Posts Tagged ‘Worldviews’

(This article is available in downloadable and printable PDF, 2 column article format: Click here to download)

According to an April, 2009 article on MSNBC, a Washington Post/ABC poll released that month became the first to indicate that the number of Americans supporting same-sex marriages (49%) is now greater than those who oppose it (46%). Although the two numbers are within the typical poll margin-of-error of each other (±3%), there does seem to have been a significant shift in attitudes over the preceding 5-year period, when a Post/ABC poll put the percentage in-favor at just 32% in 2004.

Between 1982 and 2007, Gallup reported a significant shift in attitudes toward the acceptability of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. In 1982, only 34% indicated that homosexuality “is an acceptable alternative lifestyle” with 51% indicating that it is not. However, in 2007 the numbers had more than reversed with 57% of Americans stating it is acceptable and only 40% indicating their belief that it is not.

On the other hand, one encouraging statistic is that over 80% of evangelicals still oppose gay marriage, with a statistically negligible shift since 2004 (according to a 2008 Pew Research Center poll). However, the pressure is on evangelicals because in the mainline churches only 40% oppose same-sex marriage – essentially the same as the Post/ABC poll results for the general population.

The “Homosexuality-Neutral” View of Scripture

Coinciding with the increasing social pressure to accept the homosexual lifestyle, is additional pressure by those who take this a step further by seeking to defend their views on biblical grounds. In most cases, the passages which have been historically understood to condemn homosexual behavior are interpreted as being at most “homosexuality-neutral” (my term). In other words, it is argued that these passages were not intended to address the issue of loving homosexual relationships, but rather inappropriate sexual behavior in general, that in some cases simply happened to involve homosexual acts.

The following quote, from the ReligiousTolerance.org website, seems to capture this view of homosexuality in the Bible as commonly held by the average liberal / progressive Christian. (reference)

To many — not all — liberal/progressive believers, the Bible is silent on loving, consensual same-sex sexual behavior. God accepts persons of all sexual orientations and approves of sex that is consensual, non-manipulative, safe and within a loving, committed relationship. Liberals and progressive have a range of beliefs concerning save, consensual, and casual sex by heterosexuals, bisexuals or homosexuals.

However the Bible condemns:
• Male rape of other men.
• One of two behaviors:
–- Either men engaging in ritual sex in Pagan temples, or
–- Men having sex in a woman’s bed.
• People having sex that violates their sexual orientation. For example:
–- Heterosexuals having sex with a member of the same sex.
–- Homosexuals having sex with a member of the opposite sex.
• Men sexually abusing children. The passage also condemns young victims of sexual molestation.
• People engaging in bestiality: having sex with non-humans.

Some gay Christians would contend that the Bible condemns only promiscuous homosexual behavior (not homosexuality in general), just as it condemns heterosexual promiscuity.

Passages Cited as Affirming Same-sex Relationships

Beyond arguing against traditional interpretations of certain passages, some Christian gay groups also cite other passages which they claim affirm same-sex relationships. One such group is Gay Christianity 101, which contends that the relationship between David and Jonathan was explicitly homosexual (reference):

Did God bless David and Jonathan, a same sex couple in romantic, committed, sexual partnership? The Bible devotes more chapters to their love story than any other human love story in the Bible. What does God intend us to learn from that dramatic emphasis?

Many gays believe that Jonathan and David were same sex lovers, based on the way God presents their story in scripture and based on the Hebrew words used to describe their relationship.

Although Gay Christianity 101 acknowledges that this is not the view of even most gay Christians, it is the one, as a gay-friendly ministry, they hold and promote. After presenting six other possible interpretations, it is concluded that a seventh one best fits the text. (reference)

David loved Jonathan. In reminiscing about Jonathan, David describes Jonathan’s love to him as “wonderful, passing the love of women-wives.”

To make David’s statement refer to platonic friendship, ‘I was closer to Jonathan than to any of my close female friends’ is a woefully inadequate understanding of the text.

Because Jewish men in David’s time did not have close, platonic friendships with females to whom they were not related by blood or marriage, it better fits the text to accept David’s statement at face value.

The romantic, emotional, sexual love between Jonathan and David was more wonderful than the romantic, emotional, sexual love between David and his wives.

