-
guidelines
- The Harbinger: Fact or Fiction?
- Are Muslims Seeing Jesus?
- “Son of God” Translation Controversy
- God’s Plan through the Ages
- Supersessionism Rising: Dispensationalism…? Part 2
- Supersessionism Rising: Dispensationalism…? Part 1
- The Greatest Tragedy of the Rapture Prediction
- ABI Ministry Update
- “The Muslim Brotherhood and the Gospel of Christ”
- The Crisis in Egypt
- Saddleback’s Health and Fitness Seminar: An Eyewitness Account
- Rick Warren’s Controversial New Initiative guidelines
- ABI 2010 Year-End Report
- Ministry Trip to S. Korea / Philippines
- Where Should We Meet?
- Burning Korans (the right way)
- Glenn Beck’s “Black-Robed Regiment”
- ABI Quick Survey: Mark Galli’s CT article
- Christianity Today: God – the “Divine Drama Queen”
- Partnership Opportunities: ABI International
Holy Ghost Hokey Pokey
This video is from a service at MorningStar Ministries (founded by Rick Joyner) in Fort Mill, South Carolina. A Google search on “Holy Ghost Hokey Pokey” quickly shows that although recently posted, it has received a lot of attention across the internet. It marks just one of the latest in a long string of “manifestations of the Holy Spirit” – which are clearly neither biblical, nor the work of the Holy Spirit, whatever the real explanation.
(Note: I am working on a higher quality video that I hope to post in the near future.)
MorningStar is a fairly well-known Charismatic ministry, particularly known for its emphasis on “miraculous healings.”
From the MorningStar website, in their statement of faith, we find the following concerning the present work of the Holy Spirit through spiritual gifts:
On the Present Ministry of the Holy Spirit
We believe that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8) and that His ministry in and through the church by the Holy Spirit has not changed from the beginning. We accept, acknowledge, encourage and seek all of the biblical gifts and ministries of the Holy Spirit as present and vital for the church to accomplish her full purpose today.
Hebrew 13:8 is commonly cited as a proof-text that the miraculous sign gifts are still in operation today. However, this is both a misunderstanding of the verse and, I would suggest, is a disingenuous use of the verse because all Christians recognize that this can only refer to his unchanging character and not to the ministry of Christ.
Jesus’ character was the same both before and after the incarnation, yet his earthly ministry was completely different than his ministry in the Old Testament before he became a human through the Virgin Birth. His ministry in and through the average believer was significantly different before and after his crucifixion and after the day of Pentecost. His ministry after the day of Pentecost, in the present age, is significantly different than what his ministry will be during the Millennium after his return and when he will be ruling and reigning from the Throne of David in Jerusalem. Therefore, even if God were continuing to give the miraculous sign gifts today, Hebrews 13:8 does nothing to support this view.
Eroticizing the Eucharist
This article is by guest contributor Larry DeBruyn, pastor of Franklin Road Baptist Church in Indianapolis, Indiana and the author of the blog, “Guarding His Flock.”
———————————
T.D. Jakes and Communion at ”A Table Set for Two.”
“Brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” (Romans 16:17-18, KJV)
In the Upper Room and to memorialize His upcoming death, the Lord Jesus took the common but symbolic elements of the bread and wine and instituted the ordinance that has come to be known as the Lord’s Table, the Eucharist, Communion, or simply, “the breaking of bread.” Luke records, “And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood’” (Luke 22:19-20). Of the rite established by the Lord to be observed by the church, Ralph P. Martin stated that susequently it became “a fruitful source of heresy and confused doctrine.” [1] Not only was this to be the case for developing Christendom, but it is also so among churches today.
To boost attendance, congregations within the Church of England have employed the music of the rock group U2. In one congregation, a bishop presided over what is blasphemously–for it’s about them, not Him–called a “‘U2-charist’, a Holy Communion service that employs the Irish supergroup’s best-selling songs in place of hymns.” [2] The communion service is described:
In what is more rock concert than Book of Common Prayer, a live band will belt out U2 classics such as Mysterious Ways and Beautiful Day as worshippers sing along with the lyrics, which will appear on screens. The [nightclub] atmosphere will be further enhanced by a sophisticated lighting system that will pulse with the beat . . . [3]
USA Today reported that “U2-charist” worship has also come to Episcopal congregations in the United States, and likely will find its way into other denominations and congregations as well. [4] One worshipper, a Roman Catholic who attended a “U2-charist” at a nearby Episcopal church in Briarcliff Manor, N.Y., Bridgett Roberts, age 15, remarked of her experience:
It makes you, like, warm inside. Usually at church you love Jesus and everything. But this way you can express how you feel. [5]
Now in a recent message, “Communion,” Bishop T.D. Jakes eroticizes the ordinance. [6] On a DVD presentation, he begins his remarks about the Lord’s Table as follows:
One of the most personal, intimate things you can do is to have communion. It shows who you are to Him. It expresses that you are one with the Groom, that the Bride is connected to the Groom through the blood; they have fused together and become one; that they have the same DNA; that they’ve been devined by God; that the covenant has been ratified in the blood much like intercourse signified the ratification of blood in a wedding ceremony. [7]
Then he continues:
When the man and the woman come together, the Bible says, ‘They shall cleave together and become one flesh.’ His body and her body, her body and his body, they become one entity which is what they were at first when God made Adam. He made one person, male and female He created them and called his name Adam. And when He got ready, He pulled her out of him. And so that’s why we have the right to come back together because we were together in the first place. (The audience stands, shouts, claps, and raises their hands.) [8]
Then Jakes drives home the point:
When Jesus says, ‘Take, eat. This is my body that was broken for you,’ He says, I want my body in you. (Pause . . . shouts and claps) I want my blood in you. And every time you celebrate this rite, it is a reminder that you belong to me, and I belong to you. And he said, ‘I will drink no more wine until I drink it new with you and the kingdom of God. Communion is the most romantic ordinance. Eh, Eh, Eh. (He laughs. Pause . . . the audience shouts and claps.) It is the most romantic ordinance between two lovers. [9]
In the observation of communion, the Bishop’s remarks are grossly inappropriate for a number of reasons.
First, why associate the ordinance with sex? Jakes heaps up sexually suggestive words, phrases and sentences—intimate; Groom; Bride; fused together and become one; intercourse; wedding ceremony; shall cleave together and become one flesh; her body and his body; (Jesus says) I want my body in you; Communion is the most romantic ordinance . . . Eh, Eh, Eh; It is the most romantic ordinance between two lovers.
The Apostle Peter warns against false teachers who, “when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure [deceive] through the lusts of the flesh” (2 Peter 2:18, KJV). Decades ago, A.W. Tozer noted that,
The period in which we now live may well go down in history as the Erotic Age. Sex love has been elevated into a cult. Eros has more worshippers among civilized men today than any other god. For millions, the erotic has completely displaced the spiritual. [10]
Second, to pursue the biblical mystery (Ephesians 5:32), Jakes makes it seem that the Groom and Bride are already married, when in fact the Church’s marriage to Christ will not officially take place until the future Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:5-9). As a group, Christian believers may be compared to a Bride awaiting their Groom’s return (Matthew 25:1-11). Though the one-year betrothal period in biblical culture was considered to be legal marriage (When Joseph discovered Mary was pregnant, he wrestled with the idea of divorcing Mary for infidelity, Matthew 1:18-19.), couples lived lived apart from each other during that time. That’s why as His Bride, we’re to observe the ordinance that remembers and preaches “the Lord’s death until He comes” (Emphasis mine, 1 Corinthians 11:26). The ordinance by which the Lord requests His Betrothed to remember His sacrifice on the cross for their sins ought not to be turned into something akin to a seduction!
Third, in understanding the metaphor-mystery of the Bide’s relationship to the Groom (i.e., the Church’s relationship to Christ), earthly sexual connotation regarding that relationship ought to be removed. In answer to Jews who had posed a hypothetical question about the Levirate Law to Him, Jesus responded: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven” (Matthew 22:29-30, KJV). So even when the Bride is married to the Groom, that marriage in heaven will not be comparable to human marriage on earth for at core, earthly marriage is about covenant-committment. The fact that the Church’s relationship to Christ is explained by the metaphor-mystery of marriage, especially from the perspective of the period of betrothal during which the bride and groom were separated, stands opposed to those who like T.D. Jakes, attempt to eroticize the ordinance in a earthly-fleshly and human-sensual vein.
