document) have not been violated or compromised.
3. The non-signers of the document who have openly disagreed with what the document implies- that Catholics and Protestants are united in the Gospel- have made it clear that they take the signers at their word when they say their consciences have not been compromised.
4. Therefore, the non-signers cardinal issue is not with particular signers of the document and their view of the Gospel. Rather, it is with the lack of discretion and judgement used by these signers (their friends and co-laborers in promoting the Gospel) that led to their signing of the document. In other words, these non-signers make it clear that those who signed the document were unwise at worst, and simply duped by Colson and his clan at best.
5. In addition, the non-signers affirm boldly and unashamedly the moral issues outlined in the document.
Below I have chosen to use one word to describe the articles of both the signers and non-signers of the Manhattan Declaration.
Al Mohler's article explaining why he signed it....honest
Allistair Begg's article explaining he did not sign it...pastoral
John MacArthur's article explaining why he did not sign it...direct
Lig Duncan's (President of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals) article explaining why some members of the Alliance signed the document and others did not sign it...clear
R.C. Sproul's article explaining why he did not sign it...passionate
Michael Horton's article explaining why he did not sign it...perceptive
I would urge anyone who is aware of the document to read through it carefully (not just the summary version) before signing. Once again, at this point I am convinced that it is an issue of conscience. It depends on how one reads the document. It is a judgement call. However, Chuck Colson has made some remarks in an interview that reveal his intention (as one of the three primary authors) for the document. In the interview he makes it clear that he believes the document effectively joins Catholics and Protestants together under the banner of the Gospel....something to think about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Intent is the key, isn't it. I've signed it after having read every word. I didn't take it as an acknowledgment of theological unity, but as moral unity.
ReplyDeleteIf Colson had an ulterior motive for signing it, and didn't make that clear, then I think he's done a diservice to us all.
If that was a key motive, I would consider asking my name to be removed.
As I stated clearly in the posts, I personally believe that signing, or not signing MD is an issue of conscience. I think that the wording of the document is unfortunate in terms of statements like "we Christians", "the Gospel", etc. The part on the three moral issues delineated are excellent, especially the paragraph that elaborates on the sanctity of human life. It just seems that the only statement that communicates differences in doctrine ("ecclesial differences") between RCC, Orthodox, and Protestants is not strong enough. I would never describe the difference between Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants as merely "ecclesial differences". I might describe the difference between Presbyterians and Baptists as "ecclesial differences" (and maybe even some Methodists). I would gladly say that there are "ecclesial differences" between even Reformed Baptists, and most Southern Baptists, but never would I use that term to distinguish between what the RCC believes in comparison to evangelical Protestants. Let's remember that the RCC denies justification by faith. This is no mere "ecclesial difference".
ReplyDeleteThanks for your insight Bob. I appreiciate your willingness to remove your name IF Colson proves to have ulterior motives. Only time will tell, and we may never know. I think it is also important to point out once again that I hope this document does not cause dissension between signers and non-signers because it is clear that many of the signers love the Gospel!