It is also suggested by some that Ruth and Naomi had a sexual relationship as did Daniel and Ashpenaz (both in a brochure on the state of Connecticut’s website, Homosexuality and the Bible, p. 13). Other passages which are said to involve homosexuals who are not condemned (and therefore at least implicitly affirm them), include Matthew 8 and Luke 7 concerning the Roman centurion, and Acts 8 concerning the Ethiopian eunuch.

_________________

In the remainder of this article (and at least one subsequent article), it will be demonstrated that the attempts to find homosexuality-compatible interpretations fail to adequately handle the relevant passages, while the historical condemnation of homosexuality has solid biblical support.

Arguments for the Neutrality of Scripture Regarding Homosexuality

GENESIS 19 AND THE CITY OF SODOM

In dealing with the exegesis of 19:5, the author of an article titled “Bible Abuse Directed at Homosexuals” makes the following argument:

The key verb here, transliterated ya,da (or yadha’ ) , is usually translated as “know.” This verb appears 943 times elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, where it generally means “to know a fact” or “to know a person well.” It has an obvious sexual connotation in only ten of these cases, all of which involve heterosexual relationships.

The translation, then, could have the following meanings:

* Gang rape the angels (a common way to humiliate men – especially enemies – at the time);
* Engage in consensual homosexual sex with them (possibly what the NIV translators intended with “have sex with them”);
* Interrogate them. (The city had in the recent past been sacked, and the strangers might have been spies sent to check out the fortifications which provided some protection for the trade routes that passed the city.)

In choosing the proper meaning, consider this. In Biblical times, travel was slow and dangerous, and safe places to rest were few. Travelers could only pray for the hospitality of strangers – an important theme in the Bible. And Jews, having been ill-treated travelers in Egypt, had particular reason to be hospitable, and emphasis on it permeates Jewish law. For many reasons, hospitality, once offered, could not be breached.

Gay Christianity 101 also endorses the inhospitality view (reference):

For almost 1800 years after the events in Sodom, Jewish prophets in the Bible and Jewish authors outside the Bible, understood this story to be about inhospitality, not homosexuality. Sodom is mentioned 48 times in the Bible and never in those 48 passages is homosexuality given as the cause of God’s judgment. Isn’t that interesting? Have you given that astounding fact the weight it deserves in your thinking about this true story?

Some contend that rather than the sin of the Sodomites being homosexuality in general,  it was that they intended to homosexually rape the angels (who appeared as men) as a means of humiliating them as their enemies. (reference)

Most feel that Genesis 19 is totally unrelated to consensual same-sex behavior.

It is obvious that Lot wanted to protect the angels from the city mob. The people of Sodom, having recently been under attack by foreigners, might have been worried that the angels were really military spies. Alternately, the mob might have wanted to humiliate the strangers with homosexual rape which is as abhorrent as heterosexual rape.

Furthermore, concerning Sodom, Gay Christian 101 states what it calls “six surprising facts” (reference):

1. Genesis 19 never mentions homosexuals in Sodom.

2. Genesis 19 never mentions a homosexual act being committed in Sodom.

3. Scripture never mentions a same sex relationship in Sodom.

4. Scripture never tells us that the inhabitants of Sodom were homosexuals.

5. Scripture never tells us that God destroyed Sodom because of homosexuality.

6. Sodomite, in scripture, never refers to homosexuals. Every time sodomite is used in scripture, it refers to cult, shrine, temple prostitutes who worshiped the Canaanite fertility goddess.

A BIBLICAL RESPONSE

Genesis 19

Sodom and Gomorrah are first mentioned in Genesis 10:13, with the second reference in chapter 13:10-13, where the men of these cities are characterized as being “exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord.” In other passages in Genesis (7:19; 15:1; 16:10; 17:2, among others) where the Hebrew is translated “exceedingly” by the NKJV the context indicates that the word carries the force of “beyond measure.” That the lack of hospitality, even to the point of actual ill-treatment, would be described as “wickedness beyond measure” seems very unlikely.

And while it is true that the author of Hebrews writes, “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels” (Hebrews 13:2), it seems immediately apparent that the problem in Sodom was not simply that of not being hospitable. Even if their treatment of strangers went so far as to warrant a rebuke in that Near-Eastern culture, the suggestion that God would have utterly destroyed these cities for this reason just does not seem to merit serious consideration.