Fourth, one must wonder what the preacher means when he asserts that communicants become devined by ingesting the elements (the bread-body and wine-blood) of the ordinance. By asserting that divine DNA infuses them, is Jakes advocating that magically transubstantiated elements possess the power to divinize communicants? [11] His words suggest this to be the case. According to his scheme of spirituality, the communion elements become a magical-mechanical-means whereby Christians become “gods.” By ingesting divinity, they become divinity. In the ancient church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, this process is known as deification (Greek, theosis or theopoiesis). Jakes’ bold language seems to “deliberately [evoke] the pagan language of apotheosis (humans, especially emperors, being advanced to the rank of deity) . . .” [12]
Fifth, in his sermon “Communion,” Jakes makes it seem as if the Lord’s Table is individual when in fact it’s communal. The ordinance is not observed between two lovers, but rather between Jesus Christ and the many who were/are His followers; initially, the original band of apostles/disciples in the Upper Room, and subsequently, all Christians who would come to believe in Him as their Savior and Lord (See John 17:20-21.). So Adolph Schlatter noted that in addition to Baptism, the Eucharist “constituted a second act that powerfully moved believers’ thoughts and desires and bound them together as a united community.” [13]
Sixth, for believers, the attraction of the Lord’s Table is the work He already accomplished for us. The ordinance’s focus is upon Jesus’ past death. It’s all about remembrance, not romance. The Lord ordered, “This . . . do this in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19). The Apostle Paul twice repeated, once for the Bread and then for the Cup, “Do this in remembrance of Me” (1 Corinthians 11:24, 25). As Washington D.C., abounds with granite memorials remembering those who died in the cause for our and other nations’ freedom—the World War II Memorial, the Vietnam War Memorial, etc.—so the elements are taken in the memory of the One who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, He who died for our spiritual freedom. The church must not allow sensuality to undermine her spirituality. The Table of the Lord must not be turned on its head to impress others of being some sort of bacchic rite (Bacchus was the Roman ”party” god.), something that for reason early Christians called their meetings the Agape, or Love Feast (See 1 Corinthians 11:20-22), pagan stoics accused them of. After all, communion is about redemption and reverence, not romance! [14]
To conclude this presentation dealing with an aberrant, even abhorrent, treatment of Communion, A.W. Tozer may be quoted again. He wrote:
Now if this god Eros would let us Christians alone I for one would let his cult alone for the whole spongy, fetid mess will sink some day under its own weight and become excellent fuel for the fires of hell. But the cult of Eros is seriously affecting the Christian church. [15]
For reason that the cult of Eros will not leave Christians alone in this wired world of the Internet and is therefore affecting the church, this pastor is forced to issue a public disclaimer of what T.D. Jakes has made “Communion” out to be. The Eucharist should not be eroticized. [16]
____________________
ENDNOTES
[1] Italics mine, Ralph P. Martin, “Lord’s Supper, The,” The New Bible Dictionary, J.D. Douglas, Editor (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962) 751.
[2] Jonathan Petre, “Hymns replaced by U2 lyrics at church,” ReligionNewsBlog.com, January 30, 2007. Online at: www.religionnewsblog.com/17326/hymns-replaced-by-u2-lyrics-at-church.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Gary Stern, “Episcopal ‘U2-charist’ uses songs in service,” USA Today, October 26, 2006. Online at: www. usatoday.com/life/music/2006-10-25-u2-churches_x.htm.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Bishop T.D. Jakes, “Communion,” The Potter’s Touch. Online at: http://en.sevenload.com/videos/FBdNHJu-20090419-Communion. Video transcribed from minutes/seconds 16.04-19.55.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] A.W. Tozer, “The Erotic Is Rapidly Displacing the Spiritual,” Renewed Day by Day, Daily Devotional Readings, Volume I, Compiled by Gerald B. Smith (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1980) May 13 reading. I thank my friend Pastor Robert C. Gifford for bringing Tozer’s devotional to my attention.
[11] As regards Jesus’ statement, “This is My body” (Luke 22:19; Compare Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; 1 Corinthians 11:24.), R.P. Martin notes: “There is no ground for a literal equivalence as in the doctrine of transubstantiation. The copula ‘is’ is the exegetical significat as in Gn. 41:26; Dn. 7:17; Lk. 8:11; Gal. 4:24; Rev. 1:20; and in the spoken Aramaic the copulative would be lacking, as in Gn. 40:12; Dn. 2:36; 4:22. The figurative, non-literal connotation ‘ought never to have been disputed’ (Lietzmann).” See Martin, “Lord’s Supper,” 750.
Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach (1804-1872), a German philosopher who believed the Christian faith was a “dream of the human mind,” and therefore was no friend of the faith, especially the Roman Catholic, wrote of the elements: “The wine and bread are in reality natural, but in the imagination divine substances.” See his, The Essence of Christianity, George Eliot, Translator (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 2004) 245.
To explain the sense of “is” in the sentence, “This is My body,” a seminary professor once took a picture of his wife out of his wallet and said, “This is my wife.” So, “The bread becomes under His [Jesus’] sovereign word the parable of His body yielded up in the service of God’s redeeming purpose (cf. Heb. x. 5-10); and His blood outpoured in death, recalling the sacrificial rites of the Old Testament, is represented in the cup of blessing on the table. That cup is invested henceforward with a fresh significance as the memorial of the new Exodus, accomplished at Jerusalem (Lk. ix. 31).” Martin, “Lord’s Table,” 750.
Indeed, as the Apostle put it, “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7b, KJV).
[12] John A. McGuckin, “Deification,” The SCM Press A-Z of Patristic Theology (London: SCM Press, 2005) 98.
[13] Adolf Schlatter, The Theology of the Apostles, Andreas J. Köstenberger, Translator (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998) 47.
[14] The sense of the Greek noun “remembrance” (anamnesis) is to remember again “in an affectionate calling of the Person Himself to mind.” See W.E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, William White, Jr., “Remembrance,” An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984) 946-947.
[15] Tozer, “The Erotic.”
[16] See also Pastor Larry DeBruyn, “Evangelicals: Emergent and Erotic,” Guarding His Flock.com. Online at: http://guardinghisflock.com/2009/06/08/evangelicals-emergent-and-erotic/#more-3.
Postscript: I want to thank Mrs. Gaylene Goodroad, a member of Franklin Road Baptist Church, Indianapolis, Indiana, for drawing my attention to Bishop Jakes’ internet sermon.
What about those who haven’t heard? (Part 3)
This is part of a blog series concerning the question of the eternal fate of those who have not heard the gospel by the time of their death.
So far, 77 people have participated in the first survey and 41 in the second, follow-up survey (which are part of this blog series).
The tabulated results can be seen in the graphs below. Even though these results are not statistically significant due to the low number of respondents, they do seem to show that there is a fairly significant divergence of opinion regarding this issue.
And although the results are not correlated to any particular religious profile or general beliefs, it is probable that the respondents are largely made up of regular visitors to the ABI website – and therefore most would probably self-identify as conservative evangelicals.
Click here to take the first survey…
First Survey - 77 responses
Question: What do you believe concerning the eternal destiny of those who have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
(Note: answers that no one chose are not included)
76% (57 responses) I believe the Bible teaches that all who have never explicitly trusted in Christ for their salvation are eternally lost.
14% (10 responses) I believe that God may save those who have not heard the gospel based upon their belief in God and faithfulness to whatever light they have received.
2% (1 response) I believe that God will save the elect apart from their knowledge of the gospel.
5% (4 responses) I believe that this is not for us to judge, that this is a matter for God alone and we cannot know what he will do.
5% (4 responses) Other
Click here to take the second survey…
Second Survey (1) - 32 responses
Second Survey (2) - 41 responses
Question: What do you believe concerning the eternal destiny of Ayanna? (this question is explained in the survey)
16% (5 responses) I believe Ayanna might be saved and spend eternity in the presence of the Lord because she believed in God and was sincere and faithful to what she knew about him.
3% (1 response) I believe Ayanna may have an opportunity to hear the gospel and receive Christ after she dies.
