Al Mohler on Why He Signed The Manhattan Declaration
A couple posts back I thought The Manhattan Declaration was same old, same old. Well, on his blog, Dr. Al Mohler, president of Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY., offers a Why for his signature on the document:
There are several reasons, but they all come down to this — I believe we are facing an inevitable and culture-determining decision on the three issues centrally identified in this statement. I also believe that we will experience a significant loss of Christian churches, denominations, and institutions in this process. There is every good reason to believe that the freedom to conduct Christian ministry according to Christian conviction is being subverted and denied before our eyes. I believe that the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and religious liberty are very much in danger at this very moment. read entire post…
Forgive my bluntness: I thought the document was too political and ill-conceived. And Dr. Mohler’s reason for signing the document is even worse.
President Mohler is calling for nothing more than Christian comfort. He and others seem to want to ensure our ease in Zion (cf. Amos 6:1).
My take.
About T.C. R
A Christ-follower, husband, father, shepherd-teacher, speaker, and a blogger too!
Just out of curiosity, where’s Piper’s signature? This seems right down his alley.
I do have to disagree with this statement, T.C.: “President Mohler is calling for nothing more than Christian comfort.” I think that may be going too far.
He seems to be calling for the protection of life (born and pre-born), the protection of religious liberty (that one might fit your critique) and the protection of the definition of marriage (not sure this one’s merely about comfort).
Overall, I agree that the statement is very political, but I think it’s meant to be that way.
Is it ill-conceived? Maybe. How so? What do you have in mind, T.C.?
Will,
Mohler’s reason goes beyond the three issues in the document. But yes, he sees our Christian liberty at stake as well.
What I have in mind? This seems to be another effort at politicizing Christianity. We don’t need the favor of the populace in this way. We were never called to such.
I’m not trying to pit one Christian leader against another, but I just happened to read Alistair Begg’s reasons for not signing the document. I thought they were interesting. You can read them at his website if interested – http://www.truthforlife.org/resources/article/manhattan-declaration/
Darrell,
Thanks for this link. Here’s ALister Begg:
I believe he’s referring to Catholics and so on. Interesting.
With all due respect to Alister Begg–and with my own reservations about the Manhattan Declaration–I think I have to side with Mohler on this one, when he writes:
My beliefs concerning the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches have not changed. The Roman Catholic Church teaches doctrines that I find both unbiblical and abhorrent — and these doctrines define nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But The Manhattan Declaration does not attempt to establish common ground on these doctrines. We remain who we are, and we concede no doctrinal ground.
Will,
It’s interesting that where Begg sees compromise Mohler doesn’t. But I wonder how consistent is Begg on not partnering with those who differ with him about the nature of the gospel?
Yeah, that was my thought too. I don’t know much about Begg, so I don’t want to make assumptions. I’m just wondering how he decided to draw the line here. Would he partner with Catholics only on non-moral issues (e.g., lobbying to build a needed roadway in their community)?
What’s the point outside of people declaring what we already knew about them and their beliefs? Don’t they have better things to do?
Will,
Yep, “lobbying to build a needed roadway in their community.” Good one.
Jerry B,
The reason for a much broaded document and so on.
Pingback: I will not be signing the Manhattan Declaration | The Church of Jesus Christ
I’ve been busy and just returned to the blogosphere and learned of this Manhattan Declaration. Personally, I think it’s a good thing and don’t see it as giving in to anyone’s understanding of the gospel. Evangelicals and Catholics agree on our position on abortion so why on these other issues too?
Kevin,
That may be the case, but someone like Begg is equally free to go with conscience (I’ve since learned that John MacArthur didn’t sign for the same reason as Begg).
Of course the conscience must seek to follow scripture. But sadly, this is rarely the real issue. As if Mohler’s conscience is somehow that much keener than MacArthurs, or viceversa. If we all really followed conscience, there would be much less disagreement. For conscience is more than mental agreement. As in real existentialism, existence precedes essence. – Fr. R.
In this case, conscience only acts as shaped by convictions, convictions that scripturally derived in each instance.
