a word about manhattan

I’m a little late to the party, but it seems to me that so far one point is missing from all the discussion of the manhattan declaration.

The fundamentalist reaction, all over the place, is to note that the declaration is a serious compromise of the gospel by its declaration that all signers are Christians. I’ll not repeat all of the analysis on this point, you can find that elsewhere.

The evangelical reaction is mixed. Some fairly conservative names have signed the document while others have notably and publicly made their opposition clear. Al Mohler is a prominent conservative signatory while John MacArthur is a prominent non-signatory.

Dave Doran comments in one of his blogs on the subject:

Thankfully, to this point Dr. Mohler has kept a theological edge that has prevented him from fully embracing the ecumenical path of men like Timothy George and Chuck Colson. I hope he never loses that edge. Well, truth be told, I really hope he slides closer to John MacArthur’s position.

This quotation contains all the elements of the one point I’d like to highlight and poses a serious question for the rising neo-fundamentalists who seem to want closer ties to the conservative camp.

The point is this:

• Many neo-fundamentalists (or ‘young fundamentalists’ or what have you…) have applauded MacArthur’s analysis and opposition to the MD. And as far as it goes, I would have to say MacArthur is spot on in his comments.
• The assumption of many is something like this… “See, MacArthur is too a fundamentalist.”

Well. Is he?

Dave Doran has been making a lot of good points in his discussion of fundamentalism lately. I agree with a good deal of it. I have noted some of my disagreements. One of the things I agree with is one of his statements concerning the essential stance of fundamentalists:

For the sake of the clarity of the gospel, believers and churches must separate from those who compromise the faith by granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith (Rom 16:17; Phil 3:17-19; cf. 2 Thess 3:6-15).

All right, I agree with that. This view is consistent with the stance fundamentalists have taken for about sixty years.

Now let’s apply it to this situation.

Is Al Mohler granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith by signing the Manhattan Declaration?

When the MD says:

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. [Emphasis mine.]

Now Mohler protests that he hasn’t changed his views on Catholicism, etc. He claims there remain sharp divides between him and these other faiths. But he signed a document that includes the words highlighted above.

Is he granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith? Yes or no?

• If the answer is no, then Mohler is just in an ‘uncomfortable alliance’ to promote a socio-political agenda.
• If the answer is no, then Mohler is still not embracing the ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham, which of course means that it doesn’t matter that he chaired the Graham crusade in Louisville or that he presides over the Graham center for evangelism at Southern Seminary.
• If the answer is no, then Mohler is in fact keeping the ‘theological edge’ that has kept him from ‘fully embracing the ecumenical path’.

But is the answer ‘no’? What if the answer is ‘yes’?

Consider, for example, some of MacArthur’s comments about the MD:

[The Manhattan Declaration] assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity.

Or…

The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.

Read the whole thing at MacArthur’s site.

What do you think? Is Mohler granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith?

If the answer is ‘yes’, then what MacArthur does now will go a long way to show the difference between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.

If the answer is ‘yes’, then fundamentalists should say something like this:

“I think bro. Mohler has grievously erred in granting Christian recognition to people who are not true Christians. Until he repudiates that recognition, we must mark him as a disobedient brother and dissuade others from sitting under his influence.”

Isn’t that what the fundamentalist response should be? Isn’t that what separation looks like?

In some of the argumentation about separation, men have said, “Oh, well, how can I practically separate from someone like Mohler? Should I send him a letter? Should I put an ad in the paper?”

This is disingenuous. Of course someone like me, and most fundamentalists, have no direct connection with a Mohler or others like him. But should we then do nothing?

• Shouldn’t we mark him?
• Shouldn’t we, by marking him, make that mark clear to others who are following us so that they aren’t influenced by the error?
• Isn’t that what Dave means when he says:

For the sake of the clarity of the gospel, believers and churches must separate from those who compromise the faith by granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith (Rom 16:17; Phil 3:17-19; cf. 2 Thess 3:6-15).

And then, what should be done about MacArthur? Well, it is clear that in this case for certain, bro. MacArthur hasn’t granted Christian recognition to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith. Does that, then, make him a fundamentalist?

Well, has he separated from bro. Mohler?

Has he marked him in any way as someone whose errors are so grievous that MacArthur cannot participate in partnership in Gospel ministry any longer until this compromise is repudiated? Or is it likely that you will see bro. Mohler taking the platform at the next Shepherd’s Conference as he has done several times in the last few years? Which will it be?

I think you know the answers to that one.

And the answer distinguishes neatly the difference between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. The conservative evangelical will say, “tut, tut” and carry on. The fundamentalist will not continue in fellowship when the gospel is compromised.

And I think, more than merely hope that Mohler “slides closer to John MacArthur’s position”, I would like to see him repudiate his own errors and go further than MacArthur and repudiate his conservative evangelical errors as well. (How exactly can you ‘slide closer’ to MacArthur’s position anyway?)

If this statement is true (and it is):

When a genuine Christian brother welcomes into Christian fellowship someone who teaches false doctrine, that genuine Christian brother, according to John, has become a partner in the false teaching. Standing against the false teaching means standing against this partnership with it. The truth and seriousness of the issue at stake necessarily demands this additional application.

Then the fundamentalist has something hard to say to the Mohlers of this world and something almost as hard to say to those who will not make the same compromise but will still maintain ongoing ministry partnerships.