3% (1 response) I am confident that Ayanna will be saved and spend eternity in the presence of the Lord because of her faith in God and her faithfulness to the light she received.
3% (1 response) I believe that God is the judge and we should not presume to speculate about someone like Ayanna.
78% (24 responses) I believe the Bible teaches that if she never heard about Christ and so never personally trusted him for salvation, Ayanna is lost and will spend eternity suffering in the Lake of Fire.
The graph on the right is also based on the second survey results, but includes those submissions for which no answer was given for this question. I think this may be significant, because all but two of the respondents indicated that they had participated in the first survey. (Although, admittedly, this might not be a correct assumption.)
If the 40% did not answer the question because they weren’t prepared to affirm the belief that those who haven’t heard are lost, then this is consistent with a 2008 Pew Study that asked about the possibility of salvation in other religions besides Christianity.
- 2008 Pew Forum Study
The full report in PDF format (1.4Mb) can be downloaded <here>
In addition to answering the multiple choice questions, a number of respondents left comments, some of which I have quoted below. I have followed each section of comments with some of my own. I will be addressing these issues further in future articles in this series.
Quotes and Comments
David said of his baby that died that he (David) would go to be with him. 2. Every name is recorded in the book of life so its up to our Blessed Lord whose name is taken out. That being so puts us in good Hands.
There are at least a couple of issues here. One involves the question of what happens to babies when they die. My observation is that many who wrestle with the question of the eternal destiny of those who haven’t heard the gospel tend to think the answer to both questions is necessarily the same. However, theologically, this isn’t the case. In the case of babies and small children, they lack the capacity to exercise faith in Christ for salvation. This would seem to suggest that they also lack the capacity to consciously reject God. However, this is not the same situation as with those who haven’t heard, but do possess the ability to reject God.
The second issue concerns the names which are recorded in the Book of Life. The most common view is that one’s name is written into the Book of Life when they become believers. A somewhat less common view, and the one expressed here, is that everyone’s name is initially recorded in the Book of Life, but at some point it may be blotted out if someone does not “overcome” – presumably, if someone falls into particular sins or if they die without ever having become a true believer. This is based on a particular interpretation of Revelation 3:5.
I do believe that Scripture clearly teaches that all infants, and those not having the ability to “trust” (mentally dificient [sic]) here on earth, will be saved and are only saved as all are, through the shed blood of Christ. No unbelievers in heaven.
I would question whether the matter is clearly settled in Scripture, although I do think there are solid biblical reasons to hold this position in general.
Beyond this, another group is mentioned, apart from infants, who “will be saved” – those who lack the mental capacity to exercise faith. Again, although often combined with those who haven’t heard, they are arguably in a different category (as will be discussed).
This quote also introduces another concept that needs to be evaluated. The respondent seems to be suggesting that although someone may lack the capacity to believe in this life, they will no longer have this deficiency after they die. Of course, virtually everyone would agree with this, but there are two additional issues raised by the comment.
The first is the question of what is sometimes referred to as “post-mortem evangelism” – that the gospel will be presented to someone after death. But included in this is the second question of whether or not anyone will actually have the opportunity to respond to the gospel in faith after they die such that they can be saved.
If so, then yet a third question arises: Will this post-mortem opportunity be extended only to those who lacked the capacity to believe in this life? Or will this opportunity to be saved also be presented to those who had never heard the gospel in this life? And if this is true, would it also possibly include those who had heard the gospel in this life, but consciously rejected it – or at least chose to “put it off” to another time when they would “be ready.” In other words, is there a “second chance?”
I will be dealing with these issues as part of this series.
My answer only applies to this and future dispensations though. In past dispensations the required content of man’s trust in God was different from dispensation to dispensation, but the basis has always been Christ´s effective crosswork [sic], the means has always been faith, the object of such faith has always been God. Merely the content of the required faith has changed over the dispensations in light of progressive revelation. I.e. although David, for instance, has never explicitly trusted in Christ — the way he has been revealed to us in light of progressive revelation — he, nevertheless, is eternally saved. The same goes for Abraham etc. Otherwise the biblical principle for today and all dispensations is: the light received on account of general revelation by an individual will favor the giving of more light in terms of special revelation, but mere assent to general revelation does not suffice to save. Only the thus far revealed content of required faith and that very faith exercised is saving faith according to Scripture.
Along the same line, another respondent wrote:
Almost went for number 2. But if they have responded to what little light they may have, God requires himself to “send more light”. We have numerous and ample examples of this through Wycliffe, New Tribes, etc.
Again, there are two primary issues raised in the first comment, one of which is echoed in the second. Another respondent put it this way:
Theoretically, if she had not suppressed the truth of the one true God and not clung to idolatry but if she had rejected it and consistently [sic] longed and prayed to meet the on true God, she — according to my understanding of the Word of God — would have received the opportunity to hear the gospel and trust Christ. The person who receives the light of natural revelation, will receive more light. If that is received in turn, they will receive even more light, i.e., eventually the Gospel of the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
The first issue relates to the salvation of those who lived prior to the incarnation and the cross. As with the question of small children, the situation with them is often seen as equivalent to that of those who haven’t heard. But is this true from a biblical perspective?
On the other hand, the second respondent above isn’t exactly equating the two, but rather, in providing an explanation, he (or she) actually introduces another view that is also fairly commonly held among conservatives. In this view, which is also expressed in the third comment, the information necessary for salvation cannot be known from simply observing the creation (which I would suggest is the biblical view). However, if someone does respond positively to whatever “light” they have received, again for example, the witness to God in the creation, then through some means (perhaps through receiving a Bible or through a missionary, a radio program, a book, etc.) God will send additional “light” (information) that is sufficient to form a basis for saving faith (of which the object is Christ in this dispensation). In fact, it is suggested that God is obligated (apparently by his nature or what he has promised – which isn’t stated) to “send more light.”
Also, implicit in this view, is the assumption or conclusion that someone who has not heard the gospel might or can actually respond positively to the truth about God that can be known from the creation. This ability to respond positively to general revelation apart from special revelation needs to be considered in light of Scripture.
The problem is your question stated wrong, “never heard the Gospel”, it should read “never except [sic] the Gospel.” Everyone “WILL” hear the gospel, either from those that preach, angels, or Jesus Himself, everyone living or dead will hear the Gospel. The question then becomes what happens when you reject it, and the answer is that you will be eternally separated from God. Hell (Gahenna) [sic] is forever.
Rev 14:6-7 – “Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim…”
I Peter 3:18-22 – “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago…”
As with the two previous comments, this one is representative of yet another view concerning the solution to the issue in question. This probably isn’t the majority view, but neither is it uncommon. In this view, whether in this life or after death, everyone, without exception, will be presented with the gospel and therefore have an opportunity to consciously accept or reject Christ. As with some other views, one of the bases for this view is the argument that it wouldn’t be fair if someone were eternally lost if they have never had an opportunity to hear the gospel. And since we know that not everyone hears the gospel before they die, then it follows that there must be such an opportunity after they die and before they are judged. Among the passages used to support this view (again, “post-mortem evangelism”) are those noted by this respondent.
Given that this is a genuine attempt to deal with this question in a biblical way it at least needs to be considered as a potentially plausible solution and evaluated in light of the context of these and other relevant biblical passages.
There is a very fine line between the first and the second option there. However, if you seek Him with all your heart, you WILL find Him. The promise is not that if you seek Him with all your heart, you will be able to believe whatever light you have received. God is powerful enough to bring the gospel of “faith in His Name” to any soul of man who genuinely seeks Him.
Most would probably not agree that there is only a fine line between the first and second answer in the first survey. However, the important distinction between the two answers does tend to blur in the view reflected in this comment. This view is similar to the previous one, except that those who hold this view would tend to go one step further by proposing that God will get the truth of the gospel to anyone who seeks him, even if in some supernatural, revelatory way – which would include dreams, visions and even visitations by angels or the Lord himself. For example, for many years now, there have been an increasing number of people who have been promoting as true the reports that Jesus is actually personally appearing to Muslims in closed and limited-access countries for the purpose of giving them the gospel.
If Jesus appears to Ayanna in her final moments to give her the message and she accepts then she will either return to Earth to share with others or go on to Heaven. I believe there is a point of passing between Earth and Heaven or Hell.
