Fr. Pat Reardon on Manhattan Declaration

I post this on behalf of Fr. Pat Reardon:

As I write these lines, more than a quarter-million people have signed the Manhattan Declaration, released this past November 20. I suppose I should be personally gratified, in the sense that never before have so many people agreed with me! I was, in fact, one of seven Orthodox Christians who signed the document prior to its publication.        

There are several ways in which the Manhattan Declaration is significant.
The first, I suppose, is the content. This is a public and deliberately political (though not partisan) pronouncement on three points: It is pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-religious freedom. Under these headings it makes specific affirmations about abortion, the scientific or medical use of human embryonic tissue, the proposed extension of legitimacy to sexual unions other than that between a husband and wife, and the limitations imposed on the State with respect to the conscience.
          
Second, the document is significant in the great variety of its authors and original signers, a group embracing members and leaders from several Christian bodies. Indeed, the Manhattan Declaration was endorsed by Christians very little disposed, as a rule, to append their names on documents described as “ecumenical.”

My friend, for example, Dr. Albert Mohler, the President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was among the first to sign. Explaining the reason he determined to do so, Dr. Mohler wrote: “I want my name on that list. I surrendered no conviction or confessional integrity to sign that statement. No one asked me to compromise in any manner. I was encouraged that we could stand together to make clear that to come for one of us on these issues is to come for all. At the end of the day, I did not want my name missing from that list when folks look to see just who was willing to be listed.”

Third, the Manhattan Declaration is significant in some of the public reaction to it. I don’t mean the reviews of secular critics, of course, who detested the document’s contents. Their assessments were uniformly predictable. Neither do I have in mind the insouciance of those Christians who, on principle, avoid politics. Nor am I thinking of those Christians whose ethical sympathies are filtered through a different weave (those, for instance, to whom executing murderers is morally equivalent to murdering babies). Such reactions were entirely expected.

The critics I have in mind, rather, are those Christians who confessed agreement with the substance of the Declaration while declining to associate with the other signers. Their objections, I believe, are significant in the sense of deserving comment. Considerations of available space impose brevity here.

We may take the example of the Evangelical spokesman, John MacArthur, Jr. His complaint was very simple: The Manhattan Declaration scans only the symptoms of these social evils but neglects to address their root cause. That is to say, this document fails to proclaim the Gospel of salvation, which is the sole remedy for every social ill.

Substantially identical was the objection of the Orthodox Christian priest, Father Jonathan Tobias, who faulted the Declaration for not preaching repentance. This writer went even further, nonetheless, lampooning at length the document’s form and rhetorical style. (Ironically, the somewhat softened Father Tobias has of late chastised James Carroll, for a similar mockery of it.)

The objections of MacArthur and Tobias are curious in their evident presumption that Christians, when they speak in public, should limit their discourse to the proclamation of the Gospel and the summons to repentance.

This may be a legitimate view, though it is neither shared by many Christians over the centuries nor obviously favored by the prophets. Jonah, for instance, preached judgment—not repentance—at Nineveh, nor did his proclamation include one syllable of Good News. If this was true of Jonah, what shall we say of Nahum, whose own message to the Ninevites was just an expansion of Jonah’s meager half-verse?

Respectfully, these objections to the Manhattan Declaration (including its rhetoric) could easily have been made against any one—and perhaps all—of the biblical prophets. Our modest Declaration, as a statement of social concern, invites the endorsement of Christians who share that concern. The matter is truly as plain as that.

--Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon

Comments

[Gina M. Danaher]

As an Evangelical Christian whose church tends to agree with everything John MacArthur says, I was not surprised by his stance and once again found myself as the odd woman out. I did sign the Manhattan Declaration on the first day it was available. I am humbled to be standing firm on the foundation of the gospel, arm and arm with my fellow believers from Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical churches. I am thankful for this response from Fr. Reardon.

[John FB]

I find nothing particularly controversial about the Declaration. Actually, the tone is generally humble, not brash and certainly not self-righteous, though it is uncompromising.

There are a couple things that seem to have motivated this: a concern for freedom of religious expression and a fear that there might be punitive legislative actions taken against religiously based organizations for acting in accords with their values.

In regards to the first, I think we cannot look at the example of Canada and Europe in terms of the restrictions of religious expression. They do not value freedom of speech as an almost absolute right as we do here (and which are explicitly protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution): rather, they've taken the absurd approach of trying to "legislate civility". The litmus test for freedom of religious expression could probably be Westboro Baptist: so long as the Phelps clan are free to hold protests with their vile placards, I'm thinking that the more moderate majority of religious believers will be protected as well. Sure, people may attempt to stifle it, but it will not pass muster in an actual court.