Men:
The Scriptures compel us to admonish (2 Thess. 3:15) Al Mohler and every brother in Christ who joins with Roman Catholic signatories in The Manhattan Declaration.
Signing on to TMD in fact has these men holding hands with the RCC. This action is a betrayal of the Scriptures that forbid such an unholy alliance (2 Cor. 6:14-17) under ANY circumstance. Their actions do NOT, “honor Him as God.”
The Bible says, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers…” That is a mandate from the Lord God and it is not open to selective interpretation.
Just where does our (Mohler’s) first loyalty lie; to God and His Word or to a well-intended social agenda?
The biblical mandates are clear. Men who love Mohler, have some sway with him and want first to live in fidelity to God and His Word will make the application of the mandates graciously and with mercy. The goal, of course, is to recover an erring brother. Otherwise, we are left with no other option than to “mark and avoid” (Rom. 16:17) Mohler. All of this is to preserve the purity of the church and honor the holiness of God.
BTW, Mohler signing TMD is not his first foray into this kind of fellowship. He is on record honoring a rank liberal and embracing Billy Graham’s ecumenism.
LM
Lou,
Mohler has anticipated such objections in his reason for signing. I’m sure he’s considered the texts you cited but was not convinced of any compromise, as he himself noted.
It thus becomes a matter of the individual’s conscience, as so shaped by Scripture.
This kind of attitude is why I gladly left fundamentalism. Alas, I can’t even escape it here!
Lou, don’t take this personally, because I don’t know you, and I have no intention of making any personal statement about you. But having grown up in fundamentalism (of the FBF variety that you seem to champion on your website), I say from experience that the kind of comment you made represents well the serious lack of biblical understanding and common sense prevalent in fundamentalism.
Your misuse of 2 Cor. 6 is ungracious at best, but probably is more indicative of an inherited attitude towards Scripture than a deliberate attempt to pervert the text or attack Dr. Mohler.
Your complete silencing of any disagreement with such rhetorically-loaded language as “holding hands with the RCC,” “betrayal of…Scriptures,” “not open to selective interpretation,” “the biblical mandates are clear,” (do I need to go on?) indicate your commitment not to biblical realities but to a particular worldview.
Again, I’m not trying to attack you personally here, Lou, but just to beg you to please consider the possibility that your worldview (i.e., fundamentalism) might not be a biblical worldview. That just maybe you’ve been taught to believe some things about the Bible and God and the world that aren’t entirely accurate. Just consider that possibility. Please.
I will say amen to that! I may be an Anglican priest, but hardly a liberal. I am in fact Reformed on grace, but can I say friendly (like Barth) with Rome? Yes, in fact I was raised Irish Roman Catholic in Dublin Ireland, and partly educated there. But left years ago now. So this is not really my genre per say, but we must come together under the Lordship of Christ, both Protestant and Catholic. And not an ecumenicalism either, but friendship and brotherhood “In Christ”.
Will:
I will leave you with this question for your consideration-
When did 2 Cor. 6:14-17; 2 Thess. 3:6-15 and Rom. 16:17 ever lose their obvious, contextual, God-breathed meanings?
LM
You see, Lou, that’s exactly my point. You’re going to insist that your understanding of what those texts mean and how they ought to be applied is the “obvious, contextual, God-breathed meaning.”
You won’t even allow for discussion, study or the remote possibility that maybe the meaning isn’t as obvious as you think it is; or that perhaps your idea of what it means “contextually” is actually influenced by a whole host of presuppositions you’ve never taken the time to examine.
I don’t want to use TC’s blog as a forum to discuss the philosophical and theological issues of fundamentalism. I’m just asking you to ditch the heated rhetoric and actually participate in the conversation going on here. No one is served by crying “wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing” at every turn.
This issue and debate between Lou and Will, is most important! I speak myself, as both a “Churchman” and one who sees theology from the classic and historical sense, but very conservative myself. Can I say catholic but reformed, this is the via-media of the Anglican approach and our Thirty-nine Articles, etc. Fr. R.