This represents yet a further concept that stops short of “post-mortem evangelism” – but rather postulates that there is some sort of intermediate or transitory state between life and death, during which time someone can hear the gospel. Although it might initially seem that this would be a very narrowly-held view, this is may not actually be the case, given the wide-spread reports of and fairly firm belief in near-death experiences. There are even books which describe in detail what are claimed to be such experiences.
Many of us are very tempted to at least tentatively accept that this anecdotal evidence may be credible. Therefore, it is important to examine these reports in light of the Word of God to see if they might actually be true.
In the next article, we will be looking specifically at Romans 10 to begin to lay a foundation for the answer to the main question. Then we will look at other relevant passages as they relate to this and the other issues mentioned in the comments – because overall, they tend to represent the broad spectrum of views (except for the full universalism view that simply states that all will be saved without exception).
What about those who haven’t heard? (Part II)
This is a follow-up to the first ABI Quick Survey in this current series on an important theological and practical issue.
It is well-known that the way survey questions are framed can have a significant influence on the way people respond. One factor can be when questions are posed in such a way that they seem more real or personal to the respondent – and aren’t just theoretical / hypothetical. This can be particularly true with questions related to difficult theological issues.
I hope you will take a moment to read the following scenario and then continue to the second survey in this series.
Note: If you haven’t responded to the first survey, please go to that one-question survey first and then return here. (Available through the ABI Bulletin Board on the home page.)
—————————–
I have traveled to India twice to teach in a seminary south of Bangalore. The seminary is located in a very rural area, which is home to what I suspect are some of the poorest, third-world villages in the world.
I have been to one of these nearby villages and briefly in the home of a Hindu family. As is true of most of India, this area is almost 100% Hindu. So, in the main room of this tiny house with a dirt floor there are pictures or small statues of Hindu gods, prayer beads and an altar where candles are lit each day.
Let’s suppose that one day, a baby girl is born to this honest, hard-working, faithful Hindu family. They name her “Ayanna,” which means “Innocent.” As she grows into a beautiful young lady, she stands out among her friends and has a reputation in her village for being especially kind, compassionate, honest and devout.
She looks at the world around her and knows in her heart that there must be a God who is immense and powerful. She has never had any exposure to Christianity, but she has been taught the importance of treating others as she would wish to be treated. She has never heard the name of Jesus – and never will, but she sincerely believes all that she has learned from her parents and the elders in the village. She prays each day and tries to the best of her ability to please whomever this unknown God might be. With so many in her village dying at a young age, she often wonders what might happen when she dies.
As I mentioned, the seminary is out in the country – and I have been on the road between the seminary and Ayanna’s village several times. It is narrow, hilly and winding, with drivers going far too fast and taking far too many chances – as seems to be typical in India.
One day, as 17 year-old Ayanna is walking down this road, the driver of a large truck doesn’t see her as he comes over a hill. In her final moments of life, she has a moment to wonder about what will happen to her after she dies.
——————————
Please continue to the survey. (Available through the ABI Bulletin Board on the home page.)
Again, please make sure you have taken the first survey before proceeding to the second one.
Unholy Trinity
The following is an article by John MacArthur, which recently appeared on his Shepherd’s Fellowship website.
_______________________
(By John MacArthur)
I don’t watch much television, and when I do I generally avoid the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). For many years TBN has been dominated by faith-healers, full-time fund-raisers, and self-proclaimed prophets spewing heresy. I wrote about the false gospel they proclaim and the phony miracles they pretend to do almost two decades ago in Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. See especially chapter 12). I had my fill of charismatic televangelism while researching that book, and I can hardly bear to watch it any more.
Recently, however, while recovering from knee-replacement surgery, I decided to sample some of the current fare on TBN. From a therapeutic point of view it seemed a good choice: something more excruciating than the pain in my leg might distract me from the physical suffering of post-surgical trauma. And I suppose on that basis the strategy was effective.
But it left me outraged and frustrated—and eager to challenge the misperceptions in the minds of millions of unbelievers who see these false teachers masquerading as ministers of Christ on TBN.
I’m outraged at the brazen way so many false teachers twist the message of Scripture in Jesus’ name. And I’m frustrated because I’m certain that if these charlatans were not receiving a large proportion of their financial support from sincere believers (and silent acquiescence from Christian leaders who surely know better), they would have no platform for their shenanigans. They would soon lose their core constituency and fade from the scene.
Instead, religious quacks are actually multiplying at a frightening pace. One thing I discovered to my immense displeasure is that TBN is by no means the only religious network broadcasting poisonous false doctrine around the clock. The channel lineup I receive includes at least seven other channels whose schedules are filled with false teachers and charlatans. There’s The Church Channel, Daystar, GodTV, World Harvest Television (LeSEA), Total Christian Television, and several others. Some of them feature blocs of family television programing and a few fairly sound teachers who provide moments of escape from the prosperity preachers. But all of them give prominence to enormous amounts of heresy and religious claptrap—enough to make them positively dangerous. And TBN is singularly responsible for kicking that door open so wide.
The continued growth and influence of TBN is baffling for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the thick aura of lust, greed, and other kinds of moral impropriety that surrounds the whole enterprise. A long string of scandals involving notable charismatic televangelists between 1988 and 1992 should have been sufficient reason for even the most credulous viewers to scrutinize the entire industry with skepticism. First came the international spectacle of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker’s moral, marital, and financial collapse. That was followed closely by the revelation of Jimmy Swaggart’s repeated dalliances with prostitutes. Shortly afterward, an episode of ABC’s Primetime Live exposed clear examples of deliberate fraud on the part of three more leading charismatic televangelists. Those incidents were punctuated by a score of lesser scandals over several years’ time. It is clear (or should be)—based on empirical evidence alone—that preachers promising miracles in exchange for money are not to be trusted. And for anyone who simply bothers to compare Jesus’ teaching with the health-and-wealth message, it is clear that the message that currently dominates religious television is “a different gospel; which is really not another” (Galatians 1:6-7), but a damnable lie.
TBN is by far the leading perpetrator of that lie worldwide. Virtually all the network’s main celebrities tell listeners that God will give them healing, wealth, and other material blessings in return for their money. On program after program people are urged to “plant a seed” by sending “the largest bill you have or the biggest check you can write” with the promise that God will miraculously make them rich in return. That same message dominates all of TBN’s major fundraising drives. It’s known as the “seed faith” plan, so-called by Oral Roberts, who set the pattern for most of the charismatic televangelists who have followed the trail he blazed. Paul Crouch, founder, chairman, and commander-in-chief of TBN, is one of the doctrine’s staunchest defenders.
The only people who actually get rich by this scheme, of course, are the televangelists. Their people who send money get little in return but phony promises—and as a result, many of them turn away from the truth completely.
If the scheme seems reminiscent of Tetzel, that’s because it is precisely the same doctrine. (Tetzel was a medieval monk whose high-pressure selling of indulgences—phony promises of forgiveness—outraged Martin Luther and touched off the Protestant Reformation.)
Like Tetzel, TBN preys on the poor and plies them with false promises. Yet what is happening daily on TBN is many times worse than the abuses that Luther decried because it is more widespread and more flagrant. The medium is more high-tech and the amounts bilked out of viewers’ pockets are astronomically higher. (By most estimates, TBN is worth more than a billion dollars and rakes in $200 million annually. Those are direct contributions to the network, not counting millions more in donations sent directly to TBN broadcasters.) Like Tetzel on steroids, the Crouches and virtually all the key broadcasters on TBN live in garish opulence, while constantly begging their needy viewers for more money. Elderly, poor, and working-class viewers constitute TBN’s primary demographic. And TBN’s fundraisers all know that. The most desperate people—”unemployed,” “even though I’m in between jobs,” “trying to make it; trying to survive,” “broke”—are baited with false promises to give what they do not even have. Jan Crouch addresses viewers as “you little people,” and suggests that they send their grocery money to TBN “to assure God’s blessing.”
Thus TBN devours the poor while making the charlatans rich. God cursed false prophets in the Old Testament for that very thing (Jeremiah 6:13-15). It’s also one of the main reasons the Pharisees incurred Jesus’ condemnation (Luke 20:46-47). It’s hard to think of any sin more evil. It not only hurts people materially; it deludes them with groundless hope, deceives them with a false gospel, and thereby places their souls in eternal peril. And yet those who do it pretend they are doing the work of God.
