Finding the Center: Ecumenism and the Manhattan Declaration
It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.
–C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. viii
There’s been quite a discussion at First Things’ blog Evangel (and elsewhere) on the nature of the Gospel as treated in the Manhattan Declaration (i.e., in a spirit of ecumenism) and what that means for the furthering of the Gospel itself. It started with a post by Frank Turk on why he respectfully declined to sign. Mark Olson responded with To Sign or Not to Sign and James Grant wrote The Manhattan Declaration, the Gospel, and Repentance. Mark Olson responded further with Becoming Christian. After the comment brouhaha which ensued, Frank Turk tried to clarify and summarize his views. David T. Koyzis weighed in with Why Stackhouse is Partially Right (a related but parallel discussion), and then Mark Olson attempted to define That Line Between Good and Evil.
It’s a lot to read. But some fundamental points are discussed. C. S. Lewis’ concern was that presentation of those non-essential doctrines which various denominations may hold above and beyond the mere Gospel might be unhelpful to non-believers, as he states in his preface to Mere Christianity, as echoed by Walter Hooper in the preface to Lewis’ Christian Reflections:
“…Lewis wrote to a friend [Dom Bede Griffiths, O.S.B]: ‘When all is said…about the divisions of Christendom, there remains, by God’s mercy, an enormous common ground.’ From that time on Lewis thought that the best service he could do for his unbelieving neighbors was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times–that ‘enormous common ground’ which he usually referred to as ‘mere’ Christianity.”
Turk and others deny said common ground, enormous or not. To them, various qualifiers to which the different traditions (denominations, “communions”), or, rather, non-Calvinist traditions, adhere serve, not to qualify, but actually change the Gospel into something that is not truly the Gospel. To Mr. Turk, Lewis’ mere Christianity “ambiguates” the gospel. And that is his objection to the MD: in ambiguating the gospel, it is presenting a common moral and political ground as being greater in importance than the Gospel itself. His concern is (if I have it right) that unbelievers are done a disservice when a non-Gospel (as represented by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches) is presented as if it is The Gospel, through a wishy-washy ecumenism.
But, as Olson and others point out, this need not be the case, and, I am convinced, is not. Further, to focus on disputed distinctions which allow no room for benefit of the doubt denies unity in Christ, and clouds the true Gospel in the very way Mr. Turk and others claim the MD authors and other ecumenists cloud it. I understand defense of the Gospel, although I think it’s better to promulgate it than defend it. And I do maintain the necessity of each person speaking and acting as he sees fit before God. In other words, if one feels he (or she) cannot in good conscience sign the MD, or participate in ecumenical activity, then he should not. Yet we are all accountable for our speech and actions, whether right or wrong, done honestly (in ignorance or knowledge) or not.
I encourage you to read the linked posts, and perhaps some posts linked in those threads as well, and see what you think. I wonder, just how particularly can, or must, the Gospel be defined and defended? Does ecumenism among those who claim Christ as the sole source of salvation blur the Gospel? Does denial of ecumenism clarify it? What do you think?
Yes, I have been waiting for this inevitable development. For all the positive things Chuck Colson stands for in the evangelical world, there is no shaking the term “ecumenical” as a term of derision in many a evangelical vocabulary.
Silly me; for a moment I thought we could maintain the discussion on the real importance of the declaration, which is coming to grips with civil disobedience among Christians once a certain moral line has been crossed by our government (or any government). Civil disobedience and American Christianity, when put together, are a veritable mine full of significant issues that Christians must dig through, mull over, pray about, seek God’s wisdom, and discuss!
My opinion on the current disagreement over whether or not to “sign” the declaration is that many evangelicals are getting distracted with a red herring that, over time, has become larger and redder even when perceptions between evangelicals and Catholics (and perhaps the Orthodox) seem to have become less volatile. I am familiar with views similar to Frank Turk’s. They are unfortunate.
This topic is on my list for further blog discussion, and I’m glad you brought it up first.
I agree with both of you, Bonnie and Letitia. It is so easy for many of us to forget what the focus of something is. I like the MD. It is a needed prophetic call today. But it doesn’t address all issues of concern to all parties. It wasn’t meant to.
Thanks, Letitia. (And Wayne
) It had the sense of something I couldn’t quite put my finger on and I think you are getting at it — there’s something that seems false to me about this “defense” of the Gospel. Not that I claim to know who is or is not sincere, nor that one cannot believe these things in earnest. It just seems…self-conscious somehow. Like “we have to make this big statement clarifying/defending the Gospel or else all these people will get the wrong idea.” No, I don’t think so. I’ve been trying to understand this point of view, but (as a wise man or two suggest), perhaps there’s nothing to understand. *shrugging shoulders*
Look forward to hearing more of your thoughts.
P. S. Many have said they would’ve supported the MD had the ecumenical statements/focus been left out. But I think that’s crazy; that’s like me and my family members writing about something we are joining together to do because of who we are and then not identifying ourselves with the reason for our cause! That’s what the detractors are saying (I think) — that the cause is wrong, because it sets off the “true” Gospel against moral compunction. But that moral compunction is Gospel-induced! So…???