The Manhattan Declaration, a document that is floating around blogsphere, is enlisting the signatures of “fellow citizens, believers, and non-believers alike.”
It already has the signatures of prominent evangelicals like J.I. Packer, Tim Keller, and Al Mohler:
The Manhattan Declaration:
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
- the sanctity of human life
- the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
- the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. read more about the document…
It already has 1888 signatures and seeking more. But is such a document needed? Why these three concerns?
How about:
1. A document to eliminate world hunger?
2. A document to provide water for those who can’t afford even a clean cup?
3. A document to treat and prevent certain curable diseases that millions die from daily?
I’m thinking the advancement of the Kingdom. My take.
You should have been on the committee!
I think we are in a time when many are feeling the need to take a public stand on social issues from a biblical basis (and then where do you start?). Obviously many have the desire to set back on the truthful path what others have challenged and derailed.
I do agree with you that there are too many important needs to list. I don’t know where it could end, but I understand the desire for a start.
I wonder if Jesus feels left out.
Jeff
Bitsy,
I do understand. But those three are the same three for years. According to Jesus, there are weightier matters of Justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matt. 23:23).
Jeff,
I believe I may have answered you implied question in my reply to Bitsy.
I think a first question should be, “Are these strategic issues in the United States today?”
A second question should be, “How does publishing such a declaration affect these issues?”
Kyle,
In reply to your two questions, it’s nothing new. We’re reminded every election of what are the most endearing issues for evangelicals.
A guy who comments from time to time on my chess blog recently made a written commitment on his blog that every time he went grocery shopping he would buy an extra $10 of groceries to donate to his local food bank. That is a written commitment of concrete action towards some of the problems you addressed T.C.
Imagine if we all did something little like that. It would add up to something very large and very beneficial rather quickly.
I am not impressed with the Manhattan Document. Yes of course the things they are standing for are important. But the wording is vague. They would stand for those ideals a lot better if they actually stepped outside, took a good look around and to paraphrase Charles Dickens “make mankind their business.”
I know I need to do better in that regard as well!
Tomg,
I’m tired of these documents. You know, that one guys is making more kingdom difference than this document.
Charles Dickens is right.
T.C., I’m tracking right along with you. This is further evidence, in my opinion, that the Church in America has been co-opted by the political Right. These are definitely serious issues for the Christian to be concerned about, but why these three as opposed to three other issues such as the ones you mentioned. Here’s how Mark Steiner puts it (I’ll be interviewing him for my blog next week):
“I think a good case can be made that Republicans conform to “Christian values” just as poorly as do Democrats. It’s just a matter of what values one chooses to emphasize and what values one chooses to ignore. A good example of this can be seen in how we conceptualize what “pro-life” means. While “pro-life” Republicans talk a lot about pre-born human life…they tend to be very callous about human beings once they’re born, ESPECIALLY if they aren’t the wealthiest 5% of us. The Bible has much to say about how “the least of these” are treated, and a good case can be made that Republicans (and conservatives in general) violate core teachings of Scripture as well.”
Indeed. I used to call myself republican and you paraphrased my old self quite accurately, much as I don’t like saying it. Now, however, I’m committed to speaking out in defense of pacifism and ridding the world of things such as hunger, the need for clean water, and the sex trafficking industry. These things are the logical consequence of being truly pro-life.
I personally advocate in particular for Wishing Well, a non-profit organization started just a few years ago by my dear friend Ryan Groves. He’s still in school at Oklahoma Christian University, and OC recognizes the potential of Wishing Well enough that they pay for his tuition in order to be the primary sponsors of Wishing Well.
This organization builds wells and gets irrigation going for villages. Most of the work is done in Africa, but the initiative does work elsewhere, too. Ryan has come up with a great water pump design actually based on one of Da Vinci’s blueprints. It doesn’t break after a year or two, so it’s very reliable and also cheap to make. Building a well now costs less than twenty dollars, and a dollar is enough to provide clean water for a person for a whole year.
I intend to sponsor one village for the rest of my life with a yearly donation and also with my prayers.
I highly encourage every reader to check out Wishing Well.
Pingback: The Manhattan Declaration: Review and Response « Near Emmaus: Christ and Text
Will,
Thanks for that qoute esp:
While “pro-life” Republicans talk a lot about pre-born human life…they tend to be very callous about human beings once they’re born, ESPECIALLY if they aren’t the wealthiest 5% of us. The Bible has much to say about how “the least of these” are treated, and a good case can be made that Republicans (and conservatives in general) violate core teachings of Scripture as well.”
You seem to be making a sweeping stereotypical generalization for some reason. Are the pro-choice Democrats who don’t care about the wealthiest 5% of people the ones to emulate and hold to the core teachings of Scripture?
BTW in my earlier comment I hadn’t seen the part about Jesus, I only looked at the three points which seemed devoid of Jesus and the cross which I would think would be the central issue. The document, which I neglected to read earlier, does talk about these things from a Biblical perspective at least. I’m not sure what signing a document will do though.
Jeff
Yes, this is definitely a sweeping stereotypical generalization. The reason is not to tell us to endorse either Democrats or Republicans, nor is it to tell us that Democrats are more worthy of being emulated than Republicans (or vice versa). The point is that both conservatives and liberals (politically speaking in America) are using different Christian values to promote their agendas. For some reason, though, the Church has latched onto the ones the Republicans use, and we’ve neglected the others. Both the religious Right and the religious Left have been co-opted by political interests. I just wish the Church would not perpetuate this problem by only speaking of (and writing documents about) the “conservative” values while neglecting the others. Feeding the hungry and helping the poor are equally important to–perhaps even more so in some ways–the definition of marriage and religious liberty.