The other concern is legislation similar to the "Freedom of Choice Act". From what I can gather from the actual wording of the act, it refers to the limitations on government entities, not private organizations. To assert that the government may not interfere with a woman's private right to terminate her pregnancy (which is guaranteed only prior to fetal viability) is not the same as mandating an individual or private organization to provide that service (with or without government funds).

In addition, "in early 2009, Catholic News Service asserted that in its interpretation of the legislation, FOCA neither poses any such risk to Catholic hospitals, nor would require religious hospitals to participate in abortion."

Could this change? Of course, and I understand why some will want to keep a watchful eye on this. As it stands, it appears that at least some of the concerns that prompted this declaration are generally unfounded.

[TimC]

John FB,

I do not think that FOCA et al. is the primary concern of the religious freedom aspect of the document. More threatening to the liberty of religious (esp. Catholic) institutions are potential provisions of the health care reform legislation. The President and many others have clearly identified "reproductive care" as a fundamental aspect of health care. It is possible that health care reform legislation, if passed, will require hospitals to perform abortions. And even if this does not come to pass in the initial legislation, the granting of authority to the government to define what is and is not to be covered under health insurance leaves the door open for later incursions.

Also, google "Belmont Abbey" and "contraception" to see another threatening infraction against religious liberty.

[GL]

Amen, Fr. Reardon, Amen. What puzzles me about the opponents like John MacArthur is why they don't offer their own document, which contains support of those provision of the Manhattan Declaration which they support, removes those provisions which they do not support, and adds those provisions which they believe should have been included, but which were omitted. I see no reason why they couldn't do that and, so, stand up and be counted. It is very curious that they are apparently unwilling to do so. Of course, it is likely that if they did so, we would see as many declarations as declarants since, in the end, I find their complaints nit picking, word parsing excuses for not standing together.

[Jason]

what if, rather than refusing to sign it because of the other signatories, we agreed to sign it because of the other signatories? I was cautious at first, unsure if I wanted my name on the same list as certain other people (not that my name in particular amounts to anything). Eventually I decided that if folks like +BASIL, +JONAH, and Fr. Patrick are on it, then I'm in. I haven't even read the whole thing yet.

As for Father Jonathan Tobias mocking someone's rhetorical style: does that make him the pot or the kettle?

[Wyeth Duncan]

By signing the Manhattan Declaration, the signatories are affirming that "We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences...", that the other signatories are "...our fellow believers...", and that "it is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness..."

The fact of the matter is the differences between Evangelicals, Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are not simply "ecclesial differences". There are major theological differences between these groups. Further, Evangelicals would (should) say (following the example of the apostle Paul, in his letter to the Galatian Christians) that Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox proclaim "another gospel", which is not the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, it cannot be genuinely confessed that all of the other signatories are "our fellow believers". Unfortunately, the Manhattan Declaration gives moral/social issues priority over the Gospel.

In reality, concern for the biblical integrity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is why John MacArthur and others refused to sign the Manhattan Declaration; and that is why I have asked that my name be removed from the list of signatories.

[c matt]

Wyeth does have a point, although I think the intent of the document is not to make a statement regarding theological agreement, but rather agreement on certain shared ethical norms. But if his objection to signing is based upon a concern of syncretism, I can respect that.

(Although, I don't know if I would say Catholics and E. Orthodox preach a different Gospel from Evangelicals, as much as I see it as we preach a more complete Gospel.)

[Benjamin Marsh]

"The objections of MacArthur and Tobias are curious in their evident presumption that Christians, when they speak in public, should limit their discourse to the proclamation of the Gospel and the summons to repentance."

This criticism seems to miss the mark. The problem with the Declaration vis-à-vis the Gospel is that the document claims that "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" without clarifying how the position statements that follow relate to the Gospel or what the "full" Gospel truly is.

In other words, MacArthur's criticism is viable precisely because the document relies on the Gospel for merit. It mentions the Gospel but does not define the Gospel, and given how widely divergent the definitions of "gospel" are among the various signatories it is a valid criticism.

I suppose the critique is better stated in a broader manner: are all these signers and those who did not sign but might otherwise assent to the Declaration Christians because of their unified stance on the subject matter(s) of document or because of their belief in the Gospel of Christ?

C Matt's comment is right.

Without an explanation of Gospel, is this document a kind of syncretism built on intentional theological nonspecificity? Are we running the risk of an ethics-based faith? Surely the authors and signers meant nothing of that ilk, but as once-lobbyist and now-Pastor, I have seen too often the risks of building a house on anything but the foundational Truth of God. Even a foundation that seems sturdy - the widely-accepted secondary truths of God's moral imperatives - are not the essentials of the faith. Are they sources for joint action? Surely. Are they the Gospel? No. Why then include a phrase like the one I quoted above?

