The spirit of Esau in
the Manhattan Declaration
And Esau said, “I am about to die,
of what use is a Birthright to me?”
In 1994 the world was awakened to a document fashioned
by a group of professing Evangelical and Roman Catholic
theologians. This manifesto entitled Evangelicals
and Christians Together (ECT) created quite a stir.
There was a back-lash against it by Christians from
all over the world. Essentially, the document was flawed
and sought to cover-up the inestimable fatal differences
between Roman Catholicism and Christianity. The document
ultimately led to the writing of other “signed” documents
which more or less drew boundary lines between Roman
Catholics and various Christian theologians and organizations.
In 1994 several concerned Christian theologians were
alarmed that too many confessing Evangelicals had signed
ECT without repentance. There was also a deep
concern that this attempt to bring Evangelicals closer
to Rome was only the beginning. Both worries proved
to be worthwhile. Over the past 15 years many new movements
have sprung up with the net result of either recognizing
Roman Catholicism as genuinely Christian or, worse yet,
merging back to Rome. The World Lutheran Federation
all but declared the Protestant Reformation a mistake.
The Anglican Community is flirting with a whole scale
merger with Rome. Many American theologians are asking
their students to forget about the past and look to
the future where they envision Roman Catholics and Christians
sharing the same pulpits in a broad ecumenical spectrum.
But up until now there has been only a spattering of
noteworthy Christian men willing to overlook the deadly
dogma of Rome in hopes of a brave new world of ecumenism.
There have been some whose response to ECT was
weak and inconsistent. There have been others who have
tried new documents that would be inclusive of Rome
only using different language than ECT such as
The Gift of Salvation. But, in the main, most
Christians have held their ground on Sola Fide
(Faith alone in Christ alone for justification) and
Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone for faith and
practice). Also, up until now, most high profile trusted
and gifted biblical scholars and teachers at the most
conservative Bible Colleges and Seminaries have resisted
all attempts to declare Roman Catholicism true Christianity.
In 1994 some of us wondered how long this could last
in light of the high energy level of many Arminian Evangelicals
and many Covenant theologians committed to baptismal
regeneration. Both Arminianism and baptismal regeneration
are cardinal doctrines of the Roman Catholic religion.
Many of us wondered how long before the two groups would
come together in light of this. We, of course, thought
that the differences between solid rock Calvinism within
the baptismal regeneration wing of Covenant Theology
would slow the process given their propensity to mistrust
all Arminian theology. But, strangely enough this is
not the case. The work of such notable Arminian writers
as Norman Geisler and Chuck Colson on the one side and
the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) theologians on the
other side have worked their way back toward Rome in
their own way. They are now meeting in the middle under
the wings of Rome.
The works of these men and their followers, and their
articles, and their books, and their goals for the future
of Christianity have all been scrutinized and reviewed
by CWRC and many other capable ministries that have
bothered to keep up with all of this. We encourage
you to visit such web sites as CWRC-RZ.Org, or Alpha
& Omega Ministries, Grace to You, or Proclaiming
the Gospel, or Take Heed Ministries, among many others
to discriminate what is going on and the reasons behind
the events.
In light of all of this, we need to be very, very careful
and discerning when we are asked to take on board yet
another “signed” proclamation or document especially
when it is authored by the same folks who gave us ECT
etc. Just such a manifesto (Declaration) has
been released and we need to take a closer look at it
to see if it is a valid expression of Christian theology.
The name of the essay is Manhattan Declaration:
A Call of Christian Conscience (Declaration).
It was released on November 20th 2009 and
signed by over 150 members from what is purported to
be an at large Christian community. The architects of
the paper are Robert George of Princeton University,
Timothy George of Beeson Divinity School, and Chuck
Colson of The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview.
Chuck Colson and Timothy George have been on the front
lines of ecumenism with the Roman Catholic religion
since 1994. They have been reviewed extensively. Mr.
Robert George is a well respected professor of jurisprudence
at Princeton and an avowed Roman Catholic. These three
are listed at the end of the manuscript as the drafting
committee.
Review
The text of the declaration, along
with the title, gives us no reason to doubt that the
authors consider themselves to be Christians writing
from a distinctively Christian point of view. We need
not go too far into the preamble to recognize the Christian
label has been stamped on this manuscript. Christians
are “heirs of a 2,000 year tradition of proclaiming
God’s word”, “… we claim the heritage of those Christians
who defended innocent life by rescuing…”, “…Christian
monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the
literature and art of the Western culture.” “…Papal
edicts in the 16th and 17th centuries
decried the practice of slavery…”
The summary statement of the preamble
leaves no uncertainty to the reader that Christianity
is being promoted and that Christians are being called
to action.
