Manhattan Declaration: No matter what, we won't give up

Today's e-mail updated from the Manhattan Declaration:

Sometime this week, the Supreme Court will issue decisions in two cases involving the meaning and purpose of marriage. As we anticpate the announcements, let us remember one thing: Whatever the results, it will not mean the end of our work to rebuild a culture of marriage and family.

Should the Supreme Court affirm the meaning and purpose of marriage, we will breathe a sigh of relief. But we won’t be satisfied.

If the Supreme Court rejects the time-honored purpose of marriage, it will be because the court—like many of our friends, neighbors and colleagues—has lost the meaning of marriage and its civic importance. We will have no one to blame but ourselves. It will be our fault for failing to nurture and protect marriage, for looking the other way as rampant divorce, infidelity and sexual impurity chipped away at our moral authority.

It took generations to erode marriage and family, with disastrous consequences. Restoration may take just as long. No matter this week’s rulings, we will rededicate ourselves to renewing in American culture the profound beauty, mystery and holiness of faithful marriage. We will be patient in the light of any setbacks. And, in the end, we we will succeed—if we do not give up.

Have you signed the Manhattan Declaration?

Eric Teetsel: Winning the marriage debate in a culture amusing itself to death

A very helpful article, posted at Public Discourse:

Here’s what we must not do: sacrifice our principles. Better to lose a thousand elections than win in sycophantic appeals to the lowest common denominator. Christians, at least, can rely on the long view of God’s redemptive story. We have already read the final page of human history; we know how the story ends. How utterly meaningless is the next election cycle viewed from this perspective?

Until that final chapter comes to pass, the responsibility is ours to be active in the present. And since we aren’t about to gain a slew of celebrity endorsements, we have to make ourselves and our ideas as attractive to the “persuadables” as possible. Forget beating the entrenched opposition. When we debate in the public square and in social media, our goal should be to win those silent observers whose commitments are shallow and subject to change.

This week, the Supreme Court will issue decisions in two cases involving the meaning and purpose of marriage. Whatever the results, our work to rebuild a culture of marriage and family will continue. Restoration will require that we better brand ourselves and make our case more attractive.

In a 1972 article in Philosophy & Rhetoric, Wayne Brockriede describes the art of communication in terms of sexual conduct. Like sex, argument occurs between human beings who bring their whole selves to the conversation, including personal histories and philosophical presuppositions (whether they know it or not). And, as in sex, participants in conversation can be considerate of these facts and lovingly negotiate them as part of the act, or manipulate them to personal advantage, or ignore them completely and carry on without regard for the others’ welfare at all. The first is arguing as a lover; the second as a seducer; the third as a rapist.

Too often, conservatives—including me—fall into the third category with our derision and condemnation. Not only is this unbecoming of people aspiring to virtue, it is ineffective in winning others to our cause.

Arguing as a lover is better. It frees us to acknowledge our personal faults and the faults in our arguments while remaining committed to our position and allowing our interlocutor to save face in the majority of instances in which our case is superior. As we woo the person across from us (and—remember—the audience watching from home) we are funny, self-effacing, merciful, and confident.

Winning the affections of the audience also means using sources of authority that appeal to them. This is not a new idea; it goes back as far as Aristotle. In contemporary culture, the Constitution is not considered authoritative. Though it pains me to say it, few people care about what the founding fathers said. (Those who do are already interning at the Heritage Foundation.)

I know what you’re thinking. “But the Federalist Papers are important!” Indeed, they are, and there’s a time and a place for discussing them. But when we lead with them and rely solely on such works, we fail. The current generation is more interested in doers. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a phenomenal thinker and writer, but if not for his actions he would not be the iconic leader we consider him today. Thanks in part to writers such as Eric Metaxas, the lives of William Wilberforce and Dietrich Bonhoeffer provide us with examples of conservative men of conviction whose values were reflected in their actions.

Each of us ought to be part of the recovery of a marriage and family culture. The work of academics and policy advocates is vital, but artists, musicians, pastors, teachers, and all the rest have a contribution to make. The most compelling source of authority in any argument is your own life. Your conversation partner wants to know how your values have changed the way you live, and whether yours is a life worth emulating. Do I want to be that kind of person? If you can tell your own story, you will win.

How much longer will we put up with this?

Please sign the Manhattan Declaration today!

Metaxas issues renewed call for support of Manhattan Declaration

Bonhoeffer author Eric Metaxas reminds believers of the importance of standing for the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious freedom.


If you haven't signed the Manhattan Declaration, you can do so here.

Manhattan Declaration: Responding to the latest twist

If you haven't signed on with the Manhattan Declaration, perhaps now would be a good time to do so. From the web site:

Yesterday, for the first time, President Obama publicly affirmed his support for same-sex marriage, a calculated political maneuver intended to energize his base in the months before the November presidential election.

At a time when most Americans’ primary concern is their ability to work to provide for their family, as crippling debt, record deficits, and fragile global markets loom over the economy, the President seems intent on having a national conversation about life, love, and religious liberty.

So be it.

The Manhattan Declaration is a coalition of the historic Christian faiths united in support of the sanctity of every human life, marriage as the conjugal union of a man to a woman as the bedrock of society, and religious liberty as the cornerstone of freedom. We promote a culture of life, love, and liberty in many ways. One is to equip you, our advocates, with the best resources on these issues.

Below is a list of ten articles and videos on the subject of marriage. Take an hour to skim them. Don’t try to memorize the data or recite the arguments verbatim; rather, reflect on them. Allow your mind to absorb the broad principles. As the national conversation on this topic reaches a fever pitch in the next few days, you will be primed as a witness to the truth.

One final thought: this is not a war to be won in the blogosphere or on Facebook. We are teachers, co-workers, family members, and friends in relationship with those who have yet to see. Be gracious, be patient, and be kind.

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven." (Matthew 5:11)


What is Marriage?
by Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan T. Anderson


Why I'm Optimistic About Natural Marriage
by Andrew Walker


Why Is Marriage Important? (video)
by John Piper


Who Needs Marriage?
by Chuck Colson


Marriage in Society: The Generation Clash (pps. 47-57)
by Matthew Lee Anderson


What Would Bonhoeffer Do?
by Eric Metaxas


Dennis Prager Debates Perez Hilton on Same-Sex Marriage (Warning: YouTube contains objectionable content)


Religion, Reason, and Same-Sex Marriage
by Matthew J. Franck


A Marriage in Full
by Gary A. Anderson


On Marriage and the Moral Limits of Human Sexuality
by Metropolitan Jonah

Fournier: True human rights must be rooted in Natural Law

In an editorial for Catholic Online, Keith Fournier, a Roman Catholic deacon, argues for "a true human rights movement based on Natural Law." It is an argument made by a Catholic primarily for Catholics. However, there ought to be a broad ecumenical consensus on his observations about the decline of Western civilization and what needs to be done to reverse that decline.

