On November 20, 2009, a document called the Manhattan Declaration was presented to the public by a coalition of cobelligerents. The document is concerned primarily with three very important biblical and cultural issues: the sanctity of life, the meaning of marriage, and the nature of religious liberty. Without question, these issues are up for grabs in our nation.
As anyone familiar with my ministry will know, I share the document’s concern for defending the unborn, defining heterosexual marriage biblically, and preserving a proper relationship between church and state. However, when the document was sent to me and my signature was requested a few weeks ago, I declined to sign it.
In answer to the question, “R.C., why didn’t you sign the Manhattan Declaration?” I offer the following answer: The Manhattan Declaration confuses common grace and special grace by combining them. While I would march with the bishop of Rome and an Orthodox prelate to resist the slaughter of innocents in the womb, I could never ground that cobelligerency on the assumption that we share a common faith and a unified understanding of the gospel.
via The Manhattan Declaration: Why didn’t you sign it, R.C.? by R.C. Sproul | Ligonier Ministries Blog.
December 9th, 2009 10:04 pm
Sproul shows where the so-called theological conscience lies of the modern Reformed “right”. Of this I am personally sad. Another of the reasons I cannot myself stand to the far theological side of the Reformed. He agrees with the central ethics of the MD, but cannot sign on personal theological grounds? Strange to my mind.
December 9th, 2009 10:09 pm
I find it funny, Fr. Robert, that you easily dismiss all the concerns expressed by these important people and categorize them as ‘right.’ The MD is a terrible document and needs to be cast atop the trash heap of history.
December 9th, 2009 10:10 pm
Further, many people, myself included, agree with the central ethics of MD, but refuse to sign because of the political nature of it, and the very fact that it does nothing to correct any issues.
December 9th, 2009 10:13 pm
I use “right” as the sense of being right verses left, in metaphor. I think it comes from your American political usage.
December 9th, 2009 10:17 pm
Okay, that’s fine, but you doubt the conservatism then of Sproul because he, and millions of others, will not sign this document? Doesn’t that prove my point about this being a rather political document?
December 9th, 2009 11:52 pm
Well maybe we have come full circle? Time to say good night.
December 9th, 2009 10:27 pm
Yes, surely it is rather political.. but we must start somehere. I like the majority of the people here. And for perhaps the first time, you have Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Evangelicals even more together. We as Christians simply must stand up to the world on these and many other issues. My thoughts at least. But sadly, the MD will mean little without a more unified support, and this appears to be lacking overall.
December 9th, 2009 10:51 pm
Which proves my point of why not to sign it.
December 9th, 2009 11:02 pm
Only your own personal point Joel, just like Sproul in the end, i.e. “personal” reasons, rather than in the general nature of the Church of God collective.
December 9th, 2009 11:04 pm
And it is very much personal reasons for you as well, Fr. Robert. I would say that both I and Sproul see the general nature of the Church as something that we are defending.
December 9th, 2009 11:05 pm
For me, and this is not a polemic, but to the scruple of personal conscience, rather than the Church’s. My point with Sproul.
December 9th, 2009 11:07 pm
And what is that “general nature”?
December 9th, 2009 11:10 pm
That while the Church is here, this is not our home. Our calling is not to change this world, but to call lost souls to the Body of Christ for our heavenly home. This mission of the Church has nothing to do with politics, and like ALL of the early church writers, combining the two is antithetical to the Church. It seems, that only when the Church was given political power – disastrous – that the mood changed. A new doctrine was developed.
December 9th, 2009 11:11 pm
I think Sproul has scruples of personal conscience, Fr. Robert, which is why he didn’t sign, God bless him.
December 9th, 2009 11:29 pm
I don’t doubt his conscience, but his reason in personal “theological” scruple. Too narrow in my opinion. That is sometimes the nature of the American Reformed at least. Like also John MacArthur. One of the reasons I am myself moving away from the “hard” line position of Reformed theology.
December 9th, 2009 11:36 pm
The Church has to be in the world, but not of it! Never an easy balance. There would be no historical (lasting) and continuing Church without Constantine’s history. I mean in the sense of more than a mere sect.
December 9th, 2009 11:45 pm
I disagree, as I wouldn’t count what Constantine did as Christian, or the religion which developed after his action Christian.
December 9th, 2009 11:48 pm
That’s why I am historically “Catholic”, and you are not, yes?
December 9th, 2009 11:49 pm
I would say so.