On The Frankfurt Declaration of Christian and Civil Liberties

 

A very strange and mysterious statement was put out by the Reformed and Evangelical community recently titled: “The Frankfurt Declaration of Christian and Civil Liberties,” which can be seen here. I say “strange and mysterious” because no names of authors, or of a committee which drafted it, nor even a date of its composition was provided. It is a relatively short statement of about 2,000 words, consisting of a brief introduction, followed by 5 articles of affirmation and denial, whose aim is to warn and safeguard against the abuse of government authority, and the rise of totalitarianism and oppressive regimes in the West. That is what is stated as its objective in the brief introduction to it, which is as follows:

“In the course of human events, it sometimes becomes necessary for people of good faith to speak out against the abuse of power. This should be done only after serious and prayerful deliberation, and even then, in an attitude of humility and with respect for the authorities that have been established by God. Such protest should be expressed in the hope that civil authorities who are found to be eroding rights and liberties may yet fulfill their responsibility as their rightful guardians.

“A few concerned pastors from different continents, moved by an emergent totalitarianism of the State over all realms of society, and particularly the Church, and the disregard of Godgiven and constitutionally guaranteed rights during the Covid crisis, joined in common cause to craft a solemn declaration, which seeks to address these threats with the timeless truths of God’s Word. The following affirmations and denials, derived from biblical principles, we put forth for consideration by all Christians and relevant authorities, in the hope that this document will give light and strength for faithful witness to Jesus Christ in our day.”

But it has no “signature list” of those who drafted it; and it doesn’t tell us anywhere who those “concerned pastors from different continents” are, how they came together, where they met, or why Frankfurt was chosen as the place of their convention rather than London, Paris, Washington, or somewhere else. It was initially signed online by around 50 prominent Evangelical pastors and preachers, including John MacArthur; and my guess is that they are the ones who initially instigated it. But why they would want to call it the “Frankfurt Declaration,” or why the identity of its original authors are not revealed, is a mystery that remains yet to be resolved!

Joking aside, however, it is a statement that, on the whole I am inclined to sympathize with, although it is possible to find some theological flaws in it as well, which is not unexpected, given that it was drafted mainly by Evangelical, Reformed, and Calvinistic theologians. For example in the second article it says the following:

“… Since man has fallen into sin, we further affirm that all his thoughts, deductions, and institutions contain degrees of corruption which tend to distort, manipulate, or suppress the truth.

“We therefore deny that human governments are morally and ideologically neutral, and always know or seek what is good for their citizens, and that their narrative should be unconditionally trusted. …”

If mankind are naturally so “depraved” that they cannot tell the difference between right and wrong, good and evil etc., then what is the point of lecturing them about all of this anyway, or having any expectations from them that are different? That would be a waste of time and a pointless exercise. The statement can only make sense if the Calvinistic doctrine of “Total Depravity” is not true. At the start of Article 4 it also says:

“We affirm that all earthly authorities derive their authority (‘the right to be obeyed’) from God, who is over all and to whom all must give account.”

In a broad sense that would be a true statement; but in a more immediate sense, in democratic societies like the US, they derive their right to govern by the voice of the people, who have elected them, and also have the power to depose them. So the primary responsibility doesn’t rest with the “government,” but with the electorate who have appointed them.

Another puzzling thing about this declaration is that it focuses a lot on defending democracy and freedom, especially religious freedom, which John MacArthur has repeatedly made clear in what he has said that he is against. Here are some quotes (emphasis added):

“Such protest should be expressed in the hope that civil authorities who are found to be eroding rights and liberties may yet fulfill their responsibility as their rightful guardians.

“…moved by an emergent totalitarianism of the State over all realms of society, and particularly the Church, and the disregard of Godgiven and constitutionally guaranteed rights during the Covid crisis, …” (Introduction)

“We therefore deny totalitarian ideologies of governments which do not recognize the boundaries of their authority and usurp the authority delegated by God to the Church or the family. In particular, we reject the tendency of governments to centralize beliefs and conduct for their citizens by creating an authoritarian society in which the State is absolute. Such totalitarianism and statism is built upon beliefs that have fundamentally redefined good and evil and the nature of human beings, and are contrary to the divine order of things. The effect of such beliefs is to enslave individual and religious freedoms, and engender an ideological intolerance which seeks to silence, cancel, and re-educate those who disagree.” (Article 4)

“It appears that the world may well be entering a time of testing, not only for the Church, but for everyone who believes in freedom and who opposes tyranny.” (last paragraph)

Do those rights and privileges belong equally to Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs etc.? How come? I thought John MacArthur was opposed to all of that kind of stuff. That is what he has said nearly every time that he has spoken on the subject. Has he now changed his mind? If so, that is a good sign! Maybe he has been persuaded by my criticisms of his views on those subjects!

Anyways in general, I am sympathetic to the views and sentiments expressed in the declaration, and would support it, although I am not sure whether I would want to “sign” it, because of the flaws that are in it; the most serious of which is that the true identity of those who composed it, the venue in which it was drawn up, the date of its composition, and the circumstances that led to it etc. are mysteriously kept secret, which is a very serious defect of the enterprise from my point of view. Why is there so much secrecy about it if they have nothing to hide? It almost seems like those who composed it are embarrassed by it, and don’t want their identity to be made known, which is a very serious defect. If they don’t have enough confidence in their own project to make their identity known, there is little reason that anybody else should. It has, however, now attracted over 4,000 signatories, which is a good thing, because as I said, I am in general sympathetic to its sentiments.