Understanding the existence of Natural Law as the basis of human rights is critical in the light of the current decline of Western civilization. In the U.S. and throughout much of Europe, there is a denial of fundamental Human Rights beginning with the denial of what is the foundation of all true human rights, the Right to Life. Rediscovering the truth concerning the existence of a Natural Law as the ground for human rights is the path to the recovery of western civilization.

In an Orwellian twist the denial of fundamental human rights today comes couched in a counterfeit "rights talk" which substitutes judicially or legislatively manufactured "rights" in their place. It then uses what Orwell called "newspeak" . The most egregious example is the counterfeit "right" to abortion. One can never have a "right" [to] take innocent human life. That is the case even if the positive law of a given State declares it to be "legal" - because it violates the Natural Law.

The next most egregious denial of Natural Law Rights is the effort to enforce a legal equivalency between homosexual relationships and true marriage in the positive or civil law. Marriage is what it is and no amount of "newspeak" or appeals to a counterfeit notion of "tolerance" can ever change the truth.

Then there is the growing misuse of the Police Power of the State to enforce these counterfeit "rights" with an iron hand. This is an ominous trend in the West. The propaganda effort is aimed at those who insist on the existence of a Natural Law. They are said to be taking a "religious" position which should be censored, or at least confined to the four walls of a Church. This sophistry is used to confuse people concerning the very reasonableness of the Natural Law position.

Australian Christian leaders issue "Canberra Declaration"

Christian leaders in the English-speaking world continue to lead the way in reasserting the importance of Judeo-Christian principles to the foundations of Western civilization. In the United States, the Manhattan Declaration was released last November. British Christians followed this past April with the Westminster 2010 document. Now, Christian leaders in Australia have issued the Canberra Declaration, described as "a national declaration about the Judeo-Christian foundations which have made the West and Australia free, prosperous, and democratic."

The Canberra Declaration

The Preamble to the Australian Constitution contains the words, “Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God”. As Australian citizens we continue to declare that we too put our trust in Almighty God.

For centuries, to speak of Western civilisation was to speak of Christian civilisation. The two were in many ways synonymous. The values that we have cherished and sought to strengthen are in large measure founded on the Judeo-Christian belief system. The many freedoms, advantages, opportunities, values and liberties which characterise the West owe much to the growth of Christianity with its inherent belief in the dignity of the human person as created in the image of God and the code of behaviour that flows from this belief.

The Canberra Declaration follows on from the 2009 Manhattan Declaration and the 2010 Westminster Declaration. It declares that when Christian values are respected and allowed freedom of expression, not just confined to so-called sacred spaces but in the public arena as well, society is richer and more healthy.

We wish to emphasise three areas that demand particular attention in our contemporary Australian society, namely religious freedom, marriage and the family, and the sanctity of human life. Were we to undermine any one of these values, the social fabric of our nation would be seriously weakened, to our personal and collective detriment.

Religious Freedom

Religious freedom includes freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. The importance of these freedoms is shown in countries where they are threatened or absent. Police states and totalitarian nations inevitably begin with the curtailment of basic liberties, including religious freedom and the right to speak one’s mind and conscience. This includes the right to change one’s religious beliefs.

We affirm the basic necessity of freedom of conscience, having the liberty to speak publicly about one’s faith and beliefs, and having the right to practise the religion of one’s choice. If these freedoms are removed – even in the name of supposed benefits – the prized values of democracy and liberty are seriously undermined.

In Australia today these freedoms are being restricted by laws which, although appearing positive on first reading, have the potential to lead to unintended and unacceptable consequences. These laws include anti-discrimination legislation, hate crime laws and legislation on religious and sexual vilification – each of which may be interpreted in a way that effectively works as a barrier to religious freedom and freedom of speech.

Thus the signers of this declaration affirm the fundamental right of Australians to religious freedom and freedom of speech, and we oppose legislation which denies such freedoms. We likewise oppose laws subjugating our nation to foreign powers and instrumentalities which restrict these freedoms.

Marriage and Family

Another vital package of values and social benefits is the long-standing institution of the natural family resulting from marriage between a man and a woman – as affirmed by the definition of marriage in the Marriage Act: “…the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”.

No other social institution has done so much good for people and for nations. Yet marriage is being undermined, to the detriment of children, individuals, and society itself.

Lifelong marriage between a man and a woman guarantees children their biological birthright to a mother and a father and has a proven track record of providing them with protection, education, welfare, support and nurture. No other arrangement has improved upon the benefits of marriage.

In the face of competing alternatives and moves to redefine marriage, we affirm the importance and social utility of marriage between a man and a woman and the families formed thereby.

Human Life

The third important set of values revolves around the sanctity of human life which is being undermined in much of the Western world, through abortion, euthanasia, and some of the new reproductive technologies.

We believe that all human life, being made in the image of God, has intrinsic and equal value from conception to life’s natural end.

The very heart of a humane and civilised society is based on the way it treats its most vulnerable and innocent members including the unborn and the disabled. We therefore insist on the right of all persons, including those who are vulnerable or dependent, to protection from conception to natural death. We will support, protect, and be advocates for such people, since to do anything less is to weaken our humanity and despise our personhood.

We will not comply with any directive that compels us to participate in or facilitate abortion, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or any other act that involves the intentional taking of innocent human life.

Conclusion

Religious freedom, marriage and family, and the sacredness of human life have provided the foundations enabling Western democratic societies to flourish. We erode these foundations at our peril.

The faith which is at the heart of many of the values and strengths underpinning the Australian nation now compels us to speak up in their defence.

For the future of this nation, and for our children’s future, we call upon all like-minded citizens to support and sign this declaration.

Evangelicals and the wider Christian tradition

Is "evangelical" the only faithful expression of Christianity? My friend Greg Goebel doesn't think so, and he's right. As I noted recently, evangelicals in America have a particularly smug and myopic view of the eschatology. This is also true of their views on a number of other issues. Greg pinpoints the core problem as evangelical ignorance of, or perhaps ambivalence toward, the wider Christian tradition and the rich history surrounding it.

