Keeping my Distance from the Declaration

I have refrained thus far from commenting on the recent Manhattan Declaration. Part of my reason is that everyone out there is blogging and writing about it and it seems very unlikely that I will contribute substantially to the discussion. The other reason is that I am sensitive to the fact that I have some Roman Catholic friends who read my blog occasionally. One of them is convinced that Reformed people are “obsessed” (his word) with being anti-Catholic for the sake of being anti-Catholic. We have had several lively exchanges, always cordial, but my worry in writing about the declaration was that it might be seen to bolster his concerns. Because the declaration is getting more and more coverage, however, I have decided to risk being misunderstood (as to my motives) by my friend and comment on it anyway.

My initial reaction was not to sign it. Was it simply a knee-jerk reaction to the fact Catholics and Orthodox signed the document? I didn’t believe so. Some things about the document just did not feel right to me, so I decided to go back through it again and re-evaluate.

What’s Good

So what is commendable with the declaration? Simply put, the document boldly takes on some of the greatest moral issues of our time:

• the question of abortion;
• the question of gay marriage; and,
• the issue of religious liberty.

It is difficult for a Bible-believing Christian to be against the positions advocated in the paper. The document decries abortion as an affront to human worth and dignity. The wanton slaughter of unborn children and its evil twin, euthanasia, are without a doubt the greatest moral evils of our time. The signatories vow,

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.

The document affirms the biblical teaching on marriage: one man, and one woman, united together for life for mutual help and comfort, and for raising children. The attempts from some quarters to redefine this basic social institution have created the greatest social evil of out time. Of marriage, the declaration says,

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…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.

The document re-affirms the principle of religious liberty as a basic human right, and puts governments on notice that the Christians' first allegiance is to Christ. The statement boldly declares,

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.

Good statements and I heartily agree with them. So why the reluctance to sign it myself? Read on, Gentle Reader.

What’s of Concern

Let me suggest two: First, the document’s focus is on secondary issues. Second, the document’s ecumenical flavor makes for some troubling statements and tacit assumptions.

When I say the document focuses on secondary issues, I mean that as awful as abortion, euthanasia, promiscuity, gay marriage, and the erosion of Christian liberty are, these issues are symptoms of our deeper problem: indwelling sin. Attempts at reforming society, however noble, are misguided. Society will never be lastingly changed until and unless people turn from their sins, embrace the gospel, and submit to Jesus as Lord.

Secondly, the ecumenical nature of the document blunts its force. Consider the following quotes:

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.

This is not at all an adequate description of the task of Christianity. In fact, it smacks of liberation theology.

The Preamble tacitly sweeps crucial doctrinal issues under the carpet, reducing Christianity essentially to acknowledging Trinitarian doctrine. While I would agree that all true Christians are Trinitarian, I would disagree that all Trinitarians are true Christians.

The document calls on Christians to “proclaim the doctrine of costly grace” but nowhere defines it. The document assumes that Catholics, Orthodox, and Evangelicals affirm the same gospel. We simply do not. The Catholic gospel is one of human efforts combining with divine grace to produce salvation. To cast this against the Reformed view, we would say that the gospel is the good news that Christ, by virtue of his own merits, purchased salvation for all who believe and that salvation is received by faith alone, apart from human effort.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Eph. 2:8-9)

(Of course, we acknowledge the role of good works in salvation. The difference is that the RCC teaches that good works are the cause of salvation. The Bible teaches that they are the result of salvation.)
The document goes on to say,

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.

This seeming innocuous statement completely sweeps aside the reasons for the Reformation. The Council of Trent declared that Protestants are heretics for a number of reasons. Most Reformed people consider the Canons of Trent to be the document in which Rome formalized its apostasy. While Vatican 2 softened its tone towards Protestants (we are now “separated brethren”), Rome still does not recognize Protestant churches as true churches. And we, of course, reciprocate. Until Trent is repealed, until Rome turns away from a works-based righteousness, until it gives up its idolatrous veneration of Mary and the saints, it is highly unlikely that we will ever consider the Roman Church a true church. (That is not to say that we do not believe there are true believers in the Church. I am certain there are, but they possess salvation in spite of the teachings of the Church and not because of them.)

Conclusion

It is my belief that the ecumenism and focus of the document weaken its effectiveness. But, more importantly, its trivializing of the gospel both as the sine qua non remedy for the ills of society and as what defines true Christians make it impossible for me to sign. If others’ consciences will permit them to, that is between them and God.