A Webby Declaration

The pictured Barn Spider has long ago headed back to the barn for the winter, but I’ve dragged him out photographically because he is such a great example of practically everything. Sooner or later, we’ll probably use him to illustrate several aspects of the intelligent design of his anatomy, physiology and biochemistry. But this time, we will wander far from the biological barn and into the theological woodshed.

As Sir Walter (Scott, that is) said, “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” Our spider’s web seems a bit tangled, primarily because this nosy photographer got too intimate with a macro lens. But right now, I’ll get nosy with a subject of theological controversy brought about by the publication of a document called The Manhattan Declaration. (Click on the link and then on the “The Declaration” tab to read the entire document.)

The document is signed by a long list of conservative religious leaders and more than three hundred thousand others who are rightly troubled with the state of American society. It says, essentially, to paraphrase Howard Beale, “We’re as mad as heaven and we’re not going to take this anymore!” And we’re willing to go to jail as a last resort, if civil disobedience is the only possible response.

The three principles being defended in the Declaration are (1) the sanctity of human life, (2) the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and (3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

So where is the web? Where are the tangles? Anyone with even a semblance of a biblical worldview or even a basic human sense of moral values should agree with the Declaration’s premise that we shouldn’t kill babies or old people or people with disabilities; that the “traditional” view of marriage is the only sane one; and that the U. S. Constitution should ensure our right to free speech and public expression of religious views.

The problem, in the view of several conservative Christian theologians, lies with the following statement: “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. May God help us not to fail in that duty.”

Proclaim the Gospel? Which gospel? The three groups represented proclaim three different and antithetical gospels!

One of the representative sects of Christendom proclaims a gospel that is, when closely examined, a monstrosity of legalism, ritualism, idolatry and ultimately, blasphemy. It presents a savior who doesn’t really save. Another group practices a religion based almost entirely on its ritualistic liturgy but is mostly unintelligible to outsiders.

Only evangelical Christianity, and then only in its pure Reformation variety, proclaims the true biblical plan of salvation: salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, as revealed in Scripture alone—thus giving all glory to God alone. In short, it has a Savior who really saves His people from their sins (Matt 1:21).

So the authors of the Declaration dare not proclaim “the Gospel” within their document. They are stuck in the tangles of a theological spider web. While their intensions are good from a moralistic viewpoint, their unwarranted ecumenism thwarts their ability to fight the real battle being waged in this fallen world—the spiritual battle for the hearts and souls of fallen humanity. Or at least, their ecumenical entanglement has them somewhat unequally yoked (2 Cor 6:14).

Moral and societal woes are ultimately spiritual problems. We can take potshots at them and gain some superficial, temporary victories, but only God’s sovereign grace, capturing and transforming sinful human hearts, will win the war.

I’ll leave the links to The Manhattan Declaration here for the time being because it has much to offer. But ultimately it, like our pictured arachnid, might have to go back to the barn. I am still praying about its ultimate disposition.

As one of my favorite theologians says, “The Gospel is ours to proclaim, not to edit.”

Soli Deo Gloria