THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION and EVANGELICAL CO-BELLIGERENCE

Camp On This ^ | TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2009 | Steve Camp

[streetpreacher]

THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION and EVANGELICAL CO-BELLIGERENCE
...the ineffectual intersection of politics and faith

 

 

“The goal of both the church and the state is to advance the public good.”

-Francis Beckwith

 

 

The ultimate goal of the church biblically

is not the public good,

but the glory of God in the proclamation

and advancement of His gospel of sola fide.

God, not the audience, is sovereign.

The “public good” is political speak for tolerance.

The gospel, however, does divide;

it is a stumbling block, offensive and foolishness

for those who are perishing.

 

 

Here we go again!

In the face of President Obama's economic wasteland and political indecision vacuum concerning Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq; coupled with an abortion provision being slipped into the latest health care bill championed by Harr Reid yand company - the religious right has found reason again to try itself in the political arena through The Manhattan Declaration.

It is nothing more than ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) and Justice Sunday revisited. Same framers and advocates of the benign philosophy of political remedy for moral malady. The religious right of the past 24 years has all but been silenced. And despite the grass-root efforts by many well respected evangelical leaders and politicians, our country remains unchanged on key social and family issues. So once again, those who are impassioned about important social issues from a "faith perspective" such as abortion, same sex marriage, and religious liberty and freedom, are all but silent about the real "faith solution" for these same issues. The solution being regeneration through the Lord Jesus Christ and not political legislation. The solution for the Christian must be Gospel-Centered; Christ-Centered; and Cross-Centered. Anything less is ineffectual in bringing real resolve spiritually to these concerns.

The lack of sea change in American society to a conservative political ethic for many of us has been frustrating. But attempting to fight spiritual battles with carnal weaponry is just as disappointing. Christians who in the past have sought real change on key cultural issues did so, in part, absent of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. IOW, the gospel became the afterthought, not the primary thought. That failed strategery to keep the proclamation of the gospel center in a righteous quest I have defined as Evangelical Co-Belligerence (ECB).

I offer the following definition:

Creating alliances with individuals or groups who do not share belief in or with orthodox biblical Christianity, in order to fight an agreed upon social, moral, cultural cause that seeks to undermine the traditional family and family values. This includes, but not limited to: gay marriage; abortion; euthanasia; etc. and those who aid, influence, or control such societal moral decline such as the Supreme Court, Congress, state and local officials, and a run-a-way Federal Judiciary. This is accomplished by using boycotts, petitions, picketing, legislation... any political remedies available to resolve the moral maladies in our nation.

This is further accomplished by organizing evangelicals/local churches as PAC's, lobbyist groups, or as some refer to as "Christocrats", as Christian voting blocks to threaten with militant tones sitting politicians with the prospect of not being reelected if they fail to adopt the ECB moral/family agenda. This tactic is being championed by many evangelical leaders, seminary presidents and pastors absent of the authority of Scripture, absent of the preaching of God's Word, and absent of the heralding of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. -Steve Camp, July 14, 2005

Christianity in culture does have impact and does produce change. But it only does so as long as Christianity doesn't become a political organization and remains at its very core deeply gospel-centered. Is it wrong for believers to enter politics? Of course not. Is it wrong for Christians in politics to use their office, driven by a biblical worldview, for the good of society and their fellow man as say Wilberforce did on the issue of slavery? Absolutely not. But the church itself is not driven by the brilliance of U.S. Constitutional ethics, but by the Scriptures of the living God.

So again, what is the solution to the plight our nation finds itself in? The gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.And that brief answer is not about offering cultural reform back to an era of family values and more virtuous days. Jesus Christ did not come to transform America, but to transform Americans. The gospel is not the new nationalism for the conservative, but the hope for any sinner (like me and you) who by God's sovereign electing love trusts that eternal life and salvation is attained only by grace through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord alone.
 

IOW beloved, in this hour in our nations history may I propose a simple mandate: it is time for the church to be the church.

Gospel-driven Worship:

Acts 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles.

Gospel-driven Welfare:

44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,

Gospel-driven Witness:

47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

[streetpreacher]

Here are the main reasons I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration, even though a few men whom I love and respect have already affixed their names to it:

• Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.

• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously. It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity.

• Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.

• The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.

• This is neither a novel approach nor a strategic stand for evangelicals to take. It ought to be clear to all that the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless Faith. I stand by what I wrote then.

In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.

John MacArthur

[Star Traveler]

The ultimate goal of the church biblically is not the public good, but the glory of God in the proclamation and advancement of His gospel of sola fide. God, not the audience, is sovereign. The “public good” is political speak for tolerance. The gospel, however, does divide; it is a stumbling block, offensive and foolishness for those who are perishing.

Amen to that! :-)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." -- Matthew 5:13-16

---

"When it goeth well with the righteous, the city rejoiceth: and when the wicked perish, there is shouting.

By the blessing of the upright the city is exalted: but it is overthrown by the mouth of the wicked." -- Proverbs 11:10-11

[vladimir998]

(sigh) Sometimes I think some Protestants are just stupid.

Francis Beckwith said:

“The goal of both the church and the state is to advance the public good.”

Then Steve Camp, in an amazing display of stupidity, wrote:

“The ultimate goal of the church biblically is not the public good, but the glory of God in the proclamation and advancement of His gospel of sola fide.”

So, salvation is not for the common good? After all, Camp is essentially saying that salvation is not for the “public good.” And since when is standing up for the gospel (which would include upright moral behavior) not something for the “glory of God”?

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

And since when is standing up for the gospel (which would include upright moral behavior) not something for the “glory of God”?

It's this "standing up for the moral good" that has to be dashed -- in people's minds in regards to the Salvation through Jesus, the Messiah of Israel.

There's the problem, along with the problem of the "Social Gospel" -- both being a perversion of the true Gospel... which is salvation by faith and not of works... (i.e., no amount of "standing for upright moral behavior").

[hellbender]

I like MacArthur, but we are confronted with an onrushing juggernaut propelled by a bizarre alliance of secular Marxism and radically heretical Islam, and he is continuing with his feud with Catholic/Orthodox Christianity. The people who would destroy our culture believe in things like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." There are different flavors of socialism, yet they all work to destroy the West. Shiites and Sunnis hate and slaughter each other, yet they work together for our defeat.

MacArthur and those like him remind me of libertarians. They are more concerned with being doctrinally pure than with winning battles. Hasn't he heard that "the perfect is the enemy of the good"?

[PetroniusMaximus]

“(Arminian by birth, Calvinist by the grace of God) “

Got to take issue with that. How do you, as a Calvinist, know you are saved?

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

So, salvation is not for the common good?

How do you define "the common good"? If you define it as "all religions are equal and should be homogenized into one lukewarm religion that offends no one", then no, salvation is clearly not for "the common good".

What the government sees as "the common good" and what Christ sees as "the common good" are often very different things. And that is clearly what Camp is referring to.

The fact is that Jesus says "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."

This does not sound like a man who earthly governments will think of as "advancing the public good".

[PetroniusMaximus]

“and he is continuing with his feud with Catholic/Orthodox Christianity. “

Catholics and Evangelicals will have plenty of time to feud in their shared prison cells.

[PetroniusMaximus]

“So, salvation is not for the common good? After all, Camp is essentially saying that salvation is not for the “public good.” “

You can have both.

“And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”

[Kolokotronis]

“(sigh) Sometimes I think some Protestants are just stupid....So, salvation is not for the common good? After all, Camp is essentially saying that salvation is not for the “public good.” And since when is standing up for the gospel (which would include upright moral behavior) not something for the “glory of God”?”

Very, very well said, V. I reserve, however, my oft repeated concern that some are measuring the orthodoxy of belief by the content of personal political philosophies.

[Brugmansian]

Christians who in the past have sought real change on key cultural issues did so, in part, absent of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. IOW, the gospel became the afterthought, not the primary thought.

Not true. The opening shot of the American Revolution was the 1750 sermon A Discourse concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers. Colonists believe England was depriving them of their God ordained rights. Parliament's 1766 Declaratory Act was seen in New England as blasphemy. Only God ruled in "in all cases whatsoever."

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”

you left out part...

“Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.”

It apparently, ain’t everyone...

[PetroniusMaximus]

“you left out part...”

I didn’t “leave out” anything, friend. You just quoted a different version.