[Rob G]

"Wyeth does have a point, although I think the intent of the document is not to make a statement regarding theological agreement, but rather agreement on certain shared ethical norms. But if his objection to signing is based upon a concern of syncretism, I can respect that."

Seems to me the point of the thing is what Francis Schaffer called "co-belligerence," not syncretism. As a former Evangelical who's been an Orthodox for 15 years, I believe that Evangelicalism preaches a truncated version of the Gospel. But this in no way inhibits my desire to see Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox stand together against the culture of death. "If we don't hang together," etc., etc.

"Evangelicals would (should) say (following the example of the apostle Paul, in his letter to the Galatian Christians) that Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox proclaim 'another gospel,' which is not the true Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Perhaps then Mr. Duncan could get a group of like-minded Evangelicals together to draft their own declaration, one that specifically excludes Catholics and Orthodox as proclaimers of another Gospel. What happens, though, when the Evangelicals disagree among themselves on what's "foundational"? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I'm not holding my breath.

[Larry Sloan]

With all due respect, I would suggest that Fr. Reardon mischaracterized MacArthur's position. Here's what MacArthur actually said:

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Print/Articles/A390

[Anonymous]

A comment from an Eastern Catholic forum on Father Patrick's statement:

I think Fr. Patrick's criticism is a bit misleading. He asserts : Respectfully, these objections to the Manhattan Declaration (including its rhetoric) could easily have been made against any one—and perhaps all—of the biblical prophets. Our modest Declaration, as a statement of social concern, invites the endorsement of Christians who share that concern. The matter is truly as plain as that."

The difficulty I have with the Manhattan project and Fr. Patrick's assertion is that, unlike biblical prophets whom proclaim God's word, this manifesto seeks to assert "rights", (page 2, paragraph 5) and "social concern". Clearly rights discourse is a form of civil discourse. Fr. Schmemann was correct when he asserted that the language of rights and equality is not the language of the Church.

The weakness and liability of the Manhattan project lies in the fact of the assertion of the Gospel through merely legal and ethical discourse. I don't think it can be done. The Gospel is only fully intelligible in the Church as the sacrament of the the Kingdom and in the lives of particular Christians. I don't think the state or society can communicate the Gospel because they are transpersonal abstractions that are the mere basement, not the summit, in which we live our discipleship. I think the document is wrong when it asserts the importance of the law's pedagogical function.

Fr. Patrick is misleading by asserting an identity of the Manhattan project with the prophets because the prophets call for personal conversion and repentance, love and charity, not better laws or policies. I am sure the Manhattan project is not opposed to this, but neither does it make this call.

[Anonymous]

The Gospel simply is this: "Jesus Christ the Son of God, who was crucified for the life of the world, is risen from the dead; by his death He conquered death and has granted us life eternal".

Everything else is mere elaboration.

[Bananas Gorilla]

>Further, Evangelicals would (should) say (following the example of the apostle Paul, in his letter to the Galatian Christians) that Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox proclaim "another gospel", which is not the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yes but in some Reformed circles we find that people attack fellow Reformed for preaching another gospel because they don't dot the "i's" in the right fashion even while subscribing to the identical confessional statements.

A better observation would be one of Presbyterian theologian R.L. Dabney, no RC sympathizer, who said that the Roman Catholic church does have the gospel, it simply has a lot of additional error encrusting it. Even if you think RC's have it right Dabney's position has a lot more coherency than does that of many evangelicals.

[MCModerator]

Please stick to the subject of the post (the Manhattan Declaration, and the views of specific people for and against). Comments that veer into denominational polemics will be deleted.

[Van]

John MacArthur & Pretrib Rapture

Who knows, maybe John (Reformedispy) MacArthur is right and the greatest Greek scholars (Google "Famous Rapture Watchers"), who uniformly said that Rev. 3:10 means PRESERVATION THROUGH, were wrong. But John has a conflict. On the one hand, since he knows that all Christian theology and organized churches before 1830 believed the church would be on earth during the tribulation, he would like to be seen as one who stands with the great Reformers. On the other hand, if John has a warehouse of unsold pretrib rapture material, and if he wants to have "security" for his retirement years and hopes that the big California quake won't louse up his plans, he has a decided conflict of interest. Maybe the Lord will have to help strip off the layers of his seared conscience which have grown for years in order to please his parents and his supporters - who knows? One thing is for sure: pretrib is truly a house of cards and is so fragile that if a person removes just one card from the TOP of the pile, the whole thing can collapse. Which is why pretrib teachers don't dare to even suggest they could be wrong on even one little subpoint! Don't you feel sorry for the straitjacket they are in? While you're mulling all this over, Google "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty" for a rare behind-the-scenes look at the same 180-year-old fantasy.