That’s not all. Almost no false prophecy, erroneous doctrine, rank superstition, or silly claim is too outlandish to receive airtime on TBN. Jan Crouch tearfully gives a fanciful account of how her pet chicken was miraculously raised from the dead. Benny Hinn trumps that claim with a bizarre prophecy that if TBN viewers will put their dead loved ones’ caskets in front of television set and touch the dead person’s hand to the screen, people will “be raised from the dead . . . by the thousands.”
Ironically, one doesn’t even need to be an orthodox Trinitarian in order to broadcast on the Trinity network. Bishop T. D. Jakes, well known for his rejection of the Nicene creed in favor of oneness Pentecostalism, is a staple on TBN. Benny Hinn has repeatedly attempted to revise the doctrine of the Trinity in novel ways, notoriously teaching at one point that there are nine persons in the godhead.
And yet evangelical church leaders typically show a kind of benign tolerance toward the whole enterprise. Most would never endorse it, of course. They may joke about the gaudiness of the big hair and tawdry set decorations on TBN. Ask them, and they will most likely acknowledge that the prosperity gospel is no gospel at all. Press the issue, and you will probably get them to admit that it is a dangerous form of false doctrine, totally unbiblical, and essentially anti-Christian.
Why, then, is there no large-scale effort among Bible-believing evangelicals to expose, denounce, refute, and silence these false teachers? After all, that is what Scripture commands church leaders to do when we encounter purveyors of soul-destroying substitutes for the true gospel:
The overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain (Titus 1:7-11).
Those who remain silent in the face of such grotesque lies may in fact be partly responsible for turning people away from the truth. Consider the testimony of William Lobdell, religion reporter for the Los Angeles Times, who once considered himself a devout evangelical Christian, but after doing a series of investigative reports on the moral and doctrinal cesspool at TBN; then “finding that his investigative stories about faith healer Benny Hinn and televangelists Jan and Paul Crouch appear to make no difference on the reach of these ministries or the lives of their followers, he [gave] up on the beat and on religion generally.”
All those who truly love Christ and care about the truth have a solemn duty to defend the truth by exposing and opposing these lies that masquerade as truth. If we fail in that duty because of indifference, apathy, or a craving for the approval of men, we are no less guilty than those who actively spread the lies.
Manhattan Declaration: Conclusions
(An article combining this post and the previous one on the Manhattan Declaration is available in downloadable and printable PDF, 2-column article format: Click here to download)
This is the third and final post in a series concerning the Manhattan Declaration. I would encourage you to read the first two posts so you will have the context for understanding my final conclusions.
Please take a moment to complete the ABI Manhattan Declaration Survey
.
.
.
The Nature of the Manhattan Declaration
The Manhattan Declaration addresses issues that are a part of the current public debate and symptomatic of the culture wars: life, marriage and religious liberty. The Manhattan Declaration was also designed to speak directly to the present administration because of the increasingly liberal policies it seeks to enact that come into conflict with conservative values. However, beyond this, the document is designed to speak specifically to conservative Christians to encourage them to take a stand for the moral values that are formed exclusively in the context of their Christian faith. As the document states:
which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness
The document would not need to be considered as anything but a civil document addressing social issues if it left out explicit mention of Christianity. But by invoking the framers obedience to the Lord and his word as the authority for their moral beliefs, it automatically becomes an inherently Christian document because it is informed by Christian theology.
That this is primarily a theological document is further confirmed by the following:
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. In being true to its own calling, the call to discipleship, the church through service to others can make a profound contribution to the public good.
These are very important statements in the overall evaluation of the Manhattan Declaration. As it does in several places, it clearly identifies all of the writers and original signers as acting in unity as a single group – not a group defined by their individual conservative values or their American citizenship – but rather defined primarily by their identity as Christians. However, this is a very serious issue, because it is inappropriate to simply assume that just because Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians call on the name of Christ and identify themselves as Christians in the world-religion sense, they can all be viewed as brothers and sisters in Christ – born-again Christians in the biblical sense.
And although the above quote makes reference to the call to “proclaim the gospel” – it is widely understood and biblically demonstrable that the gospel proclaimed by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church is what the apostle Paul would label, “a different gospel.” Reaction to this different gospel birthed the Reformation. It was this very gospel against which the Reformers preached, for which they were persecuted and which eventually became the foundation of evangelicalism.
If the Manhattan Declaration were a purely civil document addressing social concerns with no theological implications, then anyone who agreed with the tenets of the document could have and arguably should have been included. As a strictly civil document, it could have included conservative Protestants of all kinds, Mormons, Quakers, even Muslims – and actually anyone who might have a conservative moral compass – including possibly even agnostics and atheists.
If it had been that kind of document, that could be signed simply as a morally conservative patriot – then I think I could sign it. As an American citizen with my own personal conservative moral views, I could add my signature to a document that was signed by any other conservative American citizen.
However, that is not the nature of this document. It is not asking me to sign it as an American citizen. It is asking me to sign it as a conservative Christian. But beyond that, by signing it, I would not only be making a statement that I agree concerning the issues of life, marriage and religious liberty. I can’t say, “Well, I’m only signing the parts of the document I agree with.” If I sign it, I am signing the whole thing – including the statements that form the most foundational aspects of the document, namely that I am joining with other brothers and sisters in Christ. But this isn’t true. This isn’t what I believe.
If a Roman Catholic firmly believes the official Church teaching concerning the gospel, it would be almost impossible for that person to know enough of the gospel clearly enough to be born-again (it could happen, but it isn’t likely and doesn’t happen often). But Chuck Colson wouldn’t agree with this. His understanding of the gospel is broad enough and inclusive enough that it led him to be one of the primary leaders in the first Evangelicals and Catholics Together document. The Manhattan Declaration does not stand independent of ECT. In fact, I would suggest that the Manhattan Declaration could never have been written as it was if it weren’t for ECT.
Beyond this, it isn’t just a matter of joining together with a few friends of other faiths to actively work on a common political cause. It is joining together with some of the most prominent leaders in their respective denominations – pastors, teachers, theologians, who are leading untold numbers astray with false doctrine. This would almost certainly fall into the category of being unequally yoked with unbelievers – which Paul clearly forbids.
And I would suggest that the theology of the issue is also important to everyone who might sign – although many might initially say that it’s all about the issues. To test that, let’s suppose there were another document that is identical concerning the issues of life, marriage and religious liberty – but those who are identifying themselves as Christians are Mormon, and it was written and signed only by Mormon leaders. Would there be very many conservative evangelicals who would sign the Manhattan Declaration – even if they agreed with everything it said about the issues? My sense is that there would be almost none – and the reason would be purely theological.
So, by signing the Manhattan Document which identifies evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox all as Christians, then we’re saying that the theological differences are not as great as they would be if it were a Mormon Document – and that these differences aren’t really important. The question then becomes, if I wouldn’t sign it because the Mormons are theologically wrong and preach a false gospel – then why would we join with anyone else who has the same problem?
The Value of the Manhattan Declaration
In practical terms, let’s ask ourselves about the actual value of the Manhattan Declaration. Exactly what is it going to accomplish – and how?
Again, here’s what the document says:
We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend he good of all who bear his image.
So, one of the document’s purposes is to “speak to” our communities – to us. But in reality, how many sincere, committed Christians are presently going around violating God’s laws in order to obey Caesar? How many spiritually mature Christian doctors are violating their consciences and performing abortions? And how many of them would not be willing to go to jail rather than be forced to take the life of an unborn child?
How many pastors of conviction would perform a homosexual marriage – or even allow one to be held in their church? How many would be willing to give in to governmental pressure to stay far from violating hate-crime laws and not condemn homosexuality as sin when teaching on Romans chapter 1?
I don’t think we have to sign a document that says we are going to do those things that we are already doing. And furthermore, the government and everyone else knows what we’re going to do and what punishment we’re willing to face if we must obey the Lord rather than Caesar.
Why would I compromise the very theology that informs my worldview and morals in order to simply confirm publicly what is already public knowledge concerning my worldview and morals?
