Why I Almost Didn’t Sign The Manhattan Declaration
Written by Niel Nielson on December 11th, 2009On November 20, at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., The Manhattan Declaration was publicly released. The Manhattan Declaration is a nine-page statement whose central burden is a clear, strong, and gracious articulation of crucial, biblically grounded moral convictions and commitments regarding the sanctity of human life, marriage, and religious liberty. To read the Declaration and see related items, go to http://www.manhattandeclaration.org.
Here are two paragraphs from the opening section:
While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.
Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.
The more than 150 original signers, of which I am one, are from Protestant Evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox communities. Evangelical signers include Joel Belz, Bryan Chapell, Ligon Duncan, Tim Keller, Al Mohler, Marvin Olasky, Harry Reeder, Joni Eareckson Tada, and Ravi Zacharias, and at least one has publicly expressed his rationale for signing.
I signed the Declaration for four principal reasons:
- The convictions and commitments articulated in the Declaration (regarding 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) are clearly grounded in the Scriptures, fully consistent with the Westminster Standards, and increasingly necessary for God’s people to live out, no matter what the cost.
- Our witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ is strengthened, not weakened, when Christians accurately and graciously lay out the implications of our biblical faith.
- I carry a joyful burden to witness to, and be a faithful steward of, these truths for the sake of the rising generations whom we serve at Covenant College, so that they might be equipped for the challenges they will face in the decades ahead.
- I am willing to make common cause in these matters with others with whom I continue to have deep theological differences, for the sake of the well-being of God’s church and the continuing work and ministry of Covenant College.
It is the last point which gets to the subject of this posting. In its opening section, the Declaration identifies the Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical signers as “Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences,” but it also includes statements and phrases which imply, or may imply, that these signers share a common faith and a common understanding of the gospel.
For example,
- “Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s Word;”
- “…the Gospel of costly grace;”
- “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.”
While I could unreservedly commit my name to the main body of the Declaration regarding sanctity of human life, marriage, and religious liberty, I hesitated to sign because of these references to the gospel, recognizing, as I must, that there is not a common understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ among the signers. In early November, in a string of email messages to a dear and trusted friend, who is a co-signer and in fact encouraged me to sign, I wrote:
This is not a definitive response to your request that I sign, but
it’s a continuation of the discussion.
The key question for me is: Am I willing to sign a statement like
this, along with Christian leaders who define what is stated as the
basis for the statement in very different ways?
For example, what do the Catholic leaders signing the statement mean
by: “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” (bottom of p. 2)? What is the “gospel” to them? Am I
comfortable signing the statement on the basis of my understanding
of the terms used, i.e. knowing full well that others signing it are
using those same terms to refer to very different things?
I wish that such theological language had been left out entirely,
and that the statement referred more directly and exclusively to the
issues themselves. But when such a statement as that at the bottom
of p. 2 is included, the document implies a theological agreement on
the content of the gospel – and thereby goes beyond co-belligerence
in a similar way as the ECT documents.
(ECT refers to Evangelicals and Catholics Together, a group that, over the last several years, has been creating statements which, in my opinion, intentionally aim at theological unity among Evangelicals and Catholics.)
In a later message, I wrote:
Could it be that, by avoiding clarification of the biblical gospel and giving — or allowing — the impression of agreement on such a basic matter as the content of the gospel, we are in fact, with every good intention, weakening our distinctive gospel witness?
… it’s hard for me to imagine that Colson and George, both ardent supporters of ECT, are not at some level still just as ardent about the theological reunifying of Protestant and Catholic communities. The theological language of the document — extraneous if the purpose is co-belligerence pure and simple — carries implications and connotations for theological agreement that I don’t think I can countenance.
Don’t get me wrong: We must work with all our energy, alongside all like-convicted others,…for the sanctity of unborn life, for marriage, for biblical sexuality, etc. Those are my deep and vital convictions, and I do my work at Covenant with fixed resolve on those matters, willing to accept all consequences and costs.
But this statement asks far more of me than that. Take out the “gospel” language, and I sign in an instant.
Finally, in response to my friend’s question about whether I would prefer a secular argument against abortion, gay marriage, etc. to a deficient Christian/biblical/gospel argument, I responded:
…for the purpose of such a common statement among the stated groups, I would prefer no argument at all to a deficient Christian/biblical/gospel argument, i.e. one which I believe is likely to create a misleading impression of common theological conviction about foundational matters. Rather, let’s together state our common convictions about the issues (perhaps even acknowledging that we come to those convictions via very different routes and for very different reasons, i.e. we disagree theologically but we all end up here on the issues), and together declare our common intentions to act according to those convictions.
(Not surprisingly, other Evangelicals have expressed similar concerns, including some who for such reasons decided not to sign the Declaration. See here, here, and here.)
