Again, leave it to the New York Times. They display the emperor's clothes of the Manhattan Declaration which many dear brethren have signed:
Notice the phrase “They are principles that can be known and honored by men and women of good will even apart from divine revelation,” Rigali said. “They are principles of right reason and natural law.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/magazine/20george-t.html
That quote above isn't neutrality to Scripture, and the wisdom of God. That's opposition, in the form of human pride. This is why it was a mistake for any regenerate person to sign on to the MD. Its a compromise of our stance that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Fools despise wisdom and instruction, even if they come to a right conclusion or two based on human reason (see Proverbs 1:7).
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Avatar Review in NYT
For as silly and liberal as the New York Times can be, occasionally it redeems itself.
Check out the op-ed review (yes, you read that right) on Avatar. Beyond brilliant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/opinion/21douthat1.html?_r=3&ref=opinion
Check out the op-ed review (yes, you read that right) on Avatar. Beyond brilliant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/opinion/21douthat1.html?_r=3&ref=opinion
Saturday, December 5, 2009
The Manhattan Declaration
Am I out of touch, weird, or just suspicious? I've read the Manhattan Declaration (MD), and, I don’t know. It just doesn’t resonate with me. But it does with so many who are smarter and wiser than a fool like I.
Not that I don’t understand it. I do. Even more, I have preached on every social topic it describes. Except maybe the “intrinsic dignity of each and every person” thing, which requires nuancing, if you ask me.
So why am I so out of touch with it? I thought about it and I find three reasons:
1) The MD presents itself as a statement of Christian discernment, but it is fundamentally undiscerning.
The document quotes Martin Luther King, the great civil rights figure of US history. I happen to think MLK was a great American man, on the level of a Lincoln, or a Jefferson. I’ve visited the site where he was assassinated.
But he explicitly denied most of the Christian faith – including the deity of Christ. This is all well documented. And the framers of the MD would know this. So why include MLK in their document?
The MD is also undiscerning as to what the gospel is, and what saving faith is. Many others have pointed this out. If we don’t share common ground in regeneration, we don’t share common ground. Period. We may agree on certain theological and moral propositions, but for radically different reasons.
The MD even equates it’s du jour moral issues with those who died for the faith in prior centuries. Get real.
2) The MD’s use of Scripture is puerile.
Rendering to Caesar (Matthew 22:21) is not at stake in the MD, though they say it is. Look, when Caesar keeps Christians from worshipping the Trinity, or begins killing us, then let’s talk about Caesar. Until then, keep your trap shut and bow your face in the dust (1 Peter 2:20-21, Titus 3:1-3).
But that's silly, right? So go fight your culture wars. Just keep Holy Scripture out of your temporal agenda. And by the way. When Caesar starts killing us Christians again, we'll still keep our mouths shut in obedience to the apostles (1 Peter 2:23).
The MD actually uses Christ’s marriage to His bride, the church, as a public policy lever (Ephesians 5:32-33). This is actually said: “And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.”
That’s nonsensical. It’s like saying, I love my children, and will raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. So too, I’ll stand up to the death for a free press. Hey, admonishment is protected by free speech, right? Weird.
Then Isaiah 61:1 is used to defend religious liberty – you know:
“The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners. ”
Never mind that Jesus quoted this about Himself, and never in the context of religious liberty. For Jesus, this was about the gospel. For the MD folks, its about freedom of conscience. Weird.
They quote the apostle’s words, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20). This is used in the MD concerning the defense of free speech and civil disobedience.
Gee, guys. Thanks for honoring Peter's and John's bravery so highly.
3) The MD over-reaches.
Take the following statement:
“A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination.”
Oh really? Which of the prophets in the New Testament, who we know spoke by the power of God, ever spoke to any government any such thing? Sheesh.
Here’s another case. Speaking of their own involvement in putting together the MD, they say:
“We act together in obedience to the one true God…”
To what command of God are they gathered, that they may know their gathering and acting together is in obedience to Him?
And if they are in obedience to Him (which I question), then all who do not sign the statement are in disobedience. Obedience to God applies to all.
And if the MD is obedience to God, then how often should we all obey him in this way – the way of public declarations? Once a year, once a day? And who should write them?
If you are going to proclaim your obedience to God, you ought to defend it out of Scripture. Either that or we may just suppose we see some arbitrary and self-assigned righteousness in the writers of the MD.
Check this one out:
“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”
Any time I read professing Christians talk about defending their rights, I know I've left the cross of Christ and it's singular boast (Galatians 6:14).
By “these truths” they mean the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage, and the freedom of conscience. So who gave them the right to speak out for these? Not God. Let us be persecuted for proclaiming Christ and His gospel, but not these little temporal things.
I lost all my rights on the cross of Jesus Christ. My only right left is to serve His will, not mine. I do not have a right to speak to the social and moral injustices of the day without biblical warrant, which must come by the text of Holy Scripture.