Often when you read an evangelical book about “the church” you find that “the church” means conservative evangelicals only. See Why we love the Church by DeYoung and Kluck, for example. They appear to have no concept of the church outside of their own tradition, not even enough to simply reference other Christian traditions. And their book is no exception. “The Church” for most evangelicals means “us.”

And yet there are hundreds of millions of Christians who are faithful believers in the Trinitarian faith of the Creeds, and in Jesus Christ as the Divine/Human Savior of the world. They may not call their daily prayers “quiet time” or talk sentimentally about God often or even expect him to be speaking to them every day. They may focus more on objective, external assurances of grace and less on subjective, experiential ones. They might be Democrats and they might even drink a beer and enjoy it. In other words, they are Christians, faithful to Jesus, and yet they practice their faith in different ways.

This reality is only comfortable for an evangelical if we begin to see that ‘evangelical’ is one of the great traditions of the Christian Faith, and not “the” tradition of the Christian Faith. Its just a simple fact of Christian history that for centuries most Christians didn’t have “quiet time” or pray spontaneously on Sundays. That’s not to say that evangelical fervor and enthusiasm is a new invention. Its only to say that it was never the only way Christians expressed their faith, or a litmus test for whether or not one is a faithful Christians. It was simply one of the various expressions of the Holy Spirit.

Listening for God’s voice in one’s head is not wrong, its just not the only way to hear from God. Talking sentimentally about God (“I just love Jesus today!”) is not wrong, its just not the only valid expression of love of God. Singing praise songs is wonderful, but its not the only song God hears. Reading the Bible through in a year is a fantastic devotional discipline, but its not the only way to honor and learn from Scripture. Free form services, revivialist patterns of evangelism, and large Bibles can all be great expressions of Christian zeal, but they simply aren’t the only ways to honor and serve God.

The visceral reaction against the Manhattan Declaration is a case study in the evangelical ghetto mentality. Born in ignorance, it grows into bigotry and a most un-Christlike lack of charity.

British Christians issue Westminster 2010

Coming alongside the Manhattan Declaration on this side of the Atlantic, a sizable group of influential British Christian leaders have issued Westminster 2010: A Declaration of Christian Conscience. Notable among the signatories are Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury; Cardinal O'Brien of the Catholic Church in Scotland; Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester; and Chris Sugden, Executive Secretary of Anglican Mainstream. Conspicuous by his absence is Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, which should surprise no one.

Protecting human life, protecting marriage, and protecting freedom of conscience are foundational for creating and maintaining strong families, caring communities and a just society. Our Christian faith compels us to speak and act in defence of all these.

Our beliefs and values

As Christians we reaffirm historic belief in God the Father (who created us and gave us the blueprint for our lives together); in God the Son Jesus Christ our Saviour (accepting his incarnation, teaching, claims, miracles, death, resurrection and return in judgment); and in God the Holy Spirit (who lives within us, guides us and gives us strength). We commit ourselves to worship, honour and obey God.

As UK citizens we affirm our Christian commitment both to exercise social responsibility in working for the common good and also to be subject to all governing authorities and obey them except when they require us to act unjustly.

Human life

We believe that being made in the image of God, all human life has intrinsic and equal dignity and worth and that it is the duty of the state to protect the vulnerable. We will support, protect, and be advocates for such people – including children born and unborn, and all those who are sick, disabled, addicted, elderly, in single parent families, poor, exploited, trafficked, appropriately seeking asylum, threatened by environmental change, or exploited by unjust trade, aid or debt policies. We pledge to work to protect the life of every human being from conception to its natural end and we refuse to comply with any directive that compels us to participate in or facilitate abortion, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or any other act that involves intentionally taking innocent human life. We will support those who take the same stand.

Marriage

We pledge to support marriage – the lifelong covenantal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. We believe it is divinely ordained, the only context for sexual intercourse, and the most important unit for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all. We call on government to honour, promote and protect marriage and we refuse to submit to any edict forcing us to equate any other form of sexual partnership with marriage. We commit ourselves to continue affirming what we believe as Christians about sexual morality, marriage, and the family.

Conscience

We count it a special privilege to live in a democratic society where all citizens have the right to participate in the political process. We pledge to do what we can to ensure our laws are just and fair, particularly in protecting vulnerable people. We will seek to ensure that religious liberty and freedom of conscience are unequivocally protected against interference by the state and other threats, not only to individuals but also to institutions including families, charities, schools and religious communities. We will not be intimidated by any cultural or political power into silence or acquiescence and we will reject measures that seek to over-rule our Christian consciences or to restrict our freedoms to express Christian beliefs, or to worship and obey God.

Commitment

We call upon all those in UK positions of leadership, responsibility and influence to pledge to respect, uphold and protect the right of Christians to hold these beliefs and to act according to Christian conscience.

Key Signatories

Lord Carey - Former Archbishop of Canterbury
Cardinal O'Brien - Catholic Church in Scotland
Michael Nazir-Ali - Former Bishop of Rochester
Steve Clifford - General Director, Evangelical Alliance
Lyndon Bowring - Executive Chairman, CARE
Paul Ashton - CEO, Prospects for People with Learning Disabilities
Steve Brady - Principal, Moorlands College
Julie Anderson - Founder, Prayer for the Nation
Anita Cleverly - UK/European Director of ASK Prayer Network
Gerald Coates - Founder of Pioneer, Speaker, Author, Broadcaster
Chris Cole - Founder of Cross Rhythms
Baroness Cox - House of Lords
Philip Giddings - Chairman, Mission and Public Affairs Council, Church of England
John Glass - General Superintendent, Elim Churches
Martin Goldsmith - Associate Lecturer, All Nations Christian College, Author, International Conference Speaker
Lynn Green - International Chairman, Youth With A Mission
Archbishop Hackman - Transatlantic and Pacific Association of Churches (TAPAC)
Clifford and Monica Hill - Projects Director and Executive Director, Contemporary Christianity
Tony Horswood - Director, Connections
Kate and Paul Jinadu - Overseers, New Covenant Church Network
Matilda McAtthram - Black Mental Health UK
Peter Maiden - International Director, Operation Mobilisation
Judy Littler Manners - Fountain House Ministries
Yaqub Masih - Chairman, Pakistan Christian Concern
David Montgomery - District Superintendent of England and Wales, Church of the Nazarene
Jonathan Oloyede - Convener, Global Day of Prayer London
Hugh Palmer - Rector, All Souls Church
Peter Saunders - CEO, Christian Medical Fellowship
David Shosanya - London Baptist Association
Olave Snelling - CEO, Christian Broadcasting Council
Simon Steer - Principal, London School of Theology
Chris Sugden - Executive Secretary, Anglican Mainstream
Mike Wall - Executive Director, All Nations Christian College
Andrea Williams - Director, CCFON
Dennis Wrigley - Leader, Maranatha Community
David Stroud - Leader, Newfrontiers family of Churches in the UK
Chris Wright - International Director, Langham Partnership International

Robert George discusses the Manhattan Declaration

Reardon on the Manhattan Declaration and its critics

Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon laments the sorry state of Christian unity reflected in the attitudes of sectarian objectors to the Manhattan Declaration and looks to biblical history for a solution.

I weigh these sad assessments, not only from my interest in the Manhattan Declaration, but also because they touch a larger preoccupation that might be called "ecumenical." Using this expression, I have in mind a sympathetic interest in brethren who are separated from me — and from one another — through various tragedies suffered throughout Christian history.

In approaching this res ecumenica I have long been inspired by biblical history, particularly the tragic departure of Israel's northern tribes at the time of Jeroboam's revolt.

Although St. Augustine regarded that separation as "not religious but political" (The City of God 17.21), his assessment strikes me as overly simplified. The ancient alienation of the north involved at least two theological problems: a repudiation of God's covenant with the house of David and the establishment of other shrines as rivals to the temple at Jerusalem.

Now it is plain that both those institutions — the Davidic covenant and the Solomonic temple — pertained to the very content of divine revelation. Their repudiation in the north, consequently, was not only schismatic but also heretical. This is surely the reason the Chronicler refuses even to mention the Northern Kingdom until that historical period when it no longer existed!

Still, even in schism and heresy, the people of those northern tribes remained a special object of the Bible's sympathetic interest and concern. During the two centuries of the Northern Kingdom's existence (922-722), the Lord sent them such prophets as Elijah, Elisha, Amos, and Hosea. In fact, He dispatched one of those prophets to anoint them a king! Although Holy Scripture pronounces a harsh judgment on those responsible for the separation of the northern tribes, it contains no criticism of those whose sole offense was that they happened to be born on the wrong side of the border.

The Bible's solicitude for those "separated brethren" provides, I believe, a workable model for analogous situations today. Some believers, in short, were just born on the far side of a border, but, as far as I can tell, they love and trust Jesus as much as I do. Now then, friends, how should I regard them?

Snell on the Manhattan Declaration and the nature of human reason

R.J. Snell corrects the record on the Thomist view of human reason, the misunderstanding of which is at the heart of much of the Calvinist antipathy toward the Manhattan Declaration.

Certainly Thomas held that the first principles of the natural law could not be erased from the human being (ST I-II 94. 6), and neither did sin fundamentally negate human nature, for if human nature were to be essentially changed by sin then our first parents were of a different species before and after the first sin. A nature cannot change essentially without changing the essence of a being, after all.

But only a wooden and uncharitable reading of Aquinas stops here, for Aquinas has a sophisticated view on the question. He holds that the prelapsarian human was endowed with the grace of original justice, a rectitude whereby reason is subject to God, the lower human powers subject to reason, and the body subject to the soul. Such a person would not sin because he or she is properly ordered; without concupiscence, the unfallen human would always follow the dictates of right reason. Original sin, among other consequences, deprives the human of this original justice, destroying the harmonious relation of human powers to each other and to God.

Since the will is for Aquinas a rational appetite, the will is directed to the good of the whole person rather than to some power or part of the person. While a particular appetite, say for food or sex, seeks only its particular satisfaction, the will integrates and directs all these competing desires into a whole, into a human act, which is why humans can, for the sake of their own and the common good, control their desires to consume too much food or fornicate with this or that person. Particular appetites are directed and placed in order by the rational appetite.

Given original sin, the rational appetite is inordinate and can act counter to right reason. We do disobey the divine mandate, we do allow lower appetites to dominate reason, and we do allow the goods of the body to triumph over the goods of the soul. Further, given original sin and the loss of human integrity and rectitude, we do suffer what Thomas calls the wound of ignorance, that is, we can voluntarily ignore truth and the desire for truth. We can, and do, act in cunning fashion, whereby reason is bent to devise new and clever evils in service to inordinate desire.

There is no cheery optimism in Aquinas with respect to reason. The human is disordered;, one might even say we suffer a totality of depravity since not a single human capacity or function remains in the state of original justice. Yes, humans are utterly messed up, but they are still human beings, and as human beings, as rational animals, they still possess the natural law, for to lose the natural law would be a loss of humanity, actually to become a beast. Not, that is, to act bestially—humans do so—but to be a beast. And this has not happened, since original sin does not change our essence—nor could it. The basic human goods remain the same basic human goods for Adam and for Hitler, and the flourishing of human persons qua persons has not changed. But sin does change our willingness to function as we ought, as we can all attest.

And you thought "Evangelicals" believed in forgiveness

As I have noted previously, some "Evangelicals" have responded to the Manhattan Declaration with a smugness that is, unfortunately, all too characteristic of their sectarian tendencies. A new low may have been reached, however, with the comments of John Stackhouse. Micah Watson highlights a particularly grotesque cheap shot from Stackhouse against one of the evangelical community's most respected leaders.

Here's what he says in diminishing some of the signatories of the document:

and Charles Colson, another evangelical whose impressive Prison Fellowship ministry arose out of his previous political career, a career that by any account was extremist and ended in the extremes of Watergate disgrace and a prison term (and therefore not the political expertise one might hope for behind such a document).

Now there are two ways he might believe Colson is not qualified to be a leading voice in such a document. First, he might think Colson just doesn't know enough about politics. Colson may be a nice fellow, he's done some admirable work in prisons, but he's not quite up to snuff intellectually and doesn't know enough to be an exemplar. Or, Stackhouse might think that Colson's behavior as a public figure in the Nixon White House was so morally bad that we should not think he's a voice worth hearing. So Colson might be intellectually lacking, or morally lacking, or perhaps both, is implied in the snippet.

Let's give Stackhouse the respect afforded to someone who should know better and describe this potshot as risible.

