Today I read Michael Horton’s “A Review of the Manhattan Declaration”, and I found it enlightening. I don’t think his arguments are designed to convince the reader to sign or not sign the document. They did not sway me in either way. They seem to be designed to give the evangelical some clarification on why the document is not a truly evangelical document, which in and of itself is enlightening.
I encourage you to read the review and comment back here on your impressions. Should one be persuaded to sign or not sign by Mr. Horton’s arguments?
- Michael Horton’s “A Review of the Manhattan Declaration
- The Manhattan Declaration
Recently a document was presented to the National Press Club entitled “The Manhattan Declaration”. It is a document written and signed by leaders of the Roman Catholic church, the Orthodox church and Evangelical churches. The aim of the document is to make a statement concerning the collective resolve of these leaders and the other signatories that we “reaffirm” and “defend” such “fundamental truths” as “the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife and the rights of conscience and religious liberty.”
At the time of this post 123,115 individuals have signed this document. However, it has not been without disagreement among evangelicals. If you are still not sure whether you should sign the document, please consider reading the document and the opposing evangelical reasons concerning signing the document. I provide you with the links below.
- The Manhattan Declaration
- Albert Mohler’s reason for signing
- John MacArthur’s reason for not signing
I hope you will consider this issue prayerfully.
This week Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed a bill to repeal a 1913 law, which up until now protected the sovereignty of other states to determine what constituted a legal marriage. With this bill Mass. has opened the door for gay couples from any state to come to their state to be legally married.
Several problems present themselves to me as a result of this decision. First and most practically is the question of what do states do with couples who return from Massachusetts with legal marriage certificates looking for the rights any other married couple in that state? A great dilemma will be faced by many states. I can only imagine the legal expenses that will be supported by tax payers all over America when states have to debate these issues and defend their findings.
Second, and more pressing for the Church is the question of how to respond. I fear we will simply ignore the problem as we have already ignored the problem presented by insurance companies and corporations that choose to recognize same sex couples as equally deserving of coverage as married couples.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not a proponent of using the Church as a political platform. I’m not really all too excited about the Church being directly involved in social activism. I’m certainly not one to encourage Christians to make fools of themselves in the work place or on public stage.
With that said, while I’m not opposed to Christian organizations and individuals representing Christian standards in the corporate and political world I believe the Church’s response should be focused in a different direction, i.e. it’s teaching. The Church needs to remember that it’s job is not to change social policy but to change hearts, and the only effective change in hearts that the Church should ever focus on is one where the heart is changed in it’s disposition toward God and sin. Only when people’s hearts have gone from hating God and loving sin to loving God and hating sin will the Church have an eternal impact on such issues as we are faced with in Massachusetts. And this brings us back to her teaching. Her teaching must be routed in the gospel teaching about the grace of God that comes to us through the death of Jesus Christ. She should address the moral issues of the day, but only in so far as they serve to point people to their need for Christ and to God’s sovereign authority over all creatures.
To some this may sound simplistic and even naïve. However, it is my opinion that the gospel is more effective in changing people’s minds than any theory, argument or political position and thus the Church should focus her attention on proclaiming the gospel to the heart’s of God’s children.
