The Manhattan Declaration: Thoughts

In late November a number of religious thinkers and leaders introduced to the world the Manhattan Declaration. Crafted primarily by Chuck Colson, Timothy George, and Robert George, the Declaration calls society to align to protect life, marriage, and religious liberty. I highly recommend that you read it (manhattandeclaration.org)

Since its release, the Declaration has been the stuff of debate in the Evangelical community primarily because of those who did not sign it, and their reasons why. The signatories include such evangelical luminaries as Tim Keller, Al Mohler, James Dobson, Bryan Chapell, and Ravi Zacharias. Those who did not sign it include John Piper, Alistair Begg, and John MacArthur. I have been asked my thoughts, so here they are:

Historically, these kinds of documents have separated good men on the basis of this question: What level of agreement is necessary in order for men and women to partner together in a cause? And, this question necessarily demands that two other questions be answered first: 1) What is the cause and how is it defined? 2) What do we mean by agreement, and what are the levels of agreement that are possible? Stay with me!

1) What is the cause, and how is it defined? The Manhattan Declaration has as its cause the defense of life, marriage and religious liberty. Thus, the cause can be identified as one of "social justice and morality." This cause, however, is further defined as "proclaim(ing) the Gospel of costly grace" and as "the call to discipleship." The document makes it clear that the social justice/morality cause is really a Christian cause; a cause that has been championed by Christians down through history as a consequence of their allegiance to Christ and His Gospel.

2) What do we mean by agreement, and what are the levels of agreement that are possible? To this question the Declaration appears to give this answer: Agreement is at the level of social conscience and basic morality. Al Mohler believes this, and states it plainly in his explanation for signing: "I believe it is an historic statement of conviction and courage ... it is a limited statement of Christian conviction on these three crucial issues and not a wide-ranging theological document that subverts confessional integrity."

There are many levels of agreement that exist in the broad religious community. At the base is theological agreement on the Gospel. Just above that might be agreement on moral issues, and above that agreement on issues of social justice. Clearly, Mohler assumes all the other signatories consider that, since the Declaration's cause is one of "morality and social justice", the only agreement necessary for partnering in the cause is agreement on that level. I believe that is what Mohler argues for.

Here's the problem: The document goes deeper in its definition of agreement by declaring that the cause ("social justice/morality) is actually a Christian cause, founded on the Gospel, and demanded by the Christian call to discipleship (following Jesus). In doing so, the framers assume that the agreement level is theological, and even that the cause is fueled by common theological convictions revolving around the Gospel and the call to discipleship. The problem is that the signatories have far-reaching differences among themselves regarding the doctrines that make up the Gospel message, and the meaning and evidences of true discipleship.

It really appears to be a subtle "bait and switch." On the surface, a "social justice/morality" cause calls us all to align ourselves to promote it. I categorically agree with the sentiments of the document. I champion life, marriage, and religious freedom in the ways the document represents them, and even more, I do believe what I believe about these issues because of my view of the Gospel and the call to follow Jesus Christ. What I don't agree with is how some of the signatories agree with it! Since the document says we start from the Gospel to reach alignment with the social justice/morality cause, I cannot agree that some of the signatories start where I start. They simply do not understand the Gospel and its foundation in biblical truth the way I do.

So, while I agree with the Manhattan Declaration, and will champion its stated cause, I can't agree with the way many agree with it, because my first allegiance is to the Gospel. Thus, I cannot in good conscience become a signatory.

History has an excellent illustration of this complex situation. Back in 325 AD, the church was battling those within it who believed Jesus was not fully God. Their cause was championed by Arius. Opposing Arius, and standing for the orthodox position of Jesus being fully God and fully man, was Athanasius. As the debate raged at the Council of Nicea, Arius came up with a compromise. He suggested that the creed state that Jesus was of a "like" substance as the Father. He thought this was a great compromise since he initially was in favor of using "different" substance as the Father. When Athanasius heard Arius' suggestion, he told his followers: "While it appears that "like" would further our position, I could never sign a document that Arius could sign, for I do not agree with how he would understand it." They battled on until at last, the orthodox position was adopted and the wording "same substance as the Father" was adopted, forever protecting the full deity of the Savior.

In a real way this illustrates my view. Although the Manhattan Declaration does not deal with the crucial issue of the Deity of Christ, nevertheless the principle remains: When those who reject the biblical Gospel suggest that our pursuit of social justice stems from a shared view of the Gospel, it is not right to align ourselves with their cause if it also appears to align our theology with theirs. Athanasius knew that Arius' starting position was wrong, and thus he could not align himself with Arius' cause, no matter how it was stated.

I cannot sign the Manhattan Declaration, but not because I do not support what it says. I cannot sign it simply because the Declaration states that my agreement in the social justice/morality arena stems from my agreement in the theological arena. And this is not true. In essence, to sign the statement would be to erroneously contend in public that my Gospel foundation aligns with the Gospel foundation of all the other signatories, and this is not the case.

In summary, let me answer the first question: What level of agreement is necessary for men and women to partner together in a cause? My answer is simply that the level of agreement must equal the definition of the cause. If the cause is simply moral, then agreement on morality is necessary. But if the cause is theological, then theological agreement is necessary. In the case of the Manhattan Declaration, they mistakenly mixed the two. While on the surface, the cause is social justice/morality, in reality the cause is a Gospel-based call to Christian discipleship that ushers forth in the fruit of social justice/morality. And since the cause is based on, and supposedly fueled by, the Gospel, it is only logical to expect that agreement on the Gospel is a prerequisite. Thus, to sign is to align with the "Gospel" of all who sign. This we can never do unless there is true agreement. Anything else would be deceptive, even if it occurred in haste or ignorance.

Hope this helps,

David