A journalist I am not! I lack the ability to digest the latest “story” and then quickly organize my own thoughts in time for it to be “hot”. That’s Ok though, because one of the pros with web based content is that it is persistent. Enough on that however…
I’ve been listening in and reading comments regarding the Manhattan Declaration for the past week or so; the equivalence of grabbing TV sound-bites I guess you could say? Yesterday, I listened to the perspective held by Apologetics.com, a resource that I’m usually in agreeance with. Yesterday was not however one of those usual moments. On the principle of Christian integrity, specifically to the message of the gospel, I have to disagree with Apologetics.com’s position here. I realize that it probably gets old hearing that same old song about “the gospel”, and I may even come off as being dogmatic and narrow minded, so be it. Fell free to disagree and to weigh in with reasons why you may think that I’m off-base.
The MD addresses 3 specific concerns: Life, Marriage & Religious Liberty. It is a gathering/declaration of Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians as individuals on those 3 principles.
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. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.
It’s not my intention to critique and dissect the entire MD. This post is merely me expressing views and concerns as to why I think the MD is flawed and thus a bad idea for one professing to be a Christian to sign. To be clear, by “sign”, I mean to put your personal stamp of approval on; which in my opinion is not a separate act from being a Christian. Then again, my argument is that there’s nothing in the life of a Christian that does not carry spiritual implications. As I see it, and it is hopefully through biblical lenses… what’s at stake is Christian integrity, specifically to the gospel of Christ. The reasoning for this view is that for all of the MD’s poetic flair for words; the MD is in essence another spin on “gather round the camp fire and sing Kumbaya”.
Problem #1 is the opening sentence. The sections of text in bold are meant to highlight a backtracking of ideas and premises. I don’t mean to insinuate that this structure was a deliberate, I do have to “ask” myself though.. Who is “we”, what exactly, is being said here? The statement continues with “which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities.” Does anyone else see a problem here? The MD is saying “we” or “us” two times to establish a unity (of something) and then erases the entire statement with “not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities.”
OK, well if “it” really is a case of “speaking to and from our communities”, here’s a question… “What then, is the need to rally around the declaration (as individuals)?” I pose these thought and questions for the reader:
- Couldn’t these individuals continue to declare these principles individually to their communities?
- What “power”, authority and authenticity does this declaration manifest?
- Does signing the declaration somehow make “the message” (sarcasm) louder and easier to understand?
Warning, now shifting into Uber-sarcasm mode. Follow up those questions with this… “Where in the Bible does Jesus Christ, His disciples or Paul the Apostle put their stamp of approval ie; shook hands in agreement in a like manner”. Picture if you will the first segment of the Manhattan Declaration reading…
We, as Saduccees, Pharisees, and a small band of dudes and dudettes following this Carpenter guy around, have gathered, beginning in Temple on this day of 31 A.D., to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities.
Problem #2 and 2.5, located sentence 2 is another one of those pesky “we” statements, followed by what? A Social gospel?
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.
Am I off on identifying that latter section as such? I appreciate the sentiment in that last section however, I believe a question that needs to be asked is.. “Is that what Christianity(emphasis) is about; hath God really said “to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image.”? Consider the following passages…
James 1:19-27
19My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, 20for man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires. 21Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.
22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.
26If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
Here’s where I see Problem #3.
We call up
on all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.
“We” to these ears is starting to sound alot like “Yeah, God’s got some good ideas going on, but “we” 
want to stress the issues that “we” think are pressing.” “We think that if we appeal to the moral goodness and kindness within all people, we can make some headway in society; that’s all we’re sayin’”. Hmm… “appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God!?!?”, I wonder since even believers sin, how one is expected to appeal to the conscience of a non-believer in the sight of God?
Problem #4 from the same section of text from the MD concerns conscience and “critical” reflection. Conscience?? What conscience might that be? Are we talking about the same conscience that can deny God’s existence?
Romans 1:28-31
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
As for critical reflection, I see problem even defining what the outcome of that might be since it’s a group of “individuals” that are also appealing to non-believers. I think it’s a big leap of faith here by the MD to assume that believers and non-believers alike are going to agree on any or all of the 3 points. Then again, as a Christian, does one really think that coming together to agree on any of these principles has implication of salvation? How for example does the believer and non-believer dialog, on these matters. Will the non-believer readily accept the believer’s Biblical worldview on marriage? Maybe the believer “backs off” on the marriage issue? More food for thought.
1st Corinthians 2:6-16
6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him"— 10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:
16"For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
James 4:4
4You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. 5Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely? 6But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
"God opposes the proud
but gives grace to the humble."
This post has run longer than anticipated. I want to close by saying that the ideas that the MD “proposes” are not “bad”. The issue is not the ideas, but rather the fact that under the pretense that others are called to “sign” on, it leaves in my opinion ambiguity, and leaves out the gospel of Christ which is as Paul says… “Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved,…” .
A final thought from 1st Thessalonians, which speaks of the power of the Holy Spirit, the gospel, and conversion within a society.
1st Thessalonians 1:4-10
4For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, 5because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake. 6You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit. 7And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. 8The Lord’s message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia—your faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it, 9for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.
Grace and peace be with you.
Him we preach,warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. 
Got-Fruit(?) 
Examining Solomon’s Agreement with Hiram
The opening text for Solomon’s agreement with Hiram reads:
Concerning the agreement between Solomon & king Hiram of Tyre, Matthew Henry writes …(commentary courtesy of Biblegateway)
Hiram was from the Phoenician culture which practiced the pagan worship of Molech, the star –god Saturn, & Asherah (or Atorte) the fertility goddess. Though Hiram praises the God of Israel for the wisdom He has given to Solomon (1st Kings 5:7); there doesn’t seem to be a clear indication that Hiram actually followed the God of Israel. The NIV Study Bible suggests:
NIV Study Bible Comments ref: 1st Kings verses 5-7:
Assuming that the commentary I read was an accurate reflection of the dealings between Israel and some of it’s neighbors, it springboards some other thoughts and questions.
So here we have Solomon a man of God and full of wisdom having this business association with pagans. On the surface the conclusion to draw might be to say that its “not right” to partner up with pagans, especially with something as sacred as the Temple. After all doesn’t Paul says in 2nd Corinthians 6…?
As is the case with any portion of Scripture, the intent (the spirit of the text) can be misunderstood, thus an improper conclusion is drawn. One misunderstanding; a common I suspect, is to ascertain that the command from Paul instructs the Christian to not have any dealings with unbelievers. However! Considering Jesus’ giving of The Great Commission (“…go and make disciples of all nations…"); Paul’s commands become antagonistic to Jesus and The Great Commission if that command is believed to be an all inclusive statement vs having a narrowly defined criteria. Looking back to Christ though, let’s survey several instances where He engaged sinners.
Given the past examples from Christ, it seems clear then that a Christian will almost surely have to engage unbelievers/”sinners” in some form or another which, brings us back to 1st Kings 5:1-3.
Reading the text from 1st Kings 5:1-3, I began to wonder as to what is the significance of the Bible mentioning Hiram’s respective relationship with David and Solomon. "What’s the big deal with
this pagan being the supplier of lumber for the building of the Temple?"
See? I think that sometimes we turn our faith in Jesus into a religion of our own making by imposing restrictions upon ourselves that God has not instituted. What I’m driving is that it’s not uncommon for denominational “rules”, a faulty understanding of Scripture, or a legalistic attitude to create spiritual blinders. These spiritual blinders (prejudices) can then inhibit the Christian from accomplishing the work that God has planned for us.
Grace and peace be with you.