“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.” (page one: Preamble)
With this in mind, the Declaration
needs to be examined on two levels. The first level
is the ecumenical level. Or, in blunt terms, is the
Declaration another Trojan horse in whose bowels is
contained the implements of destruction for the Christian
faith? The second level is the legitimacy of its call
to action based upon the social ills of our nation.
Can Egypt Save Israel
from the Philistines?
A major problem, within the nation
of Israel, was the propensity for numerous within the
community to become afraid during difficult times.
After departing from Egypt, there seemed to be many
times when fright gripped the Israelites. The journey
to the Promised Land was long and treacherous. Such
were the dangers that we are told in Exodus that God
deliberately led His nation away from the Philistine
route. For fear of the Philistines, in their weakness,
Israel could have run away from God back to the “safety”
of Egypt. At one point many in Israel began to hunger
for the food of Egypt. Out of terror of the unknown,
out of mistrust of their leaders, and out of dread of
being destroyed, they reflected upon the world they
lived in and longed for the past.
Num 11:5-6
5 "We remember the fish which
we used to eat free in Egypt, the cucumbers and the
melons and the leeks and the onions and the garlic,
6 but now our appetite is gone. NASB
We find in this illustration an apt
analogy of what is occurring today on the philosophical
and theological journey of Christians in the 21st
Century. Like our counterparts of old, we face dangers
from within and without. We face many trying times that
bring alarm. But panic invites strange bedfellows.
One such bedfellow is the ecumenical pied piper who
incessantly plays the pied piper music of rapprochement
with Rome. Israel ultimately understood that Egypt
would not be able to save her from her enemies. The
net result of returning to Egypt would have been to
become just like Egypt. This would have destroyed Israel.
It is a lesson for all of us. Re-defining Christianity
in hopes of swelling our numbers is akin to Israel inviting
Egyptians (return to Egypt) to stem the tide of Philistine
influence. I suppose there were some in Israel who
would have liked to return. They would have liked to
perhaps blend the cultures. Such as it is with modern
day ecumenists; they would run back to the “safety”
of Rome out of fear of losing their culture. They would
seek to blend the cultures Rome and Christianity. But,
of course, like Israel of old, this would be the destruction
of Christianity
In 1994 the authors of ECT began
that treatise with these words:
“We are Evangelical Protestants and
Roman Catholics who have been led through prayer, study,
and discussion to common convictions about Christian
faith and mission.”
We argued then and do so again now
that the main thrust of ECT was to unite Christians
in apprehension of the impending Muslim invasion, and
to bring together Christians out of anxiety of what
might become of Western culture. We also argued that
it is pure folly to re-define Christianity in order
to swell the ranks so as to be insulated from the Muslim
threat. But that is exactly what the framers of ECT
did. They attempted to dumb down Christianity so that
Rome, among many other non-Christian religions, might
get under the “tent” of Christianity to stem the tide
of paganism, humanism, Eastern mystic religions, and
the Muslim invasion so prevalent in Western Europe.
The problem with ECT, and all
other ecumenical documents of its kind, is that it tried
to whittle down the square peg of Christianity to fit
it into the round hole of Rome. In so doing, the bed-rock,
cardinal, unchangeable doctrines that define the essence
of the Christian Gospel, and the faith of a Christian
were either altered or ignored. The result has been
a watering down of true Christianity, and the putting
forward of a sub-Christian philosophical ideology in
its place. This new “Christianity” has room for just
about everything that is remotely associated with God’s
Word or His Gospel. We argued that if Roman Catholicism
can be considered truly Christian then just about any
kind of triune and ultimately monotheistic scheme of
belief can be considered Christian. In the wake of
the recent dialogue between Mormons and professing Evangelicals
it is not far off to think we are going to see just
such a convoluted and distorted hybrid portraying itself
as Christian.
The current document (Declaration)
begins with the following:
“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 individual, 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 are not sure how to parse this statement.
Should we read it as: “We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and
[also] Evangelical Christians…” Or, shall we read it:
“We, as Orthodox Christians, Catholic Christians, and
Evangelical Christians…” It is not too clear here.
But given the rest of the document, we think it is safe
to assume that all three groups are recognizing each
other as fellow Christians. The rest of the declaration
is in the third person plural referring back to the
above statement. The most telling sentence is found
on page three where we read: “…we are compelled by our
Christian faith to speak out and act…” The “we” are
the three mentioned in the Declaration. To leave
no doubt, the sentence beginning the next new paragraph
states unambiguously the following: “We are Christians
who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial
differences to affirm our right-and, more importantly,
to embrace our obligation…”
It is clear enough that those writing
this document consider one another to be Christians
albeit each having ecclesial differences with the other.
