The city ‘that never sleeps’ and which is the cure for ‘small town blues’ has rather incongruously become the location for a gathering of evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox ministers to issue a joint statement against the current cultural moral decline called the Manhattan Declaration. Since then, a firestorm!
Those evangelicals who signed it are accused of compromising because throughout the Manhattan Declaration the term ‘Christian’ is used to define all three groups. Plus, very little mention is made in the declaration about the gospel itself (inevitably given the different views on the gospel the original signatories of the document hold).
Common cause
In their defence, the evangelical leaders have said that this is very different from the much-pilloried Evangelicals and Catholics Together statements, because the intention is not to define the gospel but rather acknowledge a common cause on moral issues with other religious groups. There certainly are those who have signed the Manhattan Declaration who would not sign an Evangelicals and Catholics Together statement.
Why the storm?
What are we to make of this firestorm? Storm in a teacup? Perhaps. None of the people involved in the debate at this level think that the issues themselves are unimportant. All think that ‘life’ issues, defence of marriage, and religious liberty are important matters worthy of strong affirmation. So what’s the argument about? Isn’t this just a debate among people who agree, and therefore not really a debate?
Defining ‘Christian’
Yet, on the other hand — for those who think there is more at stake here — the question underlying the discussion seems to be partly how we define the word ‘Christian’ (which probably all at times use more or less broadly in a ‘Christendom’ sense), and also partly how we solve the problems that the Manhattan Declaration denounces. Do we get our society — and the individuals within it — to stop aborting foetuses, hold onto a Christian view of marriage, and allow our children to sing ‘Silent Night’ at school and not just ‘Jingle Bells’ by pounding the table in ‘co-belligerence’; or do we get change this way by preaching the gospel?
Conversion
There may well be room for both approaches. There is a time for people of common cause to bond together over a common issue in order to get something done which society at large is failing to acknowledge as a moral evil — witness the end of the slave trade through Wilberforce’s initiative, involving some, I am sure, who would probably not be willing to sign any of our doctrinal statements.
But then I also have to say that the only people I have ever seen change their mind on any of the issues mentioned, the only people I have seen leave a life of homosexuality and follow Jesus in authentic discipleship, cease campaigning for religious relativism and start preaching Christ crucified, build a family and not be a passive partner in witnessing the family implode, the only people I have known make those changes have not done so through me hounding them that they are wrong on these issues. They have met Jesus, he has loved them, they have seen him dead for their sins, and, by the Spirit, their lives have changed.
As Paul says, ‘I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone’ (Romans 1.16). So, while some smell some Caesar compromise here, rendering unto him what is not due, I would imagine that none would have any quibbles if a non-church leader group got together to make a similar proclamation. Ah, for heaven. In the meantime, let us preach Christ crucified.
