Chuck Colson: Manhattan Declaration is “a foretaste of heaven.”

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.


4 Responses

  1. I was curious as to whether you asked Dr. Mohler personally about his thinking and his position in this. Do we get to bypass Matthew 18 principles when mistakes are public? The internet makes that so easy.

    He had such a humble response in his letter from a few years ago that you reposted.

  2. Hi, Samantha.

    I’ve mentioned many times here my admiration for Dr. Mohler. However, in answer to your question, Yes, we do bypass Matthew 18 when the circumstance is a public and theological matter and not a personal offense. (As you have apparently and appropriately chosen to do by making your comment here, albeit anonymously.) Matthew 18 doesn’t apply to every circumstance. Had Dr. Mohler sinned against me personally, I would have gone to him privately, as Matthew 18:15 requires. He didn’t. Instead, it’s a theologically-charged and very public issue, and thus is being treated more in line with Galatians 2:11-14. (I’m not claiming to be Pauline by the allusion; just pointing out that public, theological matters are rightly addressed publicly.)

    I appreciate Dr. Mohler, and I don’t think I’ve been unfair to him. I noted his own reasoning for signing the MD (via a link to his statement) and disagreed with it.

  3. Wow! Thanks for posting.

    The comment from Colson that really got my attention was as follows: This document is, in fact, a form of catechism for the foundational truths of the faith.

    So much for it being solely about taking a stand on the issues.

  4. Yeah, Chris, at some point the sorts of people who get asked to sign this sort of thing and who believe the biblical gospel *have* to smell the oder of gospel-compromising ecumenical strategy when Colson and George are the driving force. Because even if the former can construe the words to have a legitimate historical meaning, they ought to be savvy enough to anticipate the strategy of confirmed ecumenists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: