1.At the textual level, the answer is no. You only have to compare the text of ECT with the text of the Manhattan Declaration to see the difference.
2.There is, however, a subtextual argument. Did the framers have an ulterior, interfaith agenda?
To my knowledge, Robert George is an observant Catholic, so I assume he’s ecumenical to the extent that the Vatican is ecumenical.
I don’t know that this amounts to an agenda on his part. I assume his primary contribution to the document lay in drafting the sanctity-of-life provisions. He’s a bioethicist. That’s his field.
To my knowledge, Timothy George and Chuck Colson are fairly aggressive ecumenists. So it’s quite possible–maybe probable–that they used this document as a pretext to further their ecumenical aims.
3.In that respect, the document suffers from a conflicting agenda. And that, in my opinion, is one of its principal weaknesses.
4.At the same time, we need to draw a rudimentary, but often overlooked, distinction between the intent of the framers and the intent of the signatories.
Objections to the Manhattan Declaration frequently parallel debates within the religious right every election cycle.
The assumption seems to be that signing the document constitutes a wholesale endorsement of the document. But that’s rather naïve.
It’s like saying a registered Republican must swear by every plank in the party platform. But of course, that’s not how it works in real life. A voter can be quite selective.
Signatories may have different intentions than framers. Likewise, one signatory may have different intentions than another signatory.
A signatory isn't bound by the intentions of the framers. This is not a contract. Likewise, the same document may be put to more than one use.
Of course, a document may be so flawed or skewed that it’s fairly useless. In my opinion, the Manhattan Declaration is too muddled and obsequious to be very useful. It’s at cross-purposes with itself. In that respect, the framers, if they did have an ulterior agenda, unwittingly sabotaged their own efforts.
5.Two final points:
i) It’s not enough to simply attack the document. One should also present an alternative. And that needs to be done by contributors who are at least as prominent as the contributors to the Manhattan Declaration.
ii) Of course, there’s also the question of whether issuing a piece of paper is the most efficient use of our time. Perhaps we need fewer words and more deeds.
For example, signatories to the Manhattan Declaration include representatives of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox denominations. Yet both those institutions are long on words, but short on actions–starting with church discipline.
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteI don't think the Manhattan Declaration is ECT redux. Not at all.
Also, here are some
arguments by Andrew Sandlin in a post titled "Lordship Salvation is Not Enough: A Response to John MacArthur."
What do you think of them?
I agree with Sandlin on social ethics.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Catholicism teaches elements of the gospel, while adding to the gospel, as well as subtracting from the gospel. So what you're left with is a gospel-plus/gospel-minus pastiche. Priestcraft, hocus pocus, and works-righteousness.
Steve Hays: "I agree with Sandlin on social ethics."
ReplyDeleteSandlin makes the following comments about ethics in his article. Is it safe to assume that you agree with him here also?
"The MD presupposes an ethical calling wider than the Gospel, and we dare not shrink back from the implications of this wholly valid assumption: the Gospel is one of the great themes of the Bible without which there can be no “true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills,” but the Gospel is not the entire, or even the most important, message of the Bible. It is a crucial dimension of an even more momentous message, which is the sovereignty of God over all things (2 Chron. 20:6; Ps. 103:19; Pr. 21:1; Zech. 9:10; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 19:6).
The MD takes a step toward recovering an understanding of the full-fledged Lordship of Jesus — that Christians must speak prophetically to the ethical issues of the time, and expect the state to stay within its divinely prescribed limits. Just as Jesus’ Lordship is wider than the church, so Christians’ message must be wider than the Gospel."
I agree with Andrew Sandlin that many Evangelicals haven't acknowledged the full implications of Jesus' lordship over the state, and I agree that there's some significant overlap among Catholics, Orthodox, and Evangelicals on matters pertaining to what Sandlin calls the accomplishment of the gospel. But even when a Catholic and Evangelical agree that Jesus died for our sins, for example, they aren't necessarily defining that concept the same way. And, as Sandlin acknowledges, the disagreement over the application of the gospel remains. Scripture defines that issue of application as a foundational issue, as we see in Paul's disputes with the Judaizers. See my comments in posts # 94 and # 99 in the Challies thread here. The Manhattan Declaration, when read in the most natural way it could be read, affirms the orthodoxy of groups that are wrong on that foundational issue.
ReplyDeleteTUAD,
ReplyDelete1. I agree with most of Sandlin's excerpt.
2. I don't agree with him that the Gospel is not the most important message of the Bible. And I wouldn't rank the sovereignty of God above the Gospel. Indeed, that's an odd disjunction. A sovereignless Gospel is no better than a Gospelless sovereignty. The two are interrelated.
3. Ironically, the way in which Sandlin tries to defend the MD corroborates the objections of its critics.
Steve Hays: "It’s not enough to simply attack the document. One should also present an alternative. And that needs to be done by contributors who are at least as prominent as the contributors to the Manhattan Declaration."
ReplyDeleteI fully agree. I have not yet seen an alternative and I would like to.
