Buzz About The Manhattan Declaration
Things have been pretty busy lately, but I’ve decided to waste part of my lunch time to add to what seems to already be an over-saturated topic. One of the negative things about blogging is that it often makes you feel compelled to talk about things that are timely but at the same time stale. The Manhattan Declaration is out. Within the theological community of people who would agree with the morals of the declaration, there are those who, on principle, are not signing.
If your ethical criteria is “which way the wind blows”, then you are out of luck, respected people are landing on both sides of this. I think you are on pretty flimsy ground if you are willing ot sign something merely on the basis that someone else you respect has signed it.
Signatories include Albert Mohler, J.I. Packer, Brian Chapell, William Edgar, Martin Olavsky, etc.
John MacArthur, James White, Alistair Begg, Frank Turk, Tim Challies, etc. have gone on record stating why they have refused to sign.
Here are a few scattered comments that come to my mind (they are generic, not specifically tailored for this particular declaration):
1. As a general rule, as of late, I try to be as skeptical I can. I think an appropriate posture is to start assuming no positive obligation to sign and then wait to see if one is presented. We should then refuse to feel pressured to sign. And then if we discover a negative obligation we shouldn’t even give consideration to signing. Emotionalism likes to rally people to causes and often it overstates the necessity. The world is full of causes trying to make you believe you have some positive obligation to join. This sort of “group think” can potentially be very scary.
2. Agreeing with a declaration 100% does not imply a positive obligation to sign it. Signing goes beyond mere agreement. Also, it is possible that we could fully agree with the “what” (the declarations bare statements but could refuse to sign it for reasons pertaining to “why”, “who”, or “when”. We should not be pressured into thinking that support for the “what” necessitates our supporting the “why”, “who”, or “when”.
3. When signing something, beyond the bare question of whether we agree with its terms, we should also consider what it will accomplish. Though it might be easy, we should never see signing something as a trivial matter (whether it be a declaration, a cheque, or a contract). Signing is a serious thing and we should always consider it that, even if it technically takes very little time.
4. This reminds me of how activism is often so much more complicated than we conservative Christians like to make it out to be. The what vs. why, who, how distinction outlines this.
5. The company we keep matters. A reputable name signing a declaration NEVER creates a positive obligation to sign, but a disreputable name signing a declaration COULD create a negative obligation in some circumstances. While signing a declaration is mainly a matter of agreeing with its propositions, I would argue that is not the only consideration.
I will not be signing this declaration for a few reasons that I do not feel compelled to explain in detail here. Suffice it to say, I see no positive obligation and I see cases being made for a negative obligation. In light of that, signing, to me, would at best be a matter of indifference (if there is no negative obligation) and at worst it would be wrong-headed to sign it (in the case that there is a negative obligation).
I believe in the sanctity of human life, the dignity of Christian marriage, and the rights of conscience and religion liberty. I do not feel compelled to sign the Manhattan Declaration in order to affirm that. The creators of the declaration have no particular reason to be concerned about my non-signing. Nobody is going to follow in my footsteps for the sake of following in my foot steps. At least I hope not.
To those who refuse to sign the declaration, I offer the words of Theodore Roosevelt:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride of slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not exactly what they actually are. The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be a cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder. Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength. It is war-worn Hotspur, spent with hard fighting, he of the many errors and valiant end, over whose memory we love to linger, not over the memory of the young lord who “but for the vile guns would have been a valiant soldier.”
Theodore Roosevelt.
My hat’s off to those who actually worked to draft the declaration, who used their pens to resist the Enemy and not to criticize those who are resisting the Enemy. I have added my signature in support of their leadership and of their effort.
Gregory,
Thanks for the reply! That is a pretty good quote, but I’m unsure how it is relevant.
First of all, in what sense is this declaration doing a deed or being “in the arena”?
Second, how is writing a declaration (or signing it) related to “the rough work of a workaday world”? Something tells me your usage of this quotation is comparing two highly disparate situations. Do you believe Teddy was referring to something analogous to writing up a declaration and then getting people to sign it? Don’t you think he was referring to something a bit more gritty than that?
I’m not trying to be harsh here… But depending on how you define things, Gal 1:8 may be a more relevant consideration in this case than the Teddy quote. When you make a declaration against a King’s Enemy, and your declaration is inclusive and speaks glowingly of people, who on a central point, are in agreement with the Enemy over against the King, the King is generally not pleased… That is at least one way to look at it, and it makes a whole lot of sense to me.
The gospel is our means of fighting the enemy. We fight the enemy by declaring the gospel. We can not fight the enemy, on the terms stated in the declaration, together with those who have a deficient gospel.
Gregory,
Just to clarify a bit… My response is, of course, not to say that we won’t sometimes agree on some issue with those with a deficient gospel. Neither does it mean we have to avoid causes they take on. But we must avoid rubber stamping those with a deficient gospel for the purpose of fighting the “enemy”..