As to the claim that Colson doesn't know enough about politics, surely someone who served closely to a president and subsequently went on to write several books about faith and politics should be presumed to know a bit about how the game is played. Colson's charitable and advocacy work alone should shoot down this objection, and Stackhouse acknowledges how impressive Prison Fellowship has been (he could add Justice Fellowship also). Stackhouse has to know this, so one suspects it's the moral objection.

Unfortunately, this objection is even worse, for Stackhouse leaves out the fact that Colson was not a Christian when he was a determined Republican operative who would run over his grandmother for the president. Though the story has been part of a best-selling book and rather well-known in evangelical circles, Colson served his time in prison, because a Christian, and has repented of his past behavior from the early 1970s.As he has noted wryly from time to time when asked about political matters, he still cannot vote.

Is Stackhouse serious in thinking that a Christian who has repented of misdeeds done before he came to Christ over thirty-five years ago is thus disqualified from having something to say about matters of utmost moral, political, and cultural concern? That when we think of the legacy and leadership of Colson we should focus primarily on Watergate, and not how God used Colson through subsequent events to have an enormously positive impact in the church, the culture, and in countless prisons?

Surely that's not what he means, and I hope he'll explain himself a little better on that account. His mischaracterization of Colson, George, and others aside, he is in a good position to raise substantive concerns about the document. And that would be a conversation worth having, though I might add it would be a conversation prompted by the Declaration itself. If we can rise to the level of argument and joust with the actual views of our interlocuters, then perhaps it won't be such a waste of time.

Indeed, what does Stackhouse do with a passage like, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come" (2 Corinthians 5:17)?

Patrick Henry Reardon on the Manhattan Declaration and its critics

Orthodox priest Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon shares his thoughts on the Manhattan Declaration.

As I write these lines, more than a quarter-million people have signed the Manhattan Declaration, released this past November 20. I suppose I should be personally gratified, in the sense that never before have so many people agreed with me! I was, in fact, one of seven Orthodox Christians who signed the document prior to its publication.

There are several ways in which the Manhattan Declaration is significant.
The first, I suppose, is the content. This is a public and deliberately political (though not partisan) pronouncement on three points: It is pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-religious freedom. Under these headings it makes specific affirmations about abortion, the scientific or medical use of human embryonic tissue, the proposed extension of legitimacy to sexual unions other than that between a husband and wife, and the limitations imposed on the State with respect to the conscience.

Second, the document is significant in the great variety of its authors and original signers, a group embracing members and leaders from several Christian bodies. Indeed, the Manhattan Declaration was endorsed by Christians very little disposed, as a rule, to append their names on documents described as “ecumenical.”

My friend, for example, Dr. Albert Mohler, the President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was among the first to sign. Explaining the reason he determined to do so, Dr. Mohler wrote: “I want my name on that list. I surrendered no conviction or confessional integrity to sign that statement. No one asked me to compromise in any manner. I was encouraged that we could stand together to make clear that to come for one of us on these issues is to come for all. At the end of the day, I did not want my name missing from that list when folks look to see just who was willing to be listed.”

Third, the Manhattan Declaration is significant in some of the public reaction to it. I don’t mean the reviews of secular critics, of course, who detested the document’s contents. Their assessments were uniformly predictable. Neither do I have in mind the insouciance of those Christians who, on principle, avoid politics. Nor am I thinking of those Christians whose ethical sympathies are filtered through a different weave (those, for instance, to whom executing murderers is morally equivalent to murdering babies). Such reactions were entirely expected.

The critics I have in mind, rather, are those Christians who confessed agreement with the substance of the Declaration while declining to associate with the other signers. Their objections, I believe, are significant in the sense of deserving comment. Considerations of available space impose brevity here.

We may take the example of the Evangelical spokesman, John MacArthur, Jr. His complaint was very simple: The Manhattan Declaration scans only the symptoms of these social evils but neglects to address their root cause. That is to say, this document fails to proclaim the Gospel of salvation, which is the sole remedy for every social ill.

Substantially identical was the objection of the Orthodox Christian priest, Father Jonathan Tobias, who faulted the Declaration for not preaching repentance. This writer went even further, nonetheless, lampooning at length the document’s form and rhetorical style. (Ironically, the somewhat softened Father Tobias has of late chastised James Carroll, for a similar mockery of it.)

The objections of MacArthur and Tobias are curious in their evident presumption that Christians, when they speak in public, should limit their discourse to the proclamation of the Gospel and the summons to repentance.

This may be a legitimate view, though it is neither shared by many Christians over the centuries nor obviously favored by the prophets. Jonah, for instance, preached judgment—not repentance—at Nineveh, nor did his proclamation include one syllable of Good News. If this was true of Jonah, what shall we say of Nahum, whose own message to the Ninevites was just an expansion of Jonah’s meager half-verse?

Respectfully, these objections to the Manhattan Declaration (including its rhetoric) could easily have been made against any one—and perhaps all—of the biblical prophets. Our modest Declaration, as a statement of social concern, invites the endorsement of Christians who share that concern. The matter is truly as plain as that.

Heresy and popular evangelicalism

This article was originally posted last July. However, I think it most appropriate to repost at this time, in light of some of the vile and toxic objections to the Manhattan Declaration currently making the rounds of the evangelical blogosphere. These objections, for all their rhetorical bluster, all boil down to an unhealthy aversion by oldline evangelicals to institutional expressions of the Christian faith. That aversion owes much to the inadequate understanding of the Incarnation which I address in the article reprinted here.

Heresy and popular evangelicalism

“We are susceptible to heretical teachings,” writes retired Bishop C. FitzSimmons Allison, “because, in one form or another, they nurture and reflect the way we should have it be rather than the way God has provided, which is infinitely better for us. As they lead us into the blind alleys of self-indulgence and escape from life, heresies pander to the most unworthy tendencies of the human heart. It is astonishing how little attention has been given to these two aspects of heresy: its cruelty and its pandering to sin” (The Cruelty of Heresy, Morehouse Publishing, 1994, p. 17, emphasis original).

From their root, heretical teachings that confront the Church, from within or without, spring forth as the fruit of the poison tree which the Serpent has been dangling in front of us ever since the day he slithered his way into the Garden of Eden. They all offer the same empty promise: “Eat from the tree and you will be like God.” Heresy entices us with the prospect of “knowing good and evil” on our terms, not God’s.

