Dave Doran again shows why the Manhattan Declaration is being viewed by both participating ecumenists and non-participating separatists as a significant compromise with false teaching. Noting the centrality of ECT mastermind Chuck Colson to the entire process, Doran makes the following comment:
Can there any doubt, based on his own words, that one of the primary architects of this document believes it is aimed at expressing genuine Christian unity? It would be wrong to conclude that what Colson believes about this can be attributed to everybody who signed it, or even that signing necessarily commits one to Colson’s pursuit of ecumenicism. But the clarity with which its chief architects express their ecumenical ambitions can’t be ignored and should have been a major cause for concern about this project. Frankly, I don’t see how anybody who signed it could really be surprised about negative reactions given the history of George and Colson with regard to ecumenical efforts. How could the Manhattan Declaration not be viewed as part of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together package?
The point of signing your name to such a document is to unite your voice with myriads of others for a worthwhile cause. I get that. But it seems that those who signed the Manhattan Declaration to cry out against moral issues also find themselves being asked to sing backup for Colson’s ecumenism—or even being portrayed by him to be doing just that!—despite their protestations. Almost inevitably, lending your voice to this sort of inter-faith activism means losing your voice, or at least part of it.
There is a previous post on the Manhattan Declaration here.