Originally, as this LDS member notes faith groups like the LDS were not invited due to theological reasons.

To add further confusion, MD's faq question 14 asks about the it being concentrated on faiths groups. It answers, So the signatories are happy to stand alongside our LDS brothers and sisters who have worked so heroically in the cause of defending marriage, our Jewish brothers and sisters, members of other faiths, and people of no particular faith (even pro-life atheists such as the great Nat Hentoff), who affirm our principles and wish to join us in proclaiming and defending them.

I'm not sure what a Jewish, LDS or other faith member "brother and sister" is.

Colson keeps the argument for the MD theological when he states And just as important, I believe the Manhattan Declaration can help revitalize the church in America. One great weakness of the Church today is its biblical and doctrinal ignorance. This document is, in fact, a form of catechism for the foundational truths of the faith.

Predominantly secular? It seems hardly so. The drafter obviously had certain form of doctrinal purity in mind. However, there can be no greater form of doctrinal agreement as foundational than the Gospel.

I'm not saying that truth and study of Scripture are not important, I'm merely pointing out that Christ never required a fully fleshed out doctrine before coming to him. Just trust and faithfulness in his claims to be the savior we need.

That would be completely antithetical to what the designers have stated their aim was in this document (particularly Colson).

Talk about big-tent Ecumenism. A Muslim (not to mention an Arian, a Nestorian, or a Monophysite) could sign that statement of faith. And if a Muslim agrees with it, it's probably not the whole gospel.

As for the non-theists, I thought I read somewhere where the MD was inclusive of non-believers as well as believers among it's signatories as it's chief aim is really he 3 issues they have posted on their site.

Regarding Peter Kreeft. I don't see how citing him in one instance entails acceptance of all he has to offer (though I think much of his work is admirable). Even in the work I cited, I take issue (naturally) with his conclusion regarding the Roman Catholic Church but his approach to it is genuine and honest.

I think the major source of division here is willingness to understand and work together with people we don't fully agree with towards a specific goal. I think detractors who want to whine about the theological ramifications of this document are missing the point of this declaration which is predominantly secular. I also suspect the wording of the Gospel was thrown in by committee as a requisite for evangelicals who seem to be rather near sighted as evidenced to their reaction to the earlier Williamsberg Charter..

Another variation is with the belief that docturnal purity is wholly important, but only when pursued in love without force (something the declaration also upholds). In that regard I don't think 100% theological agreement is required (or even possible!) before we work together as members of the same body we claim to each be a part of.

Is there a specific place above that actually states Why you signed the Manhattan Declaration?

I'm confused by this statement: (in fact, the deceleration is explicitly inclusive of non-theists). I thought the MD was exclusive of non-theists.

Peter Kreeft has some extreme ideas. I could not stand with him on much theologically. For example, this amazon review of Ecumenical Jihad states,

For example, "even atheists and agnostics, if they are of good will . . . perhaps . . . can be called 'anonymous Christians', as Karl Rahner suggested . . . " [p. 31] "Is there . . a `hidden Christ' of Hinduism? When a pious Moslem practices his islam, his submission, might this be taking place through Christ . . . . I think this is very likely. [p. 156] In fact, Mr. Kreeft speculates that the "ultimate reality" of Taoists, Buddhist, and Hindus might be the god of Christians. [p. 161]

There, he met and spoke with Confucius, Buddha, Mohammed, and Moses. In the afterlife, all have become pious Roman Catholics. Nonetheless, Mohamed still teaches (and Kreeft appears to agree) that the Koran is "divine revelation." [pp. 103-4]