Then there’s the value of the Manhattan Declaration with regard to those who don’t agree with it. Who in our society is somehow going to be influenced by even hundreds of thousands of signatures such that they won’t get an abortion, or avoid extra-marital sex, or stay out of homosexual relationships? If they are not persuaded by the Word of God, they won’t be persuaded by the content or the number of signers of what is essentially a petition.
And finally, what is the value of the Manhattan Declaration with regard to public policy? I can’t imagine any lawmaker being influenced to change his position because of this document. Those who agree will continue to vote the way they would have anyway – and those who disagree will do the same.
I can’t see that this document will ever have any political force. I don’t think it will save one unborn child. I don’t think it will prevent a single homosexual relationship or marriage. And if I thought signing the document would actually accomplish these goals, I might have to reconsider. But I don’t think that is what is going to happen.
I can imagine that despite the best of intentions and hopes that it might make a difference, in six months the Manhattan Declaration will be nothing more than a brief footnote that generated some interest for a few weeks.
I don’t think it will ever be a second “95-Theses” as Mike Huckabee speculated last week. And if it might, we must remember that Luther’s document was theological – and it made a theological difference. If the Manhattan Document has any effect, it will not be that of changing society, but rather, it will be just another contribution in the long process that has been underway for quite some time – that of undoing the Reformation. The Manhattan 
Declaration encourages us to act as if the Reformation never happened and that the theological reasons for the Reformation were really inconsequential.
If we’re going to get involved with things like the Manhattan Declaration now or in the future, we should sign something that calls on us only as concerned American citizens with common moral values – but not as “Christians” in the world-religion sense – and let it include anyone, regardless of religion. Or alternately we should join together with others of same like faith so that we can remain true to the Word of God and to our Spirit-guided consciences.
But let’s be very careful to be consistent in how we obey the full counsel of God if we find it necessary to resist or even challenge the law of Caesar. Let’s not do it if it requires us to minimize, overlook or discard the Word of God – something that always leads to negative consequences in the present generation and assures deep troubles for the next.
Whether you agree or disagree with these conclusions, I would like to hear from you – so please take a moment to comment.
In His Care,
Dave
Manhattan Declaration: A Response – Part I
(An article combining this post and the previous one on the Manhattan Declaration is available in downloadable and printable PDF, 2-column article format: Click here to download)
National Press Conference
.
A week ago today, the Manhattan Declaration was released by Chuck Colson and almost 150 other signers at the National Press Conference. Since then there have been countless blogs and articles written about the 4700-word document and the response has been quite mixed.
Predictably, it has been denounced by liberals of all stripes who support the LGBT agenda and who advocate “a woman’s right to choose.” But neither has it been received well by those who would consider themselves to be evangelicals, but who also challenge the historical view that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior.
In contrast, a significant number of Christians have enthusiastically embraced the Manhattan Declaration. with the number of signers via the internet now at 184,780 and counting. They have joined the original signatories in voicing their concern that as America continues its turn to the left, led by the present administration, they are prepared to take a stand to protect life, marriage and religious liberty.
Yet, another view has been expressed by some Christians who have not signed the Manhattan Declaration. In this view, the Manhattan Declaration is itself a cause for concern, being seen as a misguided ecumenical cooperative effort that conservative evangelicals would do well to avoid. John MacArthur has written a cogent blog from this perspective.
To make matters more confusing for the average evangelical believer, it must be noted that there are good, solid, conservative theologians on both sides of the issue. This would tend to indicate that whatever our personal opinion might be, the “correct” response is probably not as obvious nor as certain as we might hope or desire. So, after a week of reading, talking, thinking and praying, I’m going to take my own stab at evaluating the Manhattan Declaration and developing a framework of principles for responding to this document, as well as the overall situation that precipitated it.
First, I would say that overall the Manhattan Declaration is a carefully crafted, well-worded document. It was obviously written out of both passion and conviction. It would be difficult to fault the drafters in their intentions or desire to make a difference in the “culture wars.”
Manhattan Declaration
Second, I think all who truly believe in the authority of Scripture should agree with the framers of the Manhattan Declaration concerning the three specific issues it addresses, namely, life, marriage and religious liberty. It affirms that life begins at conception and should be allowed to continue until natural death (Exodus 20:13; Job 1:21; Psalm 139:12, 16; Jeremiah 1:14). It affirms that marriage was instituted by God to be solely between a man and a woman and that sexual relations are to be only within that relationship (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:5,6; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). And it affirms the principle of religious liberty which seems to be legitimately rooted in the truth of Matthew 22:21 (“Render unto Caesar…and to God…”) and Acts 5:29 (“We ought to obey God rather than men.”)
And third, I believe that as American citizens we have a legal right and a moral responsibility to participate in the democratic process in upholding and preserving the rights we have as guaranteed by the Constitution, as well as the ideals upon which this country was founded.
It could be argued that the Moral Majority, founded by Jerry Falwell in 1979, provides an historic backdrop and precedent for the Manhattan Declaration. The Moral Majority became the politically active extension of the Christian Right, which was riding the wave of the resurging political conservatism that swept Ronald Reagan into office in 1980. The Moral Majority sought to gain an influence in governmental policies and legislation, such that they would reflect or at least not contradict Christian morality – and thereby broadly shape, influence and guide the direction of American society as a whole.
A demographic map of the United States shows that geographically the entire country continues to be overwhelmingly conservative – both politically and socially. And this conservatism is certainly not limited to evangelical Christians. Therefore, it was considered expedient and prudent to be as broadly inclusive as possible to maximize the potential political influence of the movement. This meant that the Moral Majority consisted of not only conservative evangelicals, but virtually all types of conservative Protestants, Catholics, Jews and even Mormons who joined forces for the purpose of advocating common moral values with a unified voice.
Probably the most common argument in favor of evangelicals joining together with those from Catholic and Orthodox traditions in signing the Manhattan Declaration follows that used to defend the Moral Majority in the face of similar criticism. In this view, it is argued that because we share a common moral heritage with other theological traditions within Christendom, we can and should join together as allies in the culture wars against the common enemy of those morals. Therefore, the Manhattan Declaration is hailed as an opportunity for those who name the name of Christ to fulfill a long-neglected obligation to engage and even confront a society and an administration that is increasingly liberal, secular and humanist – and even anti-Christian in its bias. Looking at it this way, it is understandable why, as I noted earlier, many concerned Americans have already signed the document and I would assume that many have been conservative evangelicals.
However, I have not yet signed it myself because I have some questions and concerns about both the nature and the value of the Manhattan Declaration. At the risk of being dismissed, ridiculed or criticized as being too picky, too narrow-minded, divisive or just overly critical, I am going to present what I believe are some significant reasons why a born-again believer should consider not endorsing or signing the Manhattan Declaration.
The Manhattan Declaration begins with these words:
Christians are heirs of a 2,000year tradition of proclaiming God’s word
This is a statement of exclusivity, identifying the framers of the document as “Christians” as opposed to adherents of any of the other world religions. It is also intended to reflect Christian values and morals. As such, it must necessarily be viewed as an inherently Christian document. Consider the following quotes from the Manhattan Declaration:
we claim the heritage of those Christians Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery 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 We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths
Therefore, the writers of the Manhattan Declaration present it as a document by Christians on behalf of Christians. And as a Christian document, it discusses the issues of life and marriage within a framework of Christian morality. It derives its authority to speak about these moral issues from the Bible. The Manhattan Declaration reflects a very specific worldview which is informed by very specific theology. Therefore, not only is it a Christian document, it is first and foremost an inherently theological document – or at least theologically-driven. This point is extremely important to the discussion because for some, the defense of cooperation with Catholic and Orthodox writers and signers depends largely upon the validity of the argument that the Manhattan Declaration isn’t a theological document. If true, then it could be argued that theological differences are irrelevant to the task at hand and cooperation is not an example of unbiblical ecumenism. But, again, it is a Christian document and is therefore a theological document by nature. And being a theological document, not only does theology under-gird the moral argument set forth in the Manhattan Declaration, theology also forms the basis for what the writers consider to be their essential unity as a group. This is clearly reflected in the first paragraph under the Declaration section:
We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image.