These were the concerns that troubled me over several days as I contemplated signing the Declaration, and I include these messages here to make clear that I, undoubtedly along with other Evangelical signers, wrestled mightily with these issues on the way to signing. In fact, my conversations with folks on both sides of the sign-or-not-sign question had me leaning toward not signing.
At the same time my conviction about the importance of declaring shared commitments regarding the sanctity of human life, marriage, and religious liberty continued to grow, and that conviction was further strengthened as I read the Declaration’s final paragraph:
Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.
I realized as well that the Declaration, while implying that the signers may agree on the nature and meaning of the gospel, does not define the gospel in any way that I find objectionable, i.e. by signing I was not affirming any heterodox, unbiblical view of the gospel. My signature – and this is important – signals my agreement with the Declaration as it explicitly and specifically stands, and nothing more.
To critics of the Declaration who say that it implies agreement with Catholics and Orthodox on the nature and meaning of the biblical gospel, I say that such implication is possible but certainly not necessary. To critics of the Declaration who say that it commits the signers to agreement with Catholics and Orthodox on the nature and meaning of the biblical gospel, I say strongly, “No, it does not.” I disagree with official Catholic and Orthodox understandings of the gospel, and embrace wholeheartedly our Protestant Reformation theology, grounded in the Scriptures and summarized most beautifully and convincingly in the Westminster Standards. The Declaration not only does not in any way violate those Standards, but in fact flows from them.
Some have pointed to statements from Chuck Colson which reflect his views about the purpose and hoped-for outcome of the Declaration as evidence of how misguided Evangelicals have been in signing. Let me be clear: With as much respect and appreciation for Chuck as I have, I did not – and do not – sign on to his commentaries about the Declaration, nor do I expect him, or anyone else, to sign on to mine. Together we signed the Declaration because of what it states so clearly and well, and I, for one, did so with unswerving conviction about the biblical gospel and the biblical doctrines articulated in the Protestant Reformation.
I must add, even given what I have just said, that I dearly wish the gospel references had not been included in the Declaration. They introduce unnecessary ambiguity and provide unnecessary ground for the refusal of many Evangelicals to sign. With a more precisely disciplined focus on the main issues it addresses, the Declaration would have, I believe, garnered far wider support among Evangelicals and enabled this enterprise to have a vastly more far-reaching impact.
So that’s why I almost didn’t sign The Manhattan Declaration – and why I did. May God show mercy and favor on his church and his people as we proclaim the hope of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the grace of God —
…bringing salvation for all people and training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works (Titus 2:11-14).
Dear Dr. Niel Nielson,
Much, much deep thanks for sharing your thoughts in ultimately deciding to sign the Manhattan Declaration.
I appreciate you.
Dr. Nielson, since we had the same concerns, but ultimately arrived at the same decision, I want to thank you for stating so clearly what many of us have been struggling to articulate. Grace and Peace.
Makes me sad, as a Presbyterian-turned-Catholic, and Covenant graduate, to see such reticence to affirm the gospel truths Christians do share, and spiritual pride in one’s viewpoint.
I appreciate your thoughts on this issue, as many Christian leaders have publicly struggled with signing. I agree that one should not find fault with what the document might imply. Likewise, one should not find fault with what it does not attempt; I’m fascinated that some evangelicals feel the MD does not say enough, and others feel it says too much! Clearly the MD is attempting to walk a fine line, not trying to be a secular document (for then what is the real heart behind the convictions expressed?) but not tying itself too closely to any denomination. I, for one, appreciate your signature. The MD clearly states that its claims of faith are made by the individual signers, and since I believe there are sincere Christians in all these groups, I have no problem aligning myself with them.
Thank you for taking the time to grant some insight into the thinking (careful, intentional) that I was certain marked the decisions of many to sign this document. I am grieved, however, that despite the careful approach the gospel (with all the threats this document poses to it’s clarity-threats you articulate well) still took a back seat in the end. You explain that it is your conviction that this Declaration “flows from” the Westminster Standards; Standards which were so carefully crafted by the Westminster divines to present and defend the gospel with a clarity that might prevail against just such a muddling as the threats posed by this Declaration present. By your own words and with your shared insights I cannot see how such a potential (I would suggest real) compromise to gospel clarity is in any way consistent with the Reformation passions that clarified and codified the gospel for the strength, growth and maturing of the church and her mission. In the end those who signed this Declaration, it seems to me, have expressed a lack of trust in the gospel to accomplish the ends pursued by this misguided emphasis. This lack of trust in the gospel will (and even now is) not serve the cause of Christ. Already there is a breach in the unity cherished among Protestant Reformers of today to accomplish an imagined unity with those opposed to the gospel that alone can offer hope to this nation. This is sad to witness.
