Jared has written an excellent post on the Manhattan Declaration. Here's an excerpt:
This is a stand for the Law as exercised in civil society. The question is: why should anyone listen to this statement? The first use of the law is testified to also in Natural Law. Honestly, civil government does not need special revelation. This also explains how Christians should live their lives ethically...to the world. Why should the world listen? First the Law must drive the sinner to Christ and His Gospel before they are conformed to the will of God in the Law. This is the cart before the horse.




3 comments:
I respect Jared's points, but I still think the MD is a worthy declaration for many reasons.
Al Mohler does to. I like what he said-
http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=982:-why-i-signed-the-manhattan-declaration-&catid=81:columns&Itemid=124
With all due respect this document is another big-tent "evangelical" effort to find oneness where there sadly is a great divide in terms of the Gospel. It obscures the Gospel, almost in a wishful thinking mindset of "wouldn't it be great if we really were all real believers". Unfortunately there is no consensus on the Gospel here and many of the signatories belong to groups with false gospels.
It reminds me of ECT document in that regard (albeit that was not intended to speak to a godless government).
Why do I care so much? Why did Paul plead so passionately for the Gospel in Galatians in the midst of a pagan, godless culture that was hostile to Christianity? Do we see Paul tilting at pagan windmills or fighting for the pure Gospel?
I would be more encouraged if I saw a number of "religious leaders" calling for earnest, tireless prayers for revival.
Clearly we need to pray for the salvation of the President (or a Nebuchadnezzar-like humbling experience) as well as almost all his colleagues, and those on both sides of the aisle in DC.
While I am on a roll, I would encourage prayer for revival in the evangelical "church" first and foremost. Let the housecleaning begin with the household of God.
See this critique...
http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2009/11/i-respectfully-decline/
Randy Kirkland
I appreciate the reasons Mohler gives for why he signed the MD. My concern is that those who framed it would not allow those of other religions to sign it. Are trinitarianism and the sanctity of human life (which includes the dignity of marriage and freedom of conscience) a sufficient basis for Christian unity? Or is the second table a fundamental aspect of God's image bearers and therefore common ground between the civil and ecclesial kingdoms?
Rather than feign Christian unity, I would rather acknowledge the unity of all humanity according to the second table summarized as "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." Certainly the Christian church has something to say about the second table, but it should neither claim exclusivity of governance nor unity by it.
Post a Comment