The suggestion that the passage could possibly refer to the men of Sodom simply wanting to interrogate the angels just doesn’t seem plausible as a cause for inviting God’s judgment. For a country on a war-footing, having genuine concerns about the motives of foreigners who just showed up could hardly have been considered outrageously wicked behavior. Also, there is nothing in the text that indicates there was concern that these foreigners might be spies in the first place. And of course they had made no initial attempts to hide as they planned to spend the night in the town square (19:2).

Furthermore, the men of the city threatened to treat Lot worse than they intended to treat these strangers, which is clearly a threat of violence (19:9). But even if the treatment that the strangers would receive as captives under interrogation would have been sufficient to warrant judgment by God, this is ultimately a moot point. God had already determined to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah prior to the angels entering the city.

The passage certainly rules out the possibility that the men of Sodom were hoping for a consensual same-sex encounter with the angels (who were obviously thought to be men). But even though gang-rape is fairly clearly in view, neither was this intended detestable act the reason for their coming destruction. Again, God’s stated intent, prior to their arrival, was to wipe out the entire society – because of a lifestyle so wicked and so prevalent that fewer than even ten decent people could be found.

Sodom and Gomorrah were apparently Canaanite – a culture known to be one of the most morally reprehensible in history. The Canaanite fertility cult involved both heterosexual and homosexual encounters with male and female shrine prostitutes. With this in mind, consider this question: Is it reasonable to think that the “beyond-measure” wickedness of these cities could have somehow excluded sexual debauchery as at least a significant part of the basis for their annihilation?

Additionally, the overall flow of the narrative seems to suggest a direct connection between the incident with the angels and Sodom’s societal wickedness. What they were demanding was not something new to them. And certainly it must be asked if such an utterly wicked warfare tactic like gang-rape could even be considered if sexual debauchery were not already characteristic of the entire culture. And, as we know, all the men of the city came out and surrounded Lot’s house.

At this point, it could be argued that we’re still not talking about loving, monogamous same-sex relationships – but about a culture that was characterized by adulterous relationships, both hetero- and homosexual. However, I think there is one more element of the story that specifically pinpoints homosexual behavior itself as the ultimate trigger for the execution of God’s wrath (independent of whether or not it was occurring in a “loving, monogamous” relationship).

The inescapable problem with the homosexuality-neutral view of Genesis 19 involves Lot’s daughters. No one on either side of the debate would defend rape of any kind as morally acceptable. So, whether the rape would be against Lot’s daughters or against the angels (again, who were thought to be men) is another moot point in and of itself.

This means that there had to be some incredibly significant reason why Lot would be willing to allow even his own daughters to be brutally raped by an out-of-control mob rather than turn over the two angels to them. (And nothing indicates that Lot had any reason to think his guests were not men.)

So, what was this additional factor that struck terror in Lot’s heart as he contemplated this no-win situation? Could it be that Lot so clearly understood that homosexuality is such a detestable abomination in the Lord’s sight that he was unwilling to allow the sin of a homosexual encounter to be added to the sin of rape?

Earlier it was noted that not even ten righteous people were to be found in Sodom. But the obvious implication is that there was not a single person in Sodom who was not guilty of whatever specific sin (or category of sin) was in view. Given the overall wickedness of the Canaanite culture – which even included child sacrifice – what could have been the unique sin of Sodom and Gomorrah among all of the Canaanite cities?

And there is yet another factor that hasn’t been noted concerning Genesis 13:13:

But the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord.

The word translated “men” does not simply mean “people” in the generic sense – it literally means “men,” i.e., “the males of Sodom.”

So, it appears that the “exceedingly” wicked sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was uniquely committed by the men of those cities – and it involved all of the men. As bad as it would have been for the men to gang-rape their enemies, or worship their gods through encounters with male shrine prostitutes – the overall situation was worse than that. The society was dominated by male homosexuality. And the seriousness of this situation brought the complete destruction and utter desolation of those cities as God hurled fire and brimstone – annihilating every man, woman and child – and everything that had life. Only the judgment of the Flood exceeded the judgment that God brought upon Sodom and Gomorrah on that day.

In the next article in this series, we will examine other passages to see if the biblical record as a whole supports the view that homosexual behavior, independent of the context in which it occurs, is the sin that incurred God’s wrath in Genesis 19.

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.”

———————————

During his 30-year career, the Apostle Paul personally carried the gospel to some of the most important and populous cities along the central corridor of the Roman Empire, including Rome itself. But this work was no easy task. Paul endured incredible hardship and continually put his life on the line for the sake of the gospel, facing death time and again (2 Corinthians 11:23-28), until finally he was executed in Rome for the message he preached. History tells us that most of the other apostles met similar fates.