But, as +Allison so aptly puts it, heresy is, in the end, both cruel (because its promise is the hoax of the ages) and pandering to sin (because it draws out and exposes the very worst of our fallen nature). If there is any positive element to the seemingly perpetual presence of heresy, it is that it forces the church to be constantly vigilant in keeping its life and doctrine pure. But there is a very real danger in becoming so concerned over one particular, and outwardly visible, manifestation of heresy that another, more subtle, manifestation is allowed to fester, grow and ultimately wreak untold havoc upon the church.

The Early Church struggled over the central question, “Who is Jesus Christ?” The Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) sought to address four specific Christological controversies: Arianism, the denial of Christ’s divine nature; Apollinarianism, the denial of Christ’s human nature; Nestorianism, the denial of the union of the two natures; and Eutycheanism, the denial of the distinction of the two natures.

The resulting “Definition of Chalcedon” set forth the orthodox teaching on Christology which remains authoritative for the church to this day:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of the natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only-begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

The glaring weakness of present-day popular evangelicalism, it is often assumed, is its low ecclesiology. The church is, in its truest form, "invisible," that is, a spiritual entity which transcends its human institutional counterpart. This inadequate understanding of the incarnational nature of the church, however, is reflective of an inadequate understanding of the Incarnation itself.

The great error of naturalistic theology (liberalism) is its emphasis on the humanity of Jesus to the neglect, if not outright rejection, of his divinity. But if naturalists are heavy on Jesus' humanity and light on his divinity, evangelicals are often guilty of the reverse: heavy on the divinity, light on the humanity. This is not altogether the fault of present-day evangelicals. They are, after all, heirs to only one of a myriad of sectarian traditions, spanning the theological spectrum, which have sprung up in the West since the Reformation. Present-day naturalists, likewise, cannot be assigned total blame for their theological shortcomings. Their predecessors are legion. However, evangelicals have generally proceeded under the sincere assumption that they are defending the orthodox faith.

If evangelicals are serious about pressing the matter of heresy in a way which promotes unity in the Body of Christ, they would do well to brush up on church history, particularly the early Christological controversies which led up to Chalcedon. A more careful and holistic understanding of the Person of Jesus Christ, truly human and truly divine, will yield, likewise, a more complete understanding of the nature and mission of the church. Such an understanding of both Christ and the church is essential when seeking to counter the heretical views of naturalists and revisionists. A very practical step in the right direction would be to seek meaningful fellowship with members of other communions. Evangelicals have much to learn from and, yes, much to teach to their brothers and sisters across the Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox divide.

Manhattan Declaration: What to do next

To all signers of the Manhattan Declaration:

Thank you for signing. We are now over 200,000 strong-and counting, for which we give thanks to God.

We have received thousands of e-mails asking what's next – a good question. The goal of those of us who drafted and signed the document is not just to get a lot of names on a manifesto, gratifying though that is. We are seeking to build a movement – hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Catholic, Evangelical, and Eastern Orthodox Christians who will stand together alongside other men and women of goodwill in defense of foundational principles of justice and the common good. These are people who could expose the lie which so many in our culture have embraced about self being the center of life; and then winsomely present, in the words of St. Paul, "a more excellent way."

We are looking for people who will work in every possible arena to advance the sanctity of life, rebuild and revitalize the marriage culture, and protect religious liberty.

So what's next for you? Let us offer some specific suggestions. More will undoubtedly follow in the weeks ahead.

Pray. We can do nothing apart from God. So lay this before the Lord every chance you have, and ask your friends and prayer chains to do the same thing.


Study and learn about these issues. We see the Manhattan Declaration as a great teaching and reference source. Share it with others. Only after you have tried to teach it to someone else will you have really learned it. And go deeper in your own study. There are many organizations that offer excellent resources in support of these foundational truths. If you can't find resources, you can visit www.colsoncenter.org and look at the Worldview Resource Directory we've assembled.


Come back to www.manhattandeclaration.org if you want help in answering questions others pose to you. We've posted a FAQ (frequently asked questions) tab on the home page, but most people signed the statement before this was added. So revisit www.manhattandeclaration.org – and watch for other resources we will be posting.


Invite all of the friends on your e-mail lists to go to www.manhattandeclaration.org, read the Declaration (that's most important) and sign it.


Talk to your pastor or small group leader in church. We have heard from a number of pastors who are already referring to this document in their sermons and using it in their teaching. We've also heard from bishops and other church leaders who are planning ecumenical gatherings in their areas of responsibility. Some are talking about campaigns to equip the faithful. Other pastors are asking their congregations to sign the document, and become informed. Go to your pastor; urge him to do this. You can really help in this area. Suggest it, and then volunteer to be a part of it. Step forward as a leader.


If you belong to a civic group like Kiwanis or Rotary, and you have regular meetings, that's a great forum in which to share information about the Manhattan Declaration. Explain to people what you've signed and why you've signed it. A lot of people are asking about this statement, its meaning and purpose. Educate them.


Letters to the Editor can be a very effective way to spread information about important issues. According to some sources, more people read the Letters to the Editor columns than the editorials.


Watch the issues being debated in the public arena, particularly as the health reform bill is moving through Congress. As a citizen you have a duty to let your representatives know what you think about the issues, particularly on profoundly important moral questions like those being raised now.


Get on Facebook or any other chat rooms or blogs that you have access to. Social networking, as we are learning, can have a powerful impact.


Finally, talk to your neighbors. Robert Naisbitt wrote that fads begin from the top down, movements from the bottom up. We are convinced that societies are changed over the backyard fence, standing around the barbeque grill, and sitting in the barber shop or hair salon. Learn to be an advocate in any environment.

In conclusion, in asking you to sign we were not just asking you to raise your hand, but to raise your voice. Great changes in society have often come about when Christian people unite in this way – think of the Wesley awakening, the Celtic revival, or movements for social justice and civil rights in our own country. We believe God is looking for good men and women who will pledge (as you have done in signing the Manhattan Declaration), never to compromise the gospel, and to become well-informed, effective advocates true and godly principles.

This is a message of hope for every area of human life and endeavor, and a call to discipleship for every believer.

God bless you.

Dr. Robert George
Dr. Timothy George
Chuck Colson

Evangelicalism at its worst

Frank Turk at the Evangel blog has "respectfully" declined to endorse the Manhattan Declaration, ostensibly because he believes it "obscures the Gospel." But his rationale is a disgusting, bigoted, and wholly uncharitable screed against Catholic and Orthodox Christians, reflective of a toxic attitude which is, unfortunately, still prevalent among oldline evangelicals.