It is important to not miss the significance of this statement. When one discusses Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism for example, these are treated as world religions. And, of course, Christianity can be spoken of as a world religion, as well. But there is an important and fundamental distinction that must be remembered: A Christian in the biblical sense of the term does not merely mean someone who is an adherent of Christianity as a world religion. For someone to become a true Muslim, a person must simply make a decision to follow the teachings of Islam and live accordingly. However, the same is not true for biblical Christianity. For someone to become a true Christian, they must explicitly place their faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ and thereby be born-again of the Spirit of God. Someone does not become a Christian by merely adopting Christian traditions or by beginning to live a Christian lifestyle – or even by faithfully following the teachings of Christ. In 1994, Chuck Colson was involved with drafting the first Evangelicals and Catholics Together document. That document blurs and actually eliminates the distinction between Christians in the world-religion sense and Christians in the biblical sense, such that it seems clear that Mr. Colson considers the two as not only intersecting, but as synonymous as indicated by the next three quotes from the first ECT document:
As we near the Third Millennium, there are approximately 1.7 billion Christians in the world. About a billion of these are Catholics and more than 300 million are Evangelical Protestants.
We are Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics who have been led through prayer, study, and discussion to common convictions about Christian faith and mission.
All who accept Christ as Lord and Savior are brothers and sisters in Christ. Evangelicals and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ.
Some may argue, however, that the two documents are fundamentally different in scope and purpose and therefore should not be compared or evaluated in this way. Yet, the essential philosophical /theological similarities between the two documents cannot be ignored because they reflect the broader philosophy out of which they were formulated:
Manhattan Declaration: We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. First ECT document: We are Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics who have been led through prayer, study, and discussion to common convictions about Christian faith and mission. This statement cannot speak officially for our communities. It does intend to speak responsibly from our communities and to our communities.
Manhattan Declaration: We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. 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. May God help us not to fail in that duty. First ECT document: There is a necessary connection between the visible unity of Christians and the mission of the one Christ. We together pray for the fulfillment of the prayer of Our Lord: “May they all be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, so also may they be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.” (John 17) We together, Evangelicals and Catholics, confess our sins against the unity that Christ intends for all his disciples. The one Christ and one mission includes many other Christians, notably the Eastern Orthodox and those Protestants not commonly identified as Evangelical. All Christians are encompassed in the prayer, “May they all be one.”
It seems appropriate to suggest that some important linkage does exist between the Manhattan Declaration and the ECT document and that this linkage is intentional and by design. This shouldn’t be surprising given Mr. Colson’s key role in the formation of both documents. Given that the purpose of the ECT document is inherently ecumenical, it seems reasonable to more carefully explore the potential ecumenical issues raised directly by the Manhattan Declaration. Likewise it seems reasonable to at least examine whether or not those issues might be sufficient to give legitimate reasons for withholding support and participation in the Manhattan Declaration. I will conclude my response to the Manhattan Declaration, in a couple of days and try to make a case for why Christians should or should not be involved with this initiative or others like it. It doesn’t seem that there is a one-size-fits-all answer, but I can discuss general principles related to the role of Christians in government and political activism. Can and should Christians engage and confront the culture and government in their social context – and what kind of ecumenical alliances can be formed to accomplish this? Ecumenical alliances and civil disobedience. Just what should we think and do? And what, if any, is the potential historical significance of the Manhattan Declaration?
Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience
When I checked my Inbox on Saturday morning I found an email from Jimmy DeYoung (one of ABI’s co-founders) concerning the Manhattan Declaration. Because the Manhattan Declaration was still breaking news, Jimmy wanted to discuss it on his weekly radio program. So I quickly went to work trying to learn as much as I could before he called back to do the interview.
The Manhattan Declaration is a 4732-word document which was made public at the National Press Conference on Friday, November 20. It was drafted by a committee that included Chuck Colson, Dr. Robert George and Dr. Timothy George and signed by almost 150 recognized Roman Catholic, Orthodox and evangelical religious leaders. On Governor Mike Huckabee’s FoxNews program on Sunday evening, while interviewing Chuck Colson, he compared its potential historical significance to Luther’s 95 Theses. While this remains to be seen, since its release it has been creating quite a buzz all across the internet in articles and blogs and producing fairly diverse reactions.
On his BreakPoint radio program on Friday, Chuck Colson stated (full article):
Today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., I and a dozen evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox leaders face the microphones to announce the release of an historic document—one of the most important documents produced by the American church, at least in my lifetime
The Manhattan Declaration has two main goals. One goal is that it would be a wake-up call for Christians to live according to the tenets of their faith. The other goal is to serve notice to those in government that those who identify themselves as Christians are taking a stand and declaring:
We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. 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. May God help us not to fail in that duty.
In the closing paragraph, the final two sentences state:
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.
On BreakPoint, Chuck Colson stated the goals this way:
The Manhattan Declaration is a wake-up call—a call to conscience—for the church. It is also crystal-clear message to civil authorities that we will not, under any circumstances, stand idly by as our religious freedom comes under assault.
Dr. Timothy George, one of the drafters of the Manhattan Declaration, wrote in a Washington Post article:
Thus we have issued this declaration of conscience calling on our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in the defense of human life, marriage, and religious freedom.
The document addresses three specific issues, identified as: “Life,” “Marriage” and “Religious Liberty.”
Concerning life
The Manhattan Declaration calls for a pro-life stance that recognizes the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception to natural death. And it makes clear that Christians, in faithfulness to God’s moral law, will not be forced or coerced into being involved with abortion, human embryonic research, assisted suicide or euthanasia. On Mike Huckabee’s program, Chuck Colson commented that this commitment would mean that doctors would not violate their beliefs to perform abortions and pharmacists would not dispense “morning-after” pills under threat of forfeiting their licenses or even imprisonment.
The drafters and signatories of the Manhattan Declaration bring attention to what they perceive as a growing rift between views of the American public in general and the views held by many of those in government:
Although public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction, we note with sadness that pro-abortion ideology prevails today in our government. The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense. Majorities in both houses of Congress hold pro-abortion
views.
Concerning marriage
The declaration calls for a commitment to the sanctity of heterosexual marriage and to the proposition that the only acceptable form of marriage is between one man and one woman, and further observes that there must be faithfulness in the marital relationship. The importance and significance of marriage in any society is also noted:
Vast human experience confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society.
As I have been researching the Manhattan Declaration and responses to it, I have found more than one website where this document is being denounced by those in the LGBT community. The following is fairly representative of the reaction (full article):
…the far right religious bigots never cease in their efforts to degrade and denigrate LGBT citizens and keep us a persecuted minority. Just yesterday a new anti-gay and anti-freedom of religion offense was launched by far right forces of hate and reactionarism in the form of the so-called “Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience.”
Concerning religious liberty
The declaration states:
Christians confess that God alone is Lord of the conscience. Immunity from religious coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience. No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions.
The document also notes two specific cases which do seem to provide cause for legitimate concern that the government is already engaging in infringement of religious liberty:
After the judicial imposition of “same-sex marriage” in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching. In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital “civil unions” scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions.
It is going to take some time (perhaps much time) to be able to ascertain if the Manhattan Declaration produces the desired effect on American society as a whole, on the politicians in various levels of government, on legislation and on jurisprudence and judicial decisions. But perhaps more importantly, the question is whether or not it will ultimately have an effect on the way Christians live out their faith in the American context – whatever that is or may become.
The document once again brings to the fore many of the questions that were raised in the 1970′s and 80′s with the rise of the Moral Majority. These include the role of believers in the political process and whether or not they should participate in political activism or even civil disobedience (as the document seems to suggest)?
Another significant question that is also being debated once again by conservative Christians relates to what some are viewing as the ecumenical nature of the document. As mentioned at the beginning of this article, the signers of the Manhattan Declaration included scholars and leaders from the three major confessions of Christendom – Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Church. Once again, this is reminiscent of the Moral Majority era. The question becomes, Is it wise and biblical to join together with those with whom we have serious theological disagreement (even to the point that we would consider them false teachers as it relates to the gospel itself)?
On the other hand, some would (rightly) observe that in the matters of life and marriage in particular, there is more genuine agreement with conservatives from all faiths than there is with many who continue to identify themselves as born-again evangelical believers – but who also support and defend “a woman’s right to choose,” as well as believe that homosexual relationships should not be regarded as sinful.