I am not familiar with your work or of Covenant College, but what I’ve read today has certainly gotten my attention. Although I am just Joe Schmoe Christian, not even 3 days ago I made this statement to my sphere of influence “I am sympahetic towards some of the signers of the Manhattan Declaration but I have yet to hear a cogent response to the claims that this document befuddles the Gospel and the definition of who is and who is not a Christian.” for what it’s worth Dr. Nielson I can now retract this kind of sentiment from my interactions with my local church and the Christian internet community as we continue to wrestle with these issues. God bless you sir.
Thank you for courage and sound reasoning. And thank you for providing a point of leadership in a time of great need.
I transferred into Covenant many years ago, with a background of exclusivity: if you did not agree upon every single jot and tittle, as ‘we’ interpret the Scriptures, we will separate from you and loudly bray your lack of fidelity to the Word of God. PTL He has softened my former views.
I also came to Covenant (and so remain to this day)as a Baptist, unable to accept certain particulars of your revered Westminster Standards.
Your waffling over signing is like continuing to argue over who should be baptized and with how much water while the whole world asks who and where is God? The watching, waiting unbeliever cares nothing for our denominational differences. They look for a certainty in the larger issues of who am I, how did I get here, what is my ultimate purpose in life, and where am I going after?
With respect, I immediately signed the Manhattan Declaration. It is not perfect–neither is any Christ-follower.
Dr. Nielson, you have applied Biblical thinking and Spirit-directed wisdom and love to this critical subject. I am blessed to know that your are directing my alma mater and prouder than ever to call myself a Covenant grad. I am further encouraged to have a son and, next year, a daughter at Covenant, under your leadership. May God bless you and Covenant, and may He not give over our nation. I now happily, and without reservation, add my signature to the declaration.
I am so thankful for this explanation and for the signer’s courage in taking something that is more right than wrong and risking the fallout from that decision.
May God give us all wisdom in these difficult days!
Dr. Nielson,
Thank you so much for the clarity of thought you shared in consideration of the MD. One question. Why is this considered a possible waffle on the gospel for evangelicals, but not a waffle on the gospel for catholics and orthodox. Why are they not,by signing the MD, conceding that evangelicals are right in our understanding of the gospel?
[...] Dr. Niel Nielson, President of Covenant College [...]
From Steve Wilson’s comments I assume he did NOT sign. What saddens me is a reluctance to sign such a wonderful and historic document proclaiming our most sacred cristian values. Christ warned us against those who would “choke on a gnat”.
The Manhattan Declaration is an historical document behind which we should all unite. I hope that we can reach at least a million signatures. If Washington D.C. had a Million-Man March, then we can get there, too, without having to climb on a bus, go out of state, spend a night in a hotel, and fight the crowds. I believe if we miss this opportunity that tries to bring concerned citizens together in the comfort of their homes, then we lose the right to complain about the trend in our national debate. May we all be sufficiently concerned
I think that the third blog posted on this page by “BeeBee” is a condemnation in itself of the Manhattan Declaration. She says:
“Makes me sad, as a Presbyterian-turned-Catholic, and Covenant graduate, to see such reticence to affirm the gospel truths Christians do share, and spiritual pride in one’s viewpoint.”
Dr. Nielson and other signers of the Manhattan Declaration are culpable for this. How many will be comforted in their idolatry in the Roman Catholic church, or how many will be misled to believe that the gospel is not a narrow gate? Dr. Nielson was correct in his first assessment of the document when he said, “I hesitated to sign because of these references to the gospel, recognizing, as I must, that there is not a common understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ among the signers” Dr. Nielson should not have allowed himself to be convinced otherwise. The abandonment of the simple defense of the gospel in exchange for reasoning that Dr. Nielson clearly is not comfortable with himself, was a poor trade indeed. It is our prayer that God will re-strengthen his courage to defend the truth and that he will remove his name from the document. What an example that would be! The cost is so small today, compared to what what others who have gone before have faced. For example, the story of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. In 1556, after being imprisoned by Queen Mary, Cranmer wrote a recantation of protestantism. The price for not recanting was death by fire at the stake. He later withdrew his recantation, and before he was sent to the stake, he addressed an assembly in St Mary’s church “Every man desireth, good people, at the time of their deaths, to give some good exhortation, that other may remember after their deaths, and be the better thereby. So I beseech God grant me grace, that I may speak something, at this my departing, whereby God may be glorified, and you edified….