See: as an actual Evangelical, I think that “We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us” to proclaim and thereafter live by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God does this, and requires it of us believers, because we are in His image and frankly His creatures over whom He has a place above all kings, above all other reasonable allegiances, above even our own claim to our own lives.

When we substitute the phrase “with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image” for the phrase “to proclaim and thereafter live by the Gospel of Jesus Christ” we have done two things:

[1] we have obscured the necessary and central fact of the Gospel by overlooking the irreconcilable differences between “Evangelicals”, “Roman Catholics”, and “Orthodox” by calling all of these groups “believers” in a rather indiscriminate way. I’ve said it elsewhere, so it should be no surprise when I say it here that I am sure there are Catholics who are saved, and likewise for the occasional Eastern Orthodox you may run into who exercises an Evangelical (large “E” intended) understanding of Jesus and the consequences of Him; but to throw out the wide blanket and just call all of these groups “Christian” in an overly-broad sociological sense, and to call all of them “believers” in the sense required to make the rest of the reasoning in this document is much. It makes the distinction between “belief” and “unbelief” such a fuzzy line that I doubt anyone signing this document actually means what they have said here.

By obscuring that line, the Gospel is obscured — because the actual consequences of the Gospel are obscured.

[2] We have substituted the reasoning of the Gospel with the reasoning of statism. The reasoning of the Gospel is this: because Christ died for sins in accordance with Scripture, and was buried and raised on the third day in accordance with Scripture, men are called to repentance which is not just a confession of past wrong but a second birth — a new life in which we are dead to the moral law and its condemnation and raised to new life in the kind of love Christ has and showed us by dying on the cross.

The reasoning of statism is that the state defines what sort of people we will be — that if the state defines marriage, or if the state defines human rights, or if the state defines the religious liberty of the citizens, then they have it.

When you look at these two things side by side in this short form, it is clear how the latter interposes itself against the Gospel and in place of the Gospel.

Fellow Evangel blogger Mark Olson takes his colleague to task and pulls no punches.

This, to my ears, sounds very Pharisaic. Here we have Mr Turk standing in judgement of the whole of Catholicism and Orthodoxy and finding them wanting … except those few who secretly are “Evangelical.” Well, fortunately (apparently) for me, Mr Turk is not my judge, for I have a Judge already. It seems to me the Gospel has a few things to say about those trying to put themselves in the place of that Judge.

At its best, evangelicalism is a vibrant, positive force for the proclamation of the Gospel and the transformation of the world. At its worst, it is a parochial sect looking down its nose at fellow believers, rendering the witness of the whole Christian community impotent by its smugness. Frank Turk is a textbook example of the latter.

Manhattan Declaration: 150,000 signatures in less than a week

November 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The unprecedented pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-religious freedom Manhattan Declaration, unveiled in a press conference last Friday, has already been signed by over 150,000 individuals in less than a week, and the numbers are continuing to rise by the second.

The 4,700-word "Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience" was drafted by Dr. Robert George, Dr. Timothy George and Chuck Colson. At the time of its release last week it was signed by more than 125 prominent religious figures, including figures from Orthodox, Catholic and evangelical Christian denominations. That number has now risen to over 170, including 18 Roman Catholic bishops, in addition to the 150,000 ordinary Christians.

Colson says he hopes that the document will eventually be signed by more than 1,000,000 individuals, which, given its current momentum, hardly seems out of the question.

The Declaration is a non-denominational statement that throws down the gauntlet to a secular culture that is increasingly encroaching upon the rights of Christians who hold to traditional moral values, especially on the issues of marriage and the right to life. "We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers," says the document, "that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence."

The document goes on to challenge the growing movement to silence Christians by force of the law in the strongest terms, going so far as to intimate civil disobedience. "Unjust laws degrade human beings," says the document. "They lack any power to bind in conscience. [Martin Luther] King's willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring."

The enormous popularity of the document appears to arise largely from its ability to bind together Christians from diverse theological and denominational backgrounds to fight for a common cause - the right to life, the preservation of true marriage, and the right to religious liberty.

Dr. Albert Mohler, the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and one of the original signatories to the document, admitted earlier this week that he usually does not sign on to such statements, which often require the signatories to compromise on key doctrinal issues. However, he said, the Manhattan Declaration is "not a wide-ranging theological document that subverts confessional integrity." Rather, "It is a statement of urgent concern and common conscience on these three issues - the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and the defense of religious liberty."

While, he says, he still believes that the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations have got it wrong on important theological issues, "when Catholic Charities in Massachusetts chose to end its historic ministry of placing orphaned children in good homes because the State of Massachusetts required it to place children with same-sex couples, this is not just a Catholic issue."

Indeed, he said, the issues at stake are simply too urgent to ignore. "I believe," he said, "we are facing an inevitable and culture-determining decision on the three issues centrally identified in this statement. … 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."

The Declaration has become a rallying point for Christian leaders, like Mohler, who have read the signs of the times and come to believe that the public square is becoming increasingly hostile to basic Christian values.

Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, said about the Declaration that, "Standing in the shadow of the cross, Christian leaders have drawn a cultural and political line in the sand from which they have pledged they will not be moved."

"We are bringing our faith to bear on public policy because we see the efforts of the Left as a frontal assault on human dignity, the American family, and the future of our children," he continued. "For this reason, we will not retreat an inch and will make the case for life, marriage, and religious liberty in the public square."

In the U.K., where the rights of Christians are under attack more fiercely than almost anywhere else in the West, Telegraph writer Gerald Warner wrote that, "For harassed, demoralised faithful in the pews [the Manhattan Declaration] will come as the long-awaited call to resistance and an earnest (sic) that their leaders are no longer willing to lie down supinely to be run over by the anti-Christian juggernaut."

The timeliness of the document is highlighted by the fact that earlier this month the House of Commons in the U.K. voted for the fourth time to remove conscience protections from proposed "equality" legislation that explicitly would have allowed Christians to continue to express moral disagreement with homosexual behavior. While the conscience language was later reinserted by the House of Lords, the momentum in the U.K. is clearly on the secuarlists' side, for the moment. Numerous Catholic adoptions agencies were either forced to close or secularize after the government passed the so-called Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) in 2007, and there are increasing reports of Christians being forced out of their jobs or visited by the police simply because they expressed their moral convictions, usually on the issue of homosexuality.

It is precisely the increasing occurence of these types of anti-Christian actions on the part of government that have led the organizers of the Manhatten Declaration to issue and sign the document.