To be honest, I’m not sure how to fully answer these questions. I am still thinking this through, reading articles and blogs written by those on both sides of these issues, and studying relevant biblical passages in order to form an informed and biblical view for myself. I plan to post another blog in the next few days which I hope will provide some biblical insight and answers to these questions.
In the meantime, I would be interested in hearing from our readers – so please take a moment to provide us with your own thoughts and comments on the matter.
I encourage you to read the Manhattan Declaration for yourself – and to also read through the list of official signatories of the document.
This is a link to the Manhattan Declaration website.
Dave James
“Pub Theology 000″ by Pastor Larry DeBruyn
Larry DeBruyn, the guest writer of this ABI blog post, received his Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1974 and has been the Pastor of Franklin Road Baptist Church in Indianapolis, Indiana for many years. Pastor DeBruyn has published two books; regularly writes articles as a guest contributor on several websites; is a conference speaker; and has taught internationally including at the Word of Life Bible School in Hungary.
_____________________________
“Some thoughts on Sunday night church in a bar.”
As he begins to rip into “a screaming guitar solo,” the band member yells out at the audience, “Let’s go to church boys!” Welcome to Pub Theology. As the reporter describes it, the theology is “a Sunday night show that’s one part church and one part party.” Among other posters on the bar’s walls is an alluding slander of the final verse of the biblical chapter on love. It reads, “Faith, Hope, Love and Beer” (The actual text reads, “But now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love,” 1 Corinthians 13:13, NASB).
Being “shaggy-haired, body-pierced and colored with assorted body art,” some members of the Sunday evening pub rock group double as members of a mega-church’s “worship team” on Sunday mornings. Confessing to love both Jesus and rock ‘n’ roll, band members will burn through a pack of cigarettes and exhort the audience to cozy up to the bar and buy beer. Skeptical about hosting the “Pub Theology” on Sunday nights in his bar at first, the owner of the business admits the band has turned an otherwise dead night into a profitable evening.
Regarding this new outreach—the mega-church’s ministerial staff fully approve of Pub Theology—one of the band’s members says: “We want to be sincere and authentic and be who we really are, whether that is wearing jeans and a T-shirt or having a beer,” remarks one of the band members. “I think that is real, and I don’t think it is wrong or that God is unhappy about that.” Another band member relates, “I can drink a beer and smoke a cigarette and play some of my favorite songs and hang out with my friends and maybe meet someone and tell them about Jesus.”
Interestingly, most of the band members were raised in religious homes. In fact, two of its members are former PKS (i.e., preacher’s kids). Having been a former pastor, their father now sees the light and has become the band’s roadie (a catch-all term covering all those managers and techies that accompany the band). The band accounts for the band’s existence and novel ministerial approach for reason of their legalistic Wesleyan upbringing—“I don’t drink, I don’t smoke, I don’t go to R-rated movies, I don’t dance.” But the casual and alcoholically lubricated atmosphere of Pub Theology raises an important issue, for a reporter asks, “Does Pub Theology produce any lasting effects, or is it just a casual encounter with church in a bar—a spiritual one-night stand?”
First, Pub Theology is not church. If it is, then where’s the reading of the Scriptures, the apostles’ teaching, prayer and observance of the Lord’s Table? (Acts 2:42) We can also be certain that the band members will avoid any impression of being preachy.
Second, Pub Theology is not theology. Reportedly, the band’s opening song was Joan Osborne’s one-hit wonder, “What if God was one of us?” The lyrics also add, “Just a slob like one of us.”[2] Imagine . . . God’s a slob like one of us. Given the humanizing of God in the song “What if God was one of us?” what we’re dealing with is not Pub Theology, but pub idolatry as “the glory of the incorruptible God” is being exchanged “for an image in the form of corruptible man” (Romans 1:23, NASB). Do you think Joan Osborne’s lyrical questions affirm the great Christological passages of the New Testament (John 1:1 ff.; Colossians 1:15-17; Philippians 2:5-11). By the way, these three passages are comprised of theological statements extracted from early Christian hymns. Would the pub-theology band sing them? I’d estimate the lyrics of these hymns to be far too dogmatic, stodgy, and preachy for the “boys” at the bar!
Third, Pub Theology is not Christian outreach. It’s the use of carnal-fleshly-worldly means to attain spiritual ends. The Apostle Paul would not have engaged such means for he wrote: “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:3-5, NIV; Compare Galatians 5:21 where Paul labels “drunkenness” a work of the flesh). Given the atmosphere surrounding the Pub Theology, Paul’s majestic description of love as it exists on the barroom wall might be contemporarily translated, now abide these four, “faith, hope, love, and beer,” but the greatest of these is beer!
Important Questions from a Reader
Today, I received an email from an ABI Facebook Group member with some questions and issues that this person would like for us to consider as topics to be addressed on the ABI website and/or blog. I have also encountered these myself in a variety of contexts including ministry situations, articles and books, blogs and forums, conversations and just during personal reflection. I have summarized the main issues below and plan to write on many or most of them in over the next few weeks (or have guest writers contribute, as well.)
So, stay tuned.
(As always, please feel free to comment on the blogs – and also send me your own questions, as well.)
———————————–
Reformed theology: We are seeing this become an increasingly divisive issue within and between churches. Some churches now no longer want to have gospel invitations and didn’t like it that invitations were included in some of the teaching material they had been using. They had concluded that a person could not understand and properly respond to a gospel message the first time they hear it. This also seems to be related to the “Lordship salvation” / “easy believism” debate. (My comments: These also sometimes have implications for other issues that are worth discussing such as dispensational versus Covenant theology, Calvinism versus Arminianism, predestination versus free-will, eternal security versus conditional security, among others.)
The Emergent Church: I get asked about this a lot by many people, including pastors. But I’m also asked this by a lot of lay people and regardless of their role in the church – I would love to be able to refer people to a good, concise article that explains things clearly. On the other hand, I am amazed at how many others don’t even know that this and other major issues are having a profound impact on the church as a whole today.
Worldview: What does “worldview” mean in general – and what does it mean to have a biblical worldview? I have been in at least one rather tense conversation with someone who was struggling to understand that not every believer necessarily has a biblical worldview. Along this line of thought, I was recently involved in one discussion in which the actual “Christian-ness” of a parent’s worldview came into question by on of their teen children – because they appeared to be sort out the idea that there are possibly various degrees of Christianity.
Doctrine: A major issue I frequently encounter is the question, “why does doctrine matter?” For many, the bottom line is that “God is love” and we should all work together on that basis alone. We are seeing a wide variety of beliefs, many contradictory – which cause problems for both those who try to minimize the differences as well as those that are struggling to define core beliefs that essential separation issues. As one example, a few years ago when asked about what his church held to doctrinally the pastor responded, “Well – we are really on the cutting edge of theology here . . . ” We had a lot of discussion about just what that meant – and it just wasn’t very clear. The edge of theology (that lacks clear biblical basis) is not where we want to be nor where we would want our children being trained!
The “homechurch/family integrated church” movement: This thinking is promoted heavily by Vision Forum among others. (Also, the long-term effect / effectiveness of small-groups needs to be examined for results – long-term and short-term.)
Old Earth/Young Earth Creationism: This a big topic causing a lot of discussion a homeschool forum, with some suggestion that perhaps Young Earth Creationism is actually a tool of Satan to divide the church.
Biblically rearing children: Many methods and philosophies are being promoted concerning appropriate education of one’s children. This extends from more moderate mainstream views on responsible schooling – with often more heat than light generated in some discussions. Some are happy to put their children in school because the parents feel it is a comfort to put her children in school knowing that there were people in the government whose job it was to know what was best for her children and to take that burden from her. Others fall to the other extreme – perhaps something in the vein of the “quiverful movement,” Bill Gothard teaching and philosophy and even whether or not youth groups are biblical.
Depending on the context, some of these have turned into real emotional “hot-button” issues.
——————————————
Thank you for taking time to ask about these. We will try to address them in a fair and balanced way. Some might require multiple posts and I may call upon guest writers with greater expertise to write on some of them. Whatever the case, I encourage others to write to me as well – and we will try to address your hottest topics. info@biblicalintegrity.org
Dave James
Ministry Coordinator