The Manhattan Declaration: Close but No Cigar

Breakfast never tasted this good.

I could smell that the traditional spinach, cheese, and egg omelet was in the works. I sat in my chair, downed some fresh carrot juice, and began rubbing the sleepers out of my eyes before lifting up the first piece of fresh avocado.

The familiar voice of Dobson came on the radio. My ears perked up when I heard something like, “this is the most important document ever written in recent times.” It wasn’t long and Chuck Colson was on the air talking about The Manhattan Declaration, it’s importance, and all the big name endorsements like Ravi Zacharias, Wayne Grudem, Albert Mohler, J.I. Packer, Tim Keller, and apparently a couple Roman Catholic cardinals. The claims were relatively general: Christians should get together to preserve the values of traditional marriage, the rights of the unborn, etc. As far as I was concerned, it sounded like an exciting new project. And by the time I finished breakfast, I almost felt like signing up.

Not so fast, I said to myself. We’re talking about a declaration here, a statement of faith, a creed, a confession, a public pronouncement of a worldview.

My mind raced back to the “Creeds and Confessions” class I took in college. While most of my classmates were dozed off, I couldn’t stop asking questions. As a man who loves keen functionality, I admired the painstaking work Christians have put into clarifying, articulating, and defending the Christian faith throughout history – especially in the form of a confession or declaration.

Confessions, creeds, and declarations are unlike any other type of written document in the world. They are the definition of “clear.” They are the meaning of “concise.” Their very purpose is to accurately communicate the intention of the author, not to entertain the imagination like poetry, not to tell a story like narratives, and not even to persuade. For in a declaration, the author presents it as if the argument is already won. This is the way it is, this is why it is the way it is, and we won’t budge. That’s what a “declaration” is.

So – and here’s my point – when you speak with that kind of tone and authority, you had better say exactly what you mean to say.

A person must carefully craft written words. A person must carefully craft written words.

Did I say that a person must carefully craft written words?

Five minutes after leaving the kitchen table, I began reading the opening lines of the Manhattan Declaration. I held my breath. Was it only a matter of time before I found something inaccurate, something deficient, something that needed a slight revision? It mattered after all. In fact, just a passing glance at the blogosphere revealed that this was, indeed, a big deal.

That was yesterday.

Today, I direct to the following from David Porter, who was writing in response to Christians who refused to sign the Manhattan Declaration:

I signed the Manhattan Declaration today…Stand for truth, yes, but not at the expense of your commanded love.  You will have no witness if you continually nauseate the world with your holier-than-thou attitude. This is the time to stand against an evil rising tide in our society.

I posted a comment which states my basic position (and that of RealApologetics.org) regarding the Declaration:

Mr. Porter:

Anyone who has studied the history and nature of creeds and confessions knows that the words of a public confession of faith/argument/worldview must be carefully, carefully crafted, especially for an ecumenical declaration of this (soon to be and ever increasing) magnitude and popularity. As the wisest man on earth put it, “Like apples of gold in settings of silver, so is a word skillfully spoken in right circumstances,” (Proverbs 25:11). In comparison with the Synods and Councils in the past and the documents that have emerged from them, the Manhattan Declaration appears to have been put together rather quickly. Granted, we live in a day where communication is instantaneous. But these types of things should be put together with as much time, wisdom, and insight as possible. Perhaps, because of the recent advances of the socialized healthcare bill (and all its strings), these most important prerequisites for a declaration of this type was overlooked.

It is my contention that the Manhattan Declaration should not be signed in its present form; the Declaration needs another draft that takes into consideration the legitimate criticism delivered by Frank Turk, James R. White, John MacArthur, and others who have publicly hesitated/refused to sign. If the Declaration is really as important as supporters say it is, then it is that much more important to ensure it’s done right – assuming such a task is possible.

For those who say we don’t have time to make revisions due to the quickness that the Obama administration and Congress are negatively changing the country (ie healthcare bill, etc.), we are obviously forgetting that this was the same administration and Congress that jammed the largest spending bill in history through the House without giving any Representatives a chance to even read it. Let us learn from this mistake instead of repeating it: no declaration is better than a deficient declaration.
For those who say it’s done right, I beg to differ. As James R. White has pointed out, the document promises to be ecumenical – insofar as “Christian” means being Trinitarian – while at the same time quoting from Martin Luther King and referring to him as “Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective.” King, of course, denied the orthodox doctrine of the deity of Christ, ironically setting him beyond the bounds of the ecumenicality promoted in the Declaration.
Frank Turk of “First Things” and Mark Lamprecht at “Here I Blog” wisely point out that, for being a theological confession (according to Colson on Hugh Hewitt’s program, Nov 23, 2009), the Manhattan Declaration forgets the most central aspect to theology itself: the gospel. As John MacArthur recently commented: “In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time.”

If the Manhattan Declaration and its movement weren’t as promising, as public, and as popular as the Declaration currently is, then this would probably be useless hair splitting, indeed. But this isn’t a minor document with only a few endorsements, and little potential for influence. It’s serious and it’s gaining traction. And when the essence of a confession becomes influential, the method by which that basic argument comes into existence becomes 10 times more important. Indeed, the Manhattan Declaration doesn’t need more endorsements, it needs more revisions.
Does traditional marriage, the right to life, and the forces of a bad government need to be addressed? Yes. Need to be addressed in this age? Absolutely. The Manhattan Declaration should not be scrapped altogether. I am not as pessimistic about ecumenical efforts as some of my brethren are; how could we be pessimistic after Nicaea? However, the Declaration should be reevaluated, revised, and re-presented with the wisdom that some of the finest minds have offered just over the last 30 days. Not only would we be foolish to ignore such in-house criticism, but ignoring this criticism would also prove that the advocates of the Declaration aren’t as ecumenical as they claim.

But, given that the Manhattan has already gained considerable traction in a variety of circles, the chances of revising the Declaration are minimal. Consequently, it seems that the chances of RealApologetics.org promoting the Manhattan Declaration are minimal indeed.
Jamin Hubner
realapologetics.org