"In a world" continued Gerald Warner, "where a Swedish pastor has been jailed for preaching that sodomy is sinful, similar prosecutions have taken place in Canada, the European Court of Human Rights (sic) has tried to ban crucifixes in Italian classrooms, Brazil has passed totalitarian legislation imposing heavy prison sentences for criticism of homosexual lifestyles, Amnesty International is championing abortion, David Cameron has voted for the enforced closure of Catholic adoption agencies, and Gordon Brown's government has just been defeated in its fourth attempt to abolish the Waddington Clause guaranteeing free speech - this robust defiance [of the Manhattan Declaration] is more than timely."

First they came for the Catholics. . .

In explaining his decision to sign the Manhattan Declaration, the not always ecumenical Albert Mohler sounds reminiscent of the late German pastor Martin Niemoller. Mohler cites the current trend of state-mandated immorality having a negative impact on the work of Catholic ministry organizations.

But when Catholic Charities in Massachusetts chose to end its historic ministry of placing orphaned children in good homes because the State of Massachusetts required it to place children with same-sex couples, this is not just a Catholic issue. The orphanage could have easily been Baptist. When Belmont Abbey college in North Carolina is told by federal authorities that it must offer abortion services in its insurance plans for employees, this is no longer just a Catholic issue. The next institution to be under attack might well be Presbyterian. We are in this together, and we had better be thankful that, in this case, we are not alone. . . .

I want my name on that list. I surrendered no conviction or confessional integrity to sign that statement. No one asked me to compromise in any manner. I was encouraged that we could stand together to make clear that to come for one of us on these issues is to come for all. At the end of the day, I did not want my name missing from that list when folks look to see just who was willing to be listed.

A poem attributed to Niemoller expresses regret over the silence of the German intellectual community during the rise of the Nazis and the purging of enemy groups, one by one.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

God forbid that there come a day when a weary American Christian leader pens a lamentation that begins, "First they came for the Catholics. . ."

Nothing new in the "New Gospel"

Kevin DeYoung breaks down the four basic components of the so-called "New Gospel."

It usually starts with an apology: “I’m sorry for my fellow Christians. I understand why you hate Christianity. It’s like that thing Ghandi said, ‘why can’t the Christians be more like their Christ?’ Christians are hypocritical, judgmental, and self-righteous. I know we screwed up with the Crusades, slavery, and the Witch Trials. All I can say is: I apologize. We’ve not give you a reason to believe.”

Then there is an appeal to God as love: “I know you’ve seen the preachers with the sandwich boards and bullhorns saying ‘Repent or Die.’ But I’m here to tell you God is love. Look at Jesus. He hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors. He loved unconditionally. There is so much brokenness in the world, but the good news of the Bible is that God came to live right in the middle of our brokenness. He’s a messy God and his mission is love. ‘I did not come into the world to condemn the world,’ that’s what Jesus said (John 3:17). He loved everyone, no matter who you were or what you had done. That’s what got him killed.”

The third part of the New Gospel is an invitation to join God on his mission in the world: “It’s a shame that Christians haven’t shown the world this God. But that’s what we are called to do. God’s kingdom is being established on earth. On earth! Not in some distant heaven after we die, but right here, right now. Even though we all mess up, we are God’s agents to show his love and bring this kingdom. And we don’t do that by scaring people with religious language or by forcing them into some religious mold. We do it by love. That’s the way of Jesus. That’s what it means to follow him. We love our neighbor and work for peace and justice. God wants us to become the good news for a troubled planet.”

And finally, there is a studied ambivalence about eternity: “Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in life after death. But our focus should be on what kind of life we can live right now. Will some people go to hell when they die? Who am I to say? Does God really require the right prayer or the right statement of faith to get into heaven? I don’t know, but I guess I can leave that in his hands. My job is not to judge people, but to bless. In the end, God’s amazing grace may surprise us all. That’s certainly what I hope for.”

All of this may sound appealing, and it is, especially in an age which seems to idolize uncertainty and non-judgmentalism. But it is precisely this appeal that makes the "New Gospel" problematic.

It shouldn’t be hard to see what is missing in the new gospel. What’s missing is the old gospel, the one preached by the Apostles, the one defined in 1 Corinthians 15, the one summarized later in The Apostles’ Creed.

“But what you call the New Gospel is not a substitute for the old gospel. We still believe all that stuff.”

Ok, but why don’t you say it? And not just privately to your friends or on a statement of faith somewhere, but in public? You don’t have to be meaner, but you do have to be clearer. You don’t have to unload the whole truck of systematic theology on someone, but to leave the impression that hell is no big deal is so un-Jesus like (Matt. 10:26-33). And when you don’t talk about the need for faith and repentance you are very un-apostolic (Acts 2:38; 16:31).

“But we are just building bridges. We are relating to the culture first, speaking in a language they can understand, presenting the parts of the gospel that make the most sense to them. Once we have their trust and attention, then we can disciple and teach them about sin, repentance, faith and all the rest. This is only pre-evangelism.”

Yes, it’s true, we don’t have to start our conversations where we want to end up. But does the New Gospel really prime the pump for evangelism or just mislead the non-Christian into a false assurance? It’s one thing to open a door for further conversation. It’s another to make Christianity so palatable that it sounds like something the non-Christian already does. And this is assuming the best about the New Gospel, that underneath there really is a desire to get the old gospel out.

Paul’s approach with non-Christians in Athens is instructive for us (Acts 17:16-34). First, Paul is provoked that the city is so full of idols (16). His preaching is not guided by his disappointment with other Christians, but by his anger over unbelief. Next, he gets permission to speak (19-20). Paul did not berate people. He spoke to those who were willing to listen. But then look at what he does. He makes some cultural connection (22-23, 28), but from there he shows the contrast between the Athenian understanding of God and the way God really is (24-29). His message is not about a way of life, but about worshiping the true God in the right way. After that, he urges repentance (30), warns of judgment (31), and talks about Jesus’ resurrection (31).

The irony of the "New Gospel" is that it is nothing new. Paul's steadfast witness for the true Gospel often flew in the face of a myriad of half-truth counterfeits even in the church's earliest days. The prevalence of a watered-down, milquetoast "New Gospel" which cannot speak a word of redemption and transformation to a dying culture is one of the major reasons why the Manhattan Declaration is such a necessary restatement of the whole Gospel at this point in time. The "Old Gospel" is still the only one that boldly asserts the promise of God to make all things new.