And through the centuries, countless others have given everything in order to get the gospel to those who haven’t heard. They were compelled by the Lord’s command (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 1:8) and the conviction that those who have not heard the gospel are eternally lost (John 3:16-18; Romans 10:8-17; Revelation 20:11-15). That this was Paul’s conviction is unmistakably clear in chapter 10 of his letter to the believers in Rome:

8  But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach):
9  that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10  For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11  For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
12  For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
13  For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
14  How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?
15  And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!”
16  But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?”
17  So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Romans 10:8-17 (all quotes from NKJV)

In the first several chapters of Romans, Paul makes a very tightly-argued case that both Jews and Gentiles are guilty before a holy God and rightly stand under his condemnation.

8  but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath,
9  tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;
Romans 2:8-9

9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
Romans 3:9

He also makes it clear that salvation is equally available to both Jews and Gentiles.

16  For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
Romans 1:17

10  but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11  For there is no partiality with God.
Romans 2:10-11

That there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles with regard to salvation is what we would expect. However, as we will find, that Paul brings this up again in chapter 10 is significant in the context of the question concerning those who haven’t heard.

Despite the fact that Paul became the “apostle to the Gentiles,” he never lost his deep concern for the Jewish people who are his “countrymen according to the flesh.” This is especially evident in Romans 9-11 where he discusses the matter of Israel’s place in God’s program and also the salvation of individual Jews.

9  that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10  For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11  For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
Romans 10:8-11

So, the answer to the question about what a Jew must do to be saved is, “confess with your mouth … and believe in your heart.”

There is not a different way of salvation for the Jews – they must hear the gospel and respond in faith or they will be lost. And it is in this context that Paul reiterates the principle of equality between Jews and Gentiles before God concerning salvation:

12  For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
13  For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Romans 10:12-13

For Jews, this is a two-edged sword. On the one side, it requires Jews to confess Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah and Lord – which for many has been an unpalatable choice for at least a couple of reasons, not the least of which is the idea of being brought together with Gentiles into one body (Eph. 2:14-16).

On the other side, it provides the hope that God has not abandoned his people and that God has provided salvation to all who will call upon him, even if they count themselves among those who previously rejected Christ as a nation.

So, it is clear what this means for the Jews – that there is no way of salvation apart from explicit faith in Christ.

What then, are the implications, if any, for Gentiles in a passage that is primarily addressing the issue of the salvation of individual Jews? In order to fully grasp the implications for Gentiles, we must look yet further into what Paul says about the Jews – because in matters of salvation, there is no difference.

At the beginning of this section concerning the Jews, Paul writes:

1  I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit,
2  that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart.
3  For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4  who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
5  of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
Romans 9:1–5

No other ethnic or religious people group has ever had the incredible advantages enjoyed by the Jewish nation. They were God’s chosen people. They were the recipients of the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12, 15, 17), the Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7) and the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 36). They were given the Law of Moses (Exodus 19ff) so that as a redeemed people they would know how they should relate to their Redeemer. God had taken up residence in their midst in the tabernacle (Exodus 40)  and in the temple (1 Kings 8). They were given the prophets, priests and kings as the foundation for God’s kingdom on the earth. And it was through Israel that the Savior came into the world (Luke 2).

Not only had the first century Jews received a tremendous amount of “light,” for the most part they fervently believed what they had received and zealously lived accordingly. This is not to suggest that most of those Jews were believers nor to ignore the fact that the spirit of the law had been perverted and lost through the vain traditions of men. However, in practical terms, the Jews of Paul’s day lacked only one thing – knowledge of the gospel. And this is precisely why Paul was willing to give his all to get the gospel to them – for without knowledge of the gospel they would perish. It is in this context that Paul posed the following rhetorical questions:

(1)  How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed?
(2)  And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?
(3)  And how shall they hear without a preacher?
(4)  And how shall they preach unless they are sent?
Romans 10:14-15a

Rhetorical questions anticipate only one response and that answer is obvious from the context and they way the question is framed. Another way of looking at it is that rhetorical questions are simply statements framed as questions. That being the case, what answer is each of these questions anticipating?

(1) “They can’t.”
(2) “They can’t.”
(3) “They can’t.”
(4) “They can’t.”