Would the apostle Paul have signed the MD, were he alive today? Well, do we have any trace in his writings of him addressing social injustices, of which there were many?
No. Paul, and Jesus, addressed themselves to all men as fundamentally religious beings who suppresses the truth of God in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). And given half a chance, every one will use his ecclesial flavor of the Christian religion to do it.
So it just doesn’t resonate with me. Call me a troglodyte and a naysayer. But I’m here to shepherd the souls of people desperately broken by indwelling sin (like my own). And for that, only the Word of God, and the Spirit of God, will do.
And no, I didn't sign it. I wasn't even tempted.
Not that I don’t understand it. I do. Even more, I have preached on every social topic it describes. Except maybe the “intrinsic dignity of each and every person” thing, which requires nuancing, if you ask me.
So why am I so out of touch with it? I thought about it and I find three reasons:
1) The MD presents itself as a statement of Christian discernment, but it is fundamentally undiscerning.
The document quotes Martin Luther King, the great civil rights figure of US history. I happen to think MLK was a great American man, on the level of a Lincoln, or a Jefferson. I’ve visited the site where he was assassinated.
But he explicitly denied most of the Christian faith – including the deity of Christ. This is all well documented. And the framers of the MD would know this. So why include MLK in their document?
The MD is also undiscerning as to what the gospel is, and what saving faith is. Many others have pointed this out. If we don’t share common ground in regeneration, we don’t share common ground. Period. We may agree on certain theological and moral propositions, but for radically different reasons.
The MD even equates it’s du jour moral issues with those who died for the faith in prior centuries. Get real.
2) The MD’s use of Scripture is puerile.
Rendering to Caesar (Matthew 22:21) is not at stake in the MD, though they say it is. Look, when Caesar keeps Christians from worshipping the Trinity, or begins killing us, then let’s talk about Caesar. Until then, keep your trap shut and bow your face in the dust (1 Peter 2:20-21, Titus 3:1-3).
But that's silly, right? So go fight your culture wars. Just keep Holy Scripture out of your temporal agenda. And by the way. When Caesar starts killing us Christians again, we'll still keep our mouths shut in obedience to the apostles (1 Peter 2:23).
The MD actually uses Christ’s marriage to His bride, the church, as a public policy lever (Ephesians 5:32-33). This is actually said: “And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.”
That’s nonsensical. It’s like saying, I love my children, and will raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. So too, I’ll stand up to the death for a free press. Hey, admonishment is protected by free speech, right? Weird.
Then Isaiah 61:1 is used to defend religious liberty – you know:
“The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners. ”
Never mind that Jesus quoted this about Himself, and never in the context of religious liberty. For Jesus, this was about the gospel. For the MD folks, its about freedom of conscience. Weird.
They quote the apostle’s words, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20). This is used in the MD concerning the defense of free speech and civil disobedience.
Gee, guys. Thanks for honoring Peter's and John's bravery so highly.
3) The MD over-reaches.
Take the following statement:
“A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination.”
Oh really? Which of the prophets in the New Testament, who we know spoke by the power of God, ever spoke to any government any such thing? Sheesh.
Here’s another case. Speaking of their own involvement in putting together the MD, they say:
“We act together in obedience to the one true God…”
To what command of God are they gathered, that they may know their gathering and acting together is in obedience to Him?
And if they are in obedience to Him (which I question), then all who do not sign the statement are in disobedience. Obedience to God applies to all.
And if the MD is obedience to God, then how often should we all obey him in this way – the way of public declarations? Once a year, once a day? And who should write them?
If you are going to proclaim your obedience to God, you ought to defend it out of Scripture. Either that or we may just suppose we see some arbitrary and self-assigned righteousness in the writers of the MD.
Check this one out:
“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”
Any time I read professing Christians talk about defending their rights, I know I've left the cross of Christ and it's singular boast (Galatians 6:14).
By “these truths” they mean the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage, and the freedom of conscience. So who gave them the right to speak out for these? Not God. Let us be persecuted for proclaiming Christ and His gospel, but not these little temporal things.
I lost all my rights on the cross of Jesus Christ. My only right left is to serve His will, not mine. I do not have a right to speak to the social and moral injustices of the day without biblical warrant, which must come by the text of Holy Scripture.
Would the apostle Paul have signed the MD, were he alive today? Well, do we have any trace in his writings of him addressing social injustices, of which there were many?
No. Paul, and Jesus, addressed themselves to all men as fundamentally religious beings who suppresses the truth of God in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). And given half a chance, every one will use his ecclesial flavor of the Christian religion to do it.
So it just doesn’t resonate with me. Call me a troglodyte and a naysayer. But I’m here to shepherd the souls of people desperately broken by indwelling sin (like my own). And for that, only the Word of God, and the Spirit of God, will do.
And no, I didn't sign it. I wasn't even tempted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