[hellbender]

If they are even alive. Purists like MacArthur should realize that no one will be able to preach the Gospel at all if communism or Islam win the war we are in.

[LiteKeeper]

Just what do you mean by being "doctrinally pure"?

You can't get it [the means of salvation] partially right and partially wrong. You can't mix the agenda of God and the agenda of the world, and hope to get it right. Doctrinal purity is all there is...getting it God's way, not man's way.

[Springfield Reformer]

The concept of the public good has been around for much longer than the modern corruption of pseudo-tolerance to which you refer. I am sure you misjudge Beckwith’s use of the term. In its simplest form, it means whatever advances a safe, happy, healthy, virtuous society. Christians are told to pray for the public good, i.e., for kings and those in authority, precisely because they set and enforce public policy that either makes a quiet Godly life possible, or not.

It is in that sense that I understand the Manhattan Declaration. It is not a proclamation of doctrinal unity. It is an affirmation of Natural Law, i.e., the principle that any society has access via conscience to the benefits of righteous living. We all certainly fall short as individuals, but a society cannot last long that, contra Romans 13, punishes good and rewards evil, as Marxism certainly does. Furthermore such a perverse society actually blunts the call of the Gospel to repent, as it seriously dilutes the notion of sin itself, thus corrupting the conscience and deadening the ear of the heart.

Most importantly, the Manhattan Declaration is a proclamation to the government that our obedience as Christians is ultimately centered in God, and not primarily in human law. We will honor government to the extent that doing so does not put us at odds with our Creator and Savior. In particular, we will not bend the knee to the idolatry of abortion, which sets human autonomy above the right of God to create a new human life. These principles could be arrived at, not only as among various Christian denominations, but by virtually any person with moral sensitivity alerting them to the existence of a higher moral order. As Christians, we know that moral sense comes from God. That others may experience conscience and not identify its source as clearly as we do, does not preclude their joining common cause with us to defend the idea of a righteous society.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“It’s this “standing up for the moral good” that has to be dashed — in people’s minds in regards to the Salvation through Jesus, the Messiah of Israel.”

No, I suggest that people merely get it right instead. We MUST be obedient to God and that means avoiding sin with God’s grace. We, therefore, since we must restore all things in Christ (Eph. 1:10), stand up for what is right in the public sphere so that “Christ may be all and in all”(Col. 3:2).

As Pope Pius X wrote in 1903:

“Hence it follows that to restore all things in Christ and to lead men back to submission to God is one and the same aim ... If We, through the goodness of God Himself, bring this task to a happy issue, We shall be rejoiced to see evil giving place to good, and hear, for our gladness, “ a loud voice from heaven saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God and the power of his Christ.” (Apoc. xii., 10.) But if our desire to obtain this is to be fulfilled, we must use every means and exert all our energy to bring about the utter disappearance of the enormous and detestable wickedness, so characteristic of our time - the substitution of man for God; this done, it remains to restore to their ancient place of honor the most holy laws and counsels of the gospel; to proclaim aloud the truths taught by the Church, and her teachings on the sanctity of marriage, on the education and discipline of youth, on the possession and use of property, the duties that men owe to those who rule the State; and lastly to restore equilibrium between the different classes of society according to Christian precept and custom. This is what We, in submitting Ourselves to the manifestations of the Divine will, purpose to aim at during Our Pontificate, and We will use all our industry to attain it. It is for you, Venerable Brethren, to second Our efforts by your holiness, knowledge and experience and above all by your zeal for the glory of God, with no other aim than that Christ may be formed in all.” http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_04101903_e-supremi_en.html

You wrote:

“There’s the problem, along with the problem of the “Social Gospel” — both being a perversion of the true Gospel...”

The term ‘Social Gospel’ is way too loaded to be understood as meaning one thing to all people. And correct Social Doctrine is never a perversion of the true Gospel but a manifestation of charity and love of God.

“which is salvation by faith and not of works... (i.e., no amount of “standing for upright moral behavior”).”

1) James 2:24 makes it plain that it is not just faith that is rewarded with grace.

2) You are making the almost chronically common Protestant mistake of misunderstanding the role of morals. Again, restore all things in Christ.

[presently no screen name]

So WELL said!