Therefore, if Jews can be saved only by calling upon the name of Christ, how can they be saved apart from hearing the gospel? Answer: They can’t.

With this in mind, the significance of Romans 10:12 becomes apparent:

For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.

The application is thus two-fold:

1) Even with all the advantages they have had throughout history, including a super-abundant amount of “light,” Jews cannot be saved apart from explicitly hearing the gospel and trusting in Christ.

2) Given that even Jews with all their advantages can’t be saved apart from hearing the gospel and given that there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles when it comes to salvation, how much less would it be possible for a Gentile to be saved apart hearing the gospel?

Even though an increasing number of “evangelicals” are beginning to advocate or at least entertain the idea that salvation may be possible apart from hearing the gospel, such views are completely foreign to Paul’s thinking – and foreign to the overall tenor of  the New Testament in general.

We should be motivated by the Lord’s command to go into all the world and preach the gospel, as well as the personal conviction that those who haven’t heard the gospel must hear to have any hope of salvation. For us it might be little more than a theological debate. But for those who haven’t heard it is a matter of eternal significance.

As an introduction to the second survey in this series, I presented a hypothetical situation of an Indian village and a young girl named Ayanna. However, this blog is about a present, real-life situation deep in the Amazon jungle.

Yesterday, my dad forwarded an email update from a missionary that very directly touches on the question, “What about those who haven’t heard?” And because of its timeliness and relevance to the issue, I have decided to post it (below) before addressing this question in light of Romans 10 in the next few days.

Michael Guerink , is a missionary in the Amazon river basin with ABWE. He and his family are giving everything to reach “a large concentration of completely uncontacted Indian tribes and others who have been minimally contacted”  in an area that is “entirely off-limits to outsiders.”

The ABI surveys showed that roughly 25% of the respondents were not persuaded that those who haven’t heard the gospel are certainly lost. If they are correct, this means that there is really no need for the Guerinks or any of the other missionaries to be there, except for humanitarian purposes (which is certainly no small thing itself). In fact, if someone can be saved apart from explicitly trusting in Christ, then these missionaries are doing far more harm than good.

Almost everyone sincerely embraces the religious beliefs of their parents – and by far, most people are relatively good when judged by the norms of their society. However, we also know from the Bible and from experience, that a very small percentage of those who do hear the gospel accept it as true – and even fewer actually receive Christ as Savior. The vast majority of those who hear the gospel, reject it – and virtually everyone except the most liberal among us would suggest that someone can consciously reject Christ and still be saved. So, in very practical terms, if the possibility of salvation exists apart from Christ, then given the percentages, it would be far better to make every effort to make sure that these unreached peoples never hear the gospel.

______________
Michael Guerink’s February Email Update

So, yesterday (Sunday) I stumbled about our hosts’ house at oh dark thirty again, thankfully unmolested by water creatures (see funny story at the end), to read in Proverbs 31:

Raise your voice in favor of those who cannot defend themselves;

Be the defender of all the helpless.

Lift up your voice and judge with justice;

Defend the rights of the poor and the needy.

(my translation from Portuguese)

It just so happened that I was on my way to a meeting to do exactly that. One of the river valleys here in the Amazon is home to a large concentration of completely uncontacted Indian tribes and others who have been minimally contacted, and that river is entirely off limits to outsiders; even anthropologists and researchers have a very hard time getting in there.

The problem is that hundreds of Indians from that river are dying from malaria and hepatitis. Tribes are being absolutely decimated. Five tribes sent representatives out to the border and on Sunday several mission organizations met with them to hear first-hand about the problem (hardly anyone knows about these many deaths – it is kept very quiet). Unfortunately, for whatever reason, (let me word this carefully) government organizations have not succeeded in getting them the health care they need to prevent these deaths.

The tribes know that we mission organizations are ready and willing to go in and help them, and they want to know why we’re not allowed. What was accomplished Sunday was an official invitation from the tribes to us as missionaries and humanitarian aid organizations to enter their territory! This is a huge, very important step!  It does not mean the government will now automatically let us in there, but it’s the first thing that needs to happen towards that goal. This is the best news on that front in a long time.

Raul, the Mayoruna tribe chief who called the meeting, was specifically asking that aviation support be restarted in that area. I told him we’re trying as hard as we can as quickly as funds come in to provide the help needed to keep his people from dying. See his picture attached to this email, and pray for him when you look at it.  He lives 8-9 days away by canoe, a very difficult journey. An airplane would reduce medical emergency evacuation time to a matter of hours.

