Those who did not sign the document believe that it is a lamentable example of the confused sort of ecumenical theology, on display in the ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) statements, and that it implicitly commits its signers to acknowledge a commonality between evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Orthodox on the gospel, who is a true Christian and what is a true church. They rightly point out that the Alliance has always been and remains unanimously critical of the presuppositions and products of ECT.You can read the entire article here.
Those who did sign the document believe that it is a statement of solidarity, not of ecumenism, and that it represents the kind of principled co-belligerency advocated by, for instance, Francis Schaeffer and James Boice. These signers believe that document actually helps clarify their concerns with the whole ECT project, because the Manhattan Declaration only asks evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox to agree on matters on which we actually agree (marriage and sexuality, the sanctity of life, and religious liberty), rather than purporting an agreement in vital matters on which we do not agree (the Gospel, what is a Christian, what is a true Church).
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Ligon Duncan on the Manhattan Declaration
Ligon Duncan has written an article for Reformation 21 on the Manhattan Declaration. I posted a link to Alister Begg's comments on the Manhattan Declaration a few days ago. I am in agreement with Begg and have not signed the document because I believe it would imply a common ground between Catholics and Protestants that does not exist. Ligon Duncan has signed the Declaration and has given a fair assessment of the differences between confessing evangelicals who have signed and those who have not signed. Duncan writes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey, Steve. It’s good to hear both sides of the issue. To be honest, though, I don’t find Duncan’s statement persuasive at all. First, the whole exercise appears to be a exercise in pragmatics. Of course, one could respond: “Just because something is for pragmatic purposes, does that make it wrong?” The answer is “Yes.”
ReplyDeleteSecondly, it’s seems like a crime against better knowlege to believe that consistent Protestants can divorce these social issues from the Gospel.
Take marriage, for instance. For us, this is patently bound to the Gospel. For the Romish church, however, marriage is one of the “seven sacraments,” a sacrament that, if it’s to be authentic, must be administered through the distribution center of God’s grace, the Catholic Church—the “one true Church of Jesus Christ” (by the proper priestcraft, etc.). How then can this formal or superficial agreement be justified? Once these terms (e.g., marriage) are fleshed out, we are right back into the big numbers of “What is a true church...the gospel?” etc.
Besides, we have enough trouble defending the faith against the ad hominem attacks concerning the Crusades and Inquisition. Imagine trying to promote “religious liberty” sitting beside a Catholic bishop! This would hurt, not help the cause in my estimation.
You said:
ReplyDelete"Just because something is for pragmatic purposes, does that make it wrong?” The answer is “Yes.”
Hmmm... I hate pragmatism as much as the next guy (actually, much more than the next guy!), but I think I would want to say that pragmatism may be morally justified. But pragmatism can only be glorified if and only if we identify the end toward which whatever it is works as God's glory. The only thing that matters is whether or not an action, belief, or attitude "works" to bring glory to God. If it does, it is moral. If it does not, it's immoral. Let's call it Christian Pragmatics (sort of life "Christian Skepticism"). :) But if we take pragmatism and identify the end as God's glory, don't we have something?