Keeping My Word

Tuesday, 20 July 2010 21:35 Written by Bob Flack

I have neglected my blog for more than a week. Since my last post the elders held their summer retreat. Preparation and participation in this took a good deal of time, attention, and emotional investment.  In retrospect, I consider those two days some of the most significant in my eleven years at Grace Baptist. Perhaps future posts will offer the right opportunities to reflect on our deliberations.

But I ought not to use the retreat to excuse my careless inattention to the blog. My commitment is to blog several days each week. I renew that commitment as I write today. I recall some matters of unfinished business from earlier posts. I’ve started a list of potential future blog subjects but should put them on hold while I concentrate on tying together some loose threads.

Among those is the Manhattan Declaration. If you are not familiar with this document, you may access it on the web at http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx. It represents the combined effort of representatives from three major branches of historic Christianity – Catholic, Evangelical, and Orthodox. It addresses with boldness a biblical position on the sanctity of human life, the design for human marriage, and the necessity of religious freedom. It calls Christians to bold action and response against societal movements that oppose these fundamental Christian beliefs.

I drew attention to this significant declaration in some earlier blogs, indicating that I was going to leave some time for discussion and reflection before making a decision about signing it. I sought feedback from blog readers and other sources to make my decision.

I have decided not to sign the statement. I can openly affirm that I agree with its conclusions regarding, life, marriage, and liberty. I share the spirit of the statement that nurtures a stronger and bolder response from God’s people. I am sure that my prayers about these issues and those of the declaration’s framers align.

I stop short of signing it because the document makes three references to the gospel.

“Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good.” (Preamble).

“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.” (Introductory paragraphs)

“Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel.” (Paragraphs on Religious Liberty).

I agree with these statements. The problem is that there is wide disagreement among these major religious groups on the nature of the gospel. I am persuaded by the argument that it is dangerous to pretend or presume agreement on the church’s ultimate priority while seeking to advance a godly agenda in areas of common grace where there is agreement.

If the framers insisted on making reference to the gospel, it would have fostered even more support to have admitted to the significant differences that exist among these traditions. As written, the statement leaves the reader open to conclude that those who wrote and sign(ed) the statement hold to the same definitions of the words in it. Yet in the preamble, there is simply the recognition of “ecclesial differences” not doctrinal ones. Again, many readers will conclude that the differences amount to merely ones of practice rather than core belief.

A popular radio host who worships in yet another religious tradition regularly pleads with all people of faith to unite in opposition to the downgrade on these same and other moral issues. I cannot say that I object to this at all. I can act in concert with those with whom I would not worship. But I do object to this radio personality’s use of biblical vocabulary, redefining terms to suit his political and social purposes.

Something similar is going on with the Manhattan Declaration. I imagine two different types of professed evangelicals who have committed to this document. One views the differences between the evangelical gospel and the gospel outlined in the official statements of the other two traditions as minor and inconsequential. I struggle to understand how or why this person would continue the claim to be an evangelical.

The second admits to the real and significant difference between the gospel he holds and the one confessed in the other two traditions. He must conclude that there are then at least three places in the document where signatories will have to fill in significantly different definitions of a word. We have suffered too much from this practice of agreeing to common statements but then redefining words to squirm out of a commitment.

I will continue to stand with all who will stand for life, marriage, and freedom of conscience. I refuse to let my reservations about the declaration turn me away from these critical battles. There is more that all of us can do individually and collectively. But my commitment to the biblical gospel and to protecting it from any compromise leads me to steer clear of a public affirmation of this particular document.