And now I come to the great thing that troubleth my conscience more than nay other thing that ever I said or did in my life: and that is, the setting abroad of writings contrary to the truth. Which here now I renounce and refuse, as things written with my hand, contrary to the truth which I thought in my heart, and written for fear of death, and to save my life, if it might be: and that is, all such bills, which I have written or signed with mine own hand since my degradation: wherein I have written many things untrue. And forasmuch as my hand offended in writing contrary to my heart, therefore my hand shall first be punished: for if I may come to the fire, it shall be first burned. And as for the pope, I refuse him, as Christ’s enemy and antichrist, with all his false doctrine.” When the fire was lit, Archbishop Cranmer reached out his right hand into the flames and held it there to burn.
I simply do not care what religion or denominations think. I suspect that religion is used by most non-believers as a rationalization to not seek Christ as they point to all the division amongst the believers. John 14:6 is very clear as to who Jesus is. Eph. 2: 8-9 as to His provision for redemption and John 10:10 as to His desire of the life we should have. It is ALL about Jesus. At some point, you have to admit that God’s opinion matters more than yours or mankind in general. I am glad you signed. We must realize that at the end of the day, Christianity is not a religion but to be a Christian is to be Christ Like. I care about what Jesus says, not what man’s religion says. If we could portray that to a world, that we care about Jesus more than our 4 walls of belief, the revival would be enormous. However, I fear that the sentiment of almost not signing a unifying document such as this because it might infer that you agree 100% with the Catholics (gasp) or the other way around, is what will prevent us from being the light of the world so that all can see the Truth for who He is.
Echoing what Kenneth said, I must say that I severely doubt that anyone in the world is going to read into this document any of the theological implications that many Evangelical non-signers and reluctant signers think they will. Most people in the world are going to get so bent out of shape about the document’s pronouncements about abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage that they aren’t even going to think about what “the Gospel” even means. And as for those who are moderate and conservative who might read this, I think they will recognize that it is a statement of moral priniciples and not a theological treatise. Every reasonably educated person in the United States knows (or at least should know) that Protestants and Catholics have severe and irrevocable theological differences. I think that the theological implications of this document are going to result mainly from Evangelicals raking other Evangelicals over the coals for signing this, and not from Joe Schmoe Secular saying, “Gee Whiz, Catholics and Evangelicals preach the same Gospel.”
I did not even consider the “differencces” in interpretation or presentationof the gospel. There is only one that I know of and that is the death and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ending the separation between humanity and God.
I do not believe that the differences between denominations is as great as we believe they are when we consider that we are justified by faith and yet faith without works is dead. The Catholics believe in works and faith and I belive in faith and works too. Maybe this is too simple but then the gospel is simple and once saved should make a difference in one in both faith and in works.
I am deeply saddened at the rationalizing which Dr Nielsen used in order to justify signing the MD. Signing with caveat would not be signing with reservation. At least he would maintain the integrity of what he knows to be true. His rationalization is an obfuscation of the truth to satisfy a desire to join a declaration which is based upon an error in the definition of the gospel. Why not just admit that he joins the intent of the MD sans agreeinjg with error. In a world which waters down the truth of the gospel at every turn, it is sad to see a brother do the same by associateing it with error.
Thank you for signing, Dr. Nielson. We are all better off if we realize that obsessing about the exact formulations of the gospel is more of a Paulinocentric tack, and that we are called to be Christocentric / theocentric. What did Jesus do? He *is* the gospel, the saving power of God, and he cannot be reduced to formulae (even though some formulae are better than others, and even though some formulae are unacceptable). Be sure to review Dunn’s Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity: the core shared belief, in those days before there was a (Church-approved) scriptura that could ever be sola, was “Jesus is Lord.” The mystery is always greater than any one appreciation of it. Jesus warns especially of the danger of being too caught up in the details (Pharisees and Scribes) and not enough in the movement of grace.
Grace and, and, truth came by Jesus Christ. Truth is an integral part of grace. Christ is the way, the truth etc. The one true gospel before and after the written new testament is one of faith not works as the Church of Rome espouses. Romish gospel is not anti Pauline. It is antiChrist.WE are talking absolute truth as revealed by our Lord..not a detail.
To Mr. Waldron: You need to get over your simplistic understanding of Catholicism: Rome CONDEMNED pelagianism as a heresy long before Luther. Augustine taught Luther. Rome affirmed and maintained the canon of books that enshrine and carry the Gospel. Jesus’s “hand-picked” men, Peter and Paul, went to Rome for a providential reason. To say that “the Romish church” is anti-Christ is sheer slander. Don’t make enemies where you actually have allies.
To tr..Grace and Peace to you and with the warmest of thoughts. I tried to get a little irritated at being pegged as overly simplistic,but how could I do that and really mean Grace and Peace.My best regards/Ed Waldron
This post was very well written, and it also contains a lot of useful facts. I enjoyed your professional manner of writing this post. You have made it easy for me to understand.