Why Sproul declined to sign the Manhattan Declaration

I'm not going to harp on this anymore. Many people I respect (Chuck Colson, Al Mohler, etc) signed the Manhattan Declaration. However, if you could read only one explanation of why not to sign it, I recommend R.C. Sproul's explanation:

The drafters of the document, Charles Colson, Robert George, and Timothy George, used deliberate language that is on par with the ecumenical language of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) movement that began in the 1990s. The Manhattan Declaration states, “Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s Word,” and it identifies “Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelicals” as “Christians.” The document calls Christians to unite in “the Gospel,” “the Gospel of costly grace,” and “the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness.” Moreover, the document says, “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.”

Without question, biblical truth must be proclaimed and the gospel preached prophetically to our nation. But how could I sign something that confuses the gospel and obscures the very definition of who is and who is not a Christian? I have made this point again and again since the days of ECT. Though the framers of the Manhattan Declaration declaim any connection to ECT, it appears to me that the Manhattan Declaration is inescapably linked to that initiative, which I have strenuously resisted. More than that, this new document practically assumes the victory of ECT in using the term “the gospel” in reference to that which Roman Catholics are said to “proclaim” (Phil. 1:27).

The rest here.

Calvin vs Theonomy

In reading Calvin, having first read Thomas Aquinas, I am fascinated by much of the continuity in thought. Thomas maintained a differentiation between natural law (always binding universal principles) and positive law (human laws derived from universal principles). A happy find for me, one who spent a year writing a thesis on Natural Law, for it to have legitamacy in the Reformed tradition! Such a distinction is important when talking to some in the Reformed community who are postmillennial theonomists, and modern evangelicals that try a direct application of the Old Testament and the law to modern states.

Calvin wrote against such measures advocated by Anabaptists in the 16th Century. Anabaptists were known for setting up a city in Munster that tried to do just that, with horrible consequences (When joined forces of Lutheran and Catholics liberated the city from the self-appointed theocrats at the begging of the population). Calvin here explains that laws are the product of culture, circumstance and prudence and vary from country to country with no sin in their mere diversity (sounding very Burkean!). The Law of Moses for Israel was not meant to be applied directly to another state, but to Israel. Here is the relevant quote from Calvin:

"The law of God given through Moses is (not) dishonored when it is abrogated and new laws are preferred to it . . . for the Lord . . . did not give that law to be proclaimed among all nations and to be in force everywhere. Rather we must make our laws with regard to the condition of times, place and nation…How malicious and hateful toward public welfare would a man be who is offended by such diversity [among the laws of nations], which is perfectly adapted to maintain the observance of God's law?…I would have preferred to pass over this matter in utter silence if I were not aware that here many dangerously go astray. For there are some who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed which neglects that political system of Moses, and is ruled by the common laws of nations. Let other men consider how perilous and seditious this notion is; it will be enough for me to have proved it false and foolish."

-John Calvin Institutes IV, xx

No matter who wins the election...It is God's Will

Whether McCain or Obama wins, God’s plan will not be thwarted, but it will be the plan of divine providence. As much as Bush’s election was seen by him (and many Christians) as “God’s will,” so too their election will be under God’s purposeful control. Our language of God's Will needs to include not only the standard of moral actions. Certainly a believer doing sin is never God’s will in an active sense. Yet, we forget that nothing happens apart from the Father (Matt 10:29). Sometimes, God might even fight against us, willing that the side we are on is defeated. We may sit up on election night with the words of Gideon: “If the Lord is with us, why then has all this happened to us?” (Judges 6:13)

This may have happened to us, partly, for our own good. This is because often our slogans are not realities. The American church has fought for a little slogan placed on our money that is rarely ever true in our lives: In God We Trust. Of course we don't believe it because we think everything is out of control when our preferred tax policy is not enacted or because we see injustice perpetrated by our government. We trust our efforts, our political philosophy, our leaders, our 401(k) (well, maybe not anymore). “In God We Trust” is the hardest reality to believe. The most seemingly false verse in the Bible is Romans 8:28: “for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.”

If the man I want loses, I must say: "God, You give and You take away. Your ways are unknowable to me. I trust You against my own judgments that would criticize Your providence in this matter."

Derek Webb wrote a song playing on this irony and aiming for the ideal. Here, I would like to share his words from his album “Mockingbird”:

“In God We Trust”

in God we trust
and the government is on His shoulders
in God we trust
through democracy and tyranny alike
in God we trust
He uses both good and evil men

in God we trust
so we fight for peace and He fights for us
in God we trust
even when He fights us for someone else
in God we trust
even when He looks like the enemy

in God we trust
even though our hearts are bankrupt
in God we trust
for more than just the value of our dollar bills
in God we trust
but there’s no gold behind these notes of reserve

in God we trust
even through our great presumption
in God we trust
even though He favors no nation-state
in God we trust
even when the blessing is a curse

We need a monarchy

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy."

-Dr. Alexander Tytler

Faith, the Church, and Politics

In attempting to think more deeply about the relationship of Faith and Politics, I've run across two programs that have made me re-think some of my preconceptions. Both contain intelligent conservative and progressive Christians discussing these issues, give them a listen:

1) Speaking of Faith: "Evangelical Politics" - The first is an episode of "Speaking of Faith," a program on American Public Radio, where Chuck Colson, Gregory Boyd and Shane Claiborne talk about the relationship between church and state, from the prespective of three generations of evangelicals.

2) White Horse Inn: "Christianity and Politics, Part 1 / Part 2" - Second is a two part talk with two Christians involved in politics, one Democrat and one Republican. D.G. Hart, one of my favorite Christian writers and author of the book: A Secular Faith: Why Christianity favors the Separation of Church and State, joins the talk to explore: What is the role of the church in Politics? The shared opinion here might suprise you.

RIP - William F. Buckley, Jr.

May angels guide you home.

[His spiritual autobiography here]

Pastor-in-Chief?

For consideration:

Huckabee's pleas for church support are disturbing me. I do not mind if a politician wishes to share his religious background, but according to multiple news stories, Huckabee has been preaching sermons in churches as part of his campaign. (See here, here, and in my backyard here)

I was reminded of the story of King Uzziah, who went to perform the tasks of the temple. That is until the priests...

...withstood King Uzziah, and said to him, “It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the LORD, but for the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Get out of the sanctuary, for you have trespassed! You shall have no honor from the LORD God.” Then Uzziah became furious; and he had a censer in his hand to burn incense. And while he was angry with the priests, leprosy broke out on his forehead, before the priests in the house
of the LORD, beside the incense altar. (2 Chron 26:18-19)

I was looking through my Westminster Confession and found this section illuminating as well:

It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto...[but]...Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments.

When I hear politicians are giving sermons, I begin to think this line has been crossed. It is compromising to the church and a temptation for manipulation by the government. It is this humble blogger's opinion that Huckabee needs to choose: pastor, or President. He is not allowed to be both.