Raul said in the meeting that he does not know God but he suspects God has forgotten about the Mayoruna and other tribes in that area, and he’s wondering if God thinks enough about them to care for their health in the same way he cares about white people. Wow!!  Doesn’t that just make you want to go in there RIGHT NOW?!  Especially when solutions for water purification to prevent hepatitis are easily obtainable (www.waterfortheworld.com) and lists of doctors are waiting for the chance to be flown in there to help with malaria treatment.  One thing that’s lacking is an airplane and the funds to run it.

As you know we’re ramping up to meet that need and to do it in a much more economical way than is presently available (our current mission airplane costs about US$250 per hour just in fuel, so $1,000 doesn’t even buy us a round trip in to the Mayoruna!). The first step is the ultralight that we just had to send back to the USA ($$$!!) due to customs problems.  It hurt to do it, but I had to tell Raul that it’s realistically still going to be several years before we can get medical flights going in there even if the authorities do give permission soon.

You can help Raul’s Mayoruna tribe, the Matis, Marubo, Korubo and other as yet uncontacted tribes by praying that this crack in the door would widen significantly, that the funding would come in, that bureaucratic red tape and political opposition would be overcome.  This struggle REALLY is not against flesh and blood!  Pray that our adversary would be defeated as we work to defend the rights of the helpless, as we work to meet their physical health needs which as you can see above is a VERY important first step toward being able to enter with spiritual life and health. (emphasis mine)

OK, here’s the funny story I promised – at least it’s funny later: ever get impaled by a fish in your house?

While I’m galavanting with two of the kids in the Upper Amazon teaching seminary to minimally contacted Indian tribe members who aren’t allowed to have the Word of God taught in their villages (the Iron Curtain fell – maybe it’s the Jungle Wall or something like that) and Katrina is covering the home front downriver in Manaus, Ian and Vivi and I are staying at another missionary family’s house literally about a 30yd swim across the creek from Peru.  They have cats.  I know some of you just cringed, but really I don’t usually have a problem with the cats – it’s what they hunt and bring in the house that I have to subsequently dispose of that’s usually the dealbreaker.

The eastern horizon here usually starts to turn from black to gray around 6:15am, so I’ve been stumbling around in the dark substantially before that to be able to get some quality time with the LORD before the rest of life can build too much momentum.

A couple days ago as I was blindly walking my normal track from the bedroom to the coffeepot, a stabbing pain shot into my foot!  I hobbled over to a light switch feeling something dangling and painfully swinging right from the tender, ticklish part. There’s a kind of fish here in the Amazon that has a big spike sticking out either side of its head and another one straight out the top.  And that’s what the cat had dragged in.

As much pain as I was in pulling a fish out of my foot, the fish was still alive, very wriggledy and loudly complaining – yes, some fish here squeal and growl at you.  And all the time the cat was looking on with pride, wondering if I was happy with his special present. So starts another day in the Amazon.

Oh, one more thing – very exciting!  At this meeting with the tribal chiefs from the restricted area I sat next to a very non-Ticuna looking Colombian lady.  It was a huge surprise to hear her ask another lady for water in quite passable Ticuna! I asked in my not-quite-passable Spanish (Portunhol as we call it here) how she learned Ticuna.  Turns out she (Danilba) and her husband Jhon and little 4-year-old Sara-Sofia are Colombian New Tribes missionaries to the Ticuna and are in the middle of language training. I thought we were the only ones! Pray for them!  They don’t have electricity or potable water.  I’d love to get them set up with at least a water purification system run by a solar panel.  That’s about a US$2,000 project.  It would also provide clean water for their entire community (emphasis mine), Guanabara 3, about an hour canoe-ride downriver from where we will be living to learn Ticuna. It will be so nice to have neighbors going through the same things for love of God and the Ticuna!  In about a month we’ll be back in this area; we’ll visit them and let you know how you can help.

Michael

______________

Perhaps some of our readers would be interested in being part of the Guerink’s ministry in meeting the physical and spiritual needs of these unreached people.

And I hope that you will continue to follow this important blog series.

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…

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…

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).

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.

(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

(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)

.

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.”

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?

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

Richard Dawkins was interviewed by Ben Stein in the 2008 documentary “Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed.”

The ABI video below contains an excerpt from that documentary Read the rest of this entry »