It is also safe to assume that those signing this document
do not have much trouble signing even though it is plain
that Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox religion, and
Evangelical Christians are all said to be Christian,
albeit with ecclesial differences.
So, what do we have here? It appears
undeniable that the assumption of the designers and
signers is that Roman Catholics are to be considered
Christians. There is no caveat, or asterisk, or explanatory
footnote, or endnote that attempts to quell this obvious
conclusion. The only slight attempt at clarification
is the admission that there are ecclesial differences
between these Christian groups.
It was the ambition of ECT to
minimize the distinguishing features between Rome and
Christianity by using the word “differences”. By using
this word the framers were able to admit to irregularities
between Roman Catholicism and Christianity while at
the same time championing the alleged similarities.
Soon the “differences” became almost insignificant and
the alleged similarities were trumpeted to the point
of near equivalency for the two groups. We argued that
the differences are fatal and eternal. We argued that
the similarities are at best superficial. We argued
that one could not hold to the cardinal doctrines of
Rome and Christianity all at the same time. We were
right and continue to be right on this critical point.
We find in this latest attempt at ecumenism
that the designers and signers of the Manhattan Declaration
are in cahoots all over again. The deepest most fundamental
divide between the Roman Catholic religion and Christianity
is now called an “ecclesial difference.” We are not
surprised by such a euphemism in the light of ECT.
But just how do we relegate such things
as baptismal regeneration, purgatory, papal infallibility,
indulgences, incremental justification, merit based
salvation, transubstantiation, and sacramental salvation
to mere “ecclesial differences”? Rome denies the heart
of Christianity by disavowing justification by faith
alone. Rome neutralizes the authority of Christianity
by rejecting Sola Scriptura. So, how can these
essential doctrines, by which we define Christianity,
be safely designated as “ecclesial differences”? We
say they cannot be.
In the 1989 movie Field of Dreams,
Ray Kinsella, an Iowa farmer, hears a voice in his corn
field tell him, “If you build it, he will come.” There
is little reservation in saying that the framers of
ECT, and this new Declaration are hearing
similar kinds of voices. The voices must be telling
them, “If you say it long and often enough, it will
be believed.” What they are saying is that the Roman
Catholic religion is a different kind of Christianity
and most certainly needs to be recognized as a part
of the Body of Christ.
The Manhattan Declaration uses
the word “believer” as a synonym for Christian. But
what a Christian believes is not mentioned. What constitutes
a Christian is left out completely. Some might argue
it is not the purpose of the document to mark out a
definition of Christianity. But this would be entirely
naive. The danger of the Declaration is that
it does in fact “mark out a definition of Christianity.”
By nonchalantly including Roman Catholics as Christians
the document re-invents Christianity and obliterates
the well defined boundaries of Christian doctrine upon
which all of true Christianity depends. For this reason
it should not be tolerated within Christian circles
and those who signed it, if Christian, should repent
of their act. On page five of the Declaration we
read the following: “The impulse to redefine marriage
in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner
relationships is a symptom, rather than a cause, of
the erosion of the marriage culture.” Likewise, we
would affirm that the impulse to redefine Christianity
in order to recognize non-Christian religions is a symptom,
rather than a cause, of the erosion of Christianity
in America. This new document is much more dangerous
and problematic for the United States of America than
any of the social ills that it seeks to remedy. The
Gospel of Jesus Christ is at stake here, and nothing
is more important than this.
Does it matter if some well known and
trusted Evangelical Christians sign such a document
as this? We think it does matter. There are many
who simply take the word of their favorite theologian
and do not check to see if what is endorsed has biblical
credibility. This is precisely why those who signed
this statement should recant or at least clarify why
they would make safe such a manuscript. We do not think
the terminology “making safe” an essay is too strong.
Recently, a World Magazine article featured the
life of J.I. Packer, one of the strong supporters of
ECT, and the author of the article makes the
following chilling testimonial.
“Packer's signing of the 1994 ecumenical document,
"Evangelicals and Catholics Together," indicated
to many Protestants that the controversial statement
was doctrinally "safe." (Taken from an article
entitled: Patriarch, by Warren Cole Smith in
the December 5th 2009 edition of World
Magazine.)
ECT was anything but doctrinally
safe. It was destructive to good doctrine and has taken
a mammoth effort to fight back for the ground lost due
to one man’s signature. Because of the hefty number
of “trusted” Evangelicals who have signed the Manhattan
Declaration, it will take time and equal exertion
to undo what has been done. May this critique be a
small step in the right direction. Robert M. Zins
|