I’m going slow in assigning this document to the “political” bin. I think the salient point in the document is here:
“Because [the three identified issues] are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them.”
The writers seems to be searching for some traction in the culture, not necessarily the political domain. The Roman Catholic Church’s decision to quit offering orphan placement services in Boston comes to mind. The framers of the document seem to be sensing a looming threat in the culture that is different. I’m thinking they’re thinking there’s been a shift of an order of magnitude in the culture making the spiritual climate dramatically different and threatening.
The interesting element is the third issue they identify, “the rights and conscience of religious liberty.” That has usually been the tune of the secularist calling for liberty of conscience with respect to abortion and gay marriage.
On the surface of it it looks like they are getting ready for persecution. I can almost hear them saying, “We will die for the unborn and the sanctity of marriage. Who’s with us?”
Kyle,
That’s seems to be the case. But is it worth it? Have we been called to such a fight?
Will,
The contents of this document are not new. We’re reminded of them every election. Now we need the weightier matters to occupy our attention and resources.
You’re right. We are reminded of these particular issues with every election. It’s time for the Church to stop letting the political agenda dominate the agenda of the Kingdom. Not to downplay the significance of the issues this document addresses, but we do indeed have much “weightier matters to occupy our attention and resources.” Those “other matters” at least need to find a place along side the ones mentioned in this document.
Will,
Do you think the “religious liberty” issue is a “same ol’?” That seems different to me.
By the way, saw the “Laptop Steering Wheel Desk” on your blog. Great. Just in time for Christmas.
Kyle, I don’t know what to make of the religious liberty issue. Here’s another quote from Dr. Steiner that may provide some insight:
“I suspect that the energy behind the Christian Right is far less a matter of witnessing to God and His Kingdom, and far more about making the country more comfortable for us religious conservative folks. To the degree this is true, we are far more like the religious leaders who arranged to have Jesus put to death than we are like Jesus.”
(Just to be clear, I have a lot of respect for Mohler, Keller, et.al., so this is not a questioning of their motives or character, just an attempt to think thoroughly through these issues.)
Will,
I would agree with Steiner generally. The religious right have far too quick to use the levers of power in American politics.
The question of religious liberty seems to point more to an American legacy that the Manhattan folk fear is disappearing. It may be drawing near to a time when believers will be going to jail. We will look a lot more like Jesus then. About time. The church really doesn’t do well with worldly power.
T.C., I love seeing people address things like this. Great to see your heart for the kingdom.
Ferg,
Simply echoing the prayer of our Lord, “May your Kingdom come soon.
May your will be done on earth,
as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10, NLT).
Will,
“It’s time for the Church to stop letting the political agenda dominate the agenda of the Kingdom. Not to downplay the significance of the issues this document addresses, but we do indeed have much “weightier matters to occupy our attention and resources.”
Well put.
Can you be pro-life and support the death penalty? I think that most people who call themselves “pro-life” are actually not. They are just anti-abortion.
John,
So it seems.
Is there no difference between someone being killed who has undergone fair trial and someone being killed for no reason other than they’re unwanted?
Sure there is a difference. There is a difference in all kinds of life terminations, whether from crime, war, abortion, or just plain neglect of those we don’t care enough about, such as people in war torn third world countries or those living under the overpass. The point is that life is sacred, created by God. Life is His to give and take, and we should see all people as created is His image. Do we want justice or mercy for ourselves? We should want the same mercy for others.
Jake,
There’s indeed a difference. Capital punishment vs conveniet murder.
John,
We have capital punishment from God (Gen. 9:6) and a nation’s need to protect itself. Crimes and murder are categorically different.
Once again, I do agree that there is quite a diference between capital punishment and abortion. Any rational person can see that. My point is that as a Christian, I lean towards mercy. I fought in 2 military conflicts, so I have seen death in a wartime environment, so I’m not a pacifist. My point is that as a Christian I hold human life very sacred. The same God who created me also created the mass murderer, each in His image. I’m not saying that these people would ever become Christians, but I would rather give them as many opportunities to know Christ as their Savior rather than cutting their life short, but that may be just me. Also, I know we get capital punishment from the OT, but there was also capital punishment for other offences, such as adultery. Do we push for that in our culture? I guess I just see people picking and choosing what life is worth preserving and which we are willing to terminate.
John,
You’ve entered entirely new discussion, surrounding hermeneutics, OT vs. NT, and so on.
This whole debate seems to me indicative of a wider issue in the body of Christ, regardless of particular persuasion.
Matt. 23:23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former
It seems to me we tend to pick out our own particular issues and then charge the other side with neglecting “the important matters.” To both sides, Jesus says, “You should have done the latter, without neglecting the former.”
I admit that the church could do more on issues of poverty, health, etc., but I’m always puzzled when the debate gets framed as “social justice vs. orthodoxy”, “compassion vs. truth”, “defending marriage vs. feeding the poor”, etc. Jesus calls us to both – and both sides constantly need reminding.
Tim, I agree that all these things need to be done, but the very point of the matter is that the Church historically in America has neglected these issues of social justice, compassion, feeding the poor, etc. We don’t need anyone to push us to fight for pro-life issues or defending marriage. The Church desperately needs a prophetic voice to challenge her to take up these much neglected matters.
Tim,
I’m with Will on this one. The history of debates speaks for itself.
Pingback: The Manhattan Declaration | Scripture Zealot
TC,
After further thought, I think my last post was a little snarky. I apologize. You do bring up an important point.
Tim, you’ve just given me my word for the day: “snarky.” I’m going to see how many times I can use that!
Tim,
Yeah, “snarky.” You’re cool.
Will,
Great challenge.
Pingback: I will not be signing the Manhattan Declaration | The Church of Jesus Christ