BTW, here's a very thoughtful post by Nicholas Batzig titled "More on the Manhattan Declaration."
In the comment thread he wrote "The best thing I can say is that I believe that signing this document does more harm than good to the cause of the Gospel" which I think is contra to what Jason Engwer wrote in a previous T-blog comment (if my memory serves me correctly).
And I also made note of his statement:
"For the record, I do not think that the conservative protestants who signed the document have compromised the Gospel."
Steve Hays: "To my knowledge, Timothy George and Chuck Colson are fairly aggressive ecumenists. So it’s quite possible–maybe probable–that they used this document as a pretext to further their ecumenical aims.
ReplyDelete3.In that respect, the document suffers from a conflicting agenda. And that, in my opinion, is one of its principal weaknesses.
4.At the same time, we need to draw a rudimentary, but often overlooked, distinction between the intent of the framers and the intent of the signatories."
I commend you Steve on your fine post titled "Where is Meaning?" On that thread I posted the following:
This is a very helpful post and I see applications of it in both the reviews of the movie "Avatar" and in the Manhattan Declaration.
For example:
Patrick Chan here: "The movie is meant to be symbolic, allegorical."
Steve Hays here: "That’s because the film is a set-up. Like any adept propagandist, Cameron is attempting–quite successfully, in Billy’s case–to sway the attitudes and emotions of the audience. ... It’s not a godly attribute to root for a thinly-veiled political allegory which slanders the very men who put their lives on the line to protect us from our mortal enemies. ... The only reason that Cameron has to specify an American force is because the film is a political allegory, ostensibly set in the future, but really about the “war on terror” and other alleged atrocities of US domestic and foreign policy."
Daniel J. Phillips here: "I had read that Avatar was about pantheism, Gaia-worship, and evil America. I disagree... sort of.
...
Is the film anti-military? Well, the soldiers there are ex-military; they are hirelings to the evil corporation. They are not the American Army, nor Navy, nor Air Force, nor Marines. So on the face of it, no. ...
Therefore, I don't receive Avatar as a sermon about pantheism, Gaia-worship, Hinduism, America, the war on terror, nor eco-fascism.
Now, I think that may be in the authorial intent. But if so, it failed to reach the screen.
...
Briefly, then: Cameron may well have intended a heavy-handed parable preaching the joys of pantheistic Gaia-worship, and the evils of America, George Bush, the war on terror, the military, and capitalism.
If so, Cameron failed miserably, pathetically, and laughably, because there is no actual connection."
So by the above we see that there is a spectrum of opinion about the interplay between political allegory, authorial intent, and what Steve calls "audiencial meaning" from the movie "Avatar".
Now let's do the same thing with the Manhattan Declaration as we just did with the "Avatar" review:
Daniel J. Phillips here: "BTW, MD mastermind Chuck Colson wrote this:
"This document [The Manhattan Declaration] is, in fact, a form of catechism for the foundational truths of the faith."
Which very nicely (if tragically) underscores the point of my post.
Yeah, Stan; and authorial intent is supposed to matter to us, no?"
[cont.]
[cont.]
ReplyDeleteDr. Niel Nielson here: "Some have pointed to statements from Chuck Colson which reflect his views about the purpose and hoped-for outcome of the Declaration as evidence of how misguided Evangelicals have been in signing. Let me be clear: With as much respect and appreciation for Chuck as I have, I did not – and do not – sign on to his commentaries about the Declaration, nor do I expect him, or anyone else, to sign on to mine. Together we signed the Declaration because of what it states so clearly and well, and I, for one, did so with unswerving conviction about the biblical gospel and the biblical doctrines articulated in the Protestant Reformation.
I must add, even given what I have just said, that I dearly wish the gospel references had not been included in the Declaration. They introduce unnecessary ambiguity and provide unnecessary ground for the refusal of many Evangelicals to sign. With a more precisely disciplined focus on the main issues it addresses, the Declaration would have, I believe, garnered far wider support among Evangelicals and enabled this enterprise to have a vastly more far-reaching impact.
So that’s why I almost didn’t sign The Manhattan Declaration – and why I did."
--------
So I recently read a very nice post by Rhoblogy titled "The Special Pleading of Sola Ecclesia-ists Claims to Unity" and I got to ponder Rhoblogy's argument that the RCC's are committing the fallacy of special pleading in their objection to Sola Scriptura. Well, it seems to me that Daniel J. Phillips may also be committing the fallacy of special pleading as well when comparing his reviews of Avatar and the Manhattan Declaration vis-a-vis authorial intent and "audiencial meaning."
So if Dr. Nielson (and other conservative Protestant signers of the Manhattan Declaration) took the same evaluative approach towards the MD as Daniel J. Phillips himself did towards his review of the movie "Avatar" with regards to (failed) authorial intent and "audiencial meaning," then why is Daniel J. Phillips (and other conservative anti-MD Protestants) so bitter and angry towards the conservative Protestants who sign and support the Manhattan Declaration?
TU&D: Just a reminder - still waiting for you to give a straight answer to this question (link).
ReplyDelete