Posted by
Playful Walrus on Monday, November 30, 2009 5:42:14 PM
You may have heard of the Manhattan Declaration, which was recently unveiled. It has been signed and touted by people identified as Christians, but from a wide variety of denominations and creeds, who find a common cause in standing up for:
1. The sanctity of human life.
2. The sanctity of marriage.
3. The protection of religious liberty.
4. The rejection of unjust laws.
There are always going to be people upset with Roman Catholics team up with Protestants, or some other combination of that sort happens, because these people are vehemently opposed to some of the doctrines, practices, and personalities of one or the other. But the Manhattan Declaration isn't a doctrinal creed, or a charter for a unified church. Nowhere in the document are Roman Catholics called to become Southern Baptists or vice-versa. There's nothing in the document that offends my faith, and I'm curious as to know what in the document offends the faith of any follower of Christ. Merely attracting the signature of someone with whom I have a strong theological disagreement does not make a document unworthy of my own support. Otherwise, there are a lot of good things I would have to avoid because they are also supported by those people.
This document is a call for anyone who calls themselves Christian to stand up for basic Christian principles in the most important cultural matters. Without religious liberty, squabbling between Roman Catholics and Lutherans is a luxury. We have let ideological minorities use ever increasing and centralized government power to try to compel us to support murder, the neutering of marriage, and the removal of theistic or Christian references from the public square. We need to resist this.
A clue that the document is a good thing is that the Los Angeles Times editorial board doesn't like it.
After starting out their editorial musing about civil disobedience and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., during which the editorial reveres King because he was standing up for things they like, they go on to write...
That cautious approach has been thrown to the wind by Christian religious leaders who, even as they insist on their right to shape the nation's laws, are reserving the right to violate them in situations far removed from King's witness.
The editorial doesn't explain how this is so. It is an assertion based on the board's disagreement on the issues.
They go on to quote the document, indicating they have read it...
"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality. . . . We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."
Strong words, but also irresponsible and dangerous ones.
Dangerous? Perhaps to agendas that would be more easily accomplished with a passive Church standing on the sidelines.
The idea that same-sex civil marriage will undermine religious marriage is a canard Californians will remember from the campaign for Proposition 8, as is the declaration's complaint that Christian leaders are being prevented from expressing their "religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife."
State marriage licenses reflect the official policy of the state. If they are neutered, coupled with other laws and court decisions, the state policy of neutered marriage would inevitably encroach upon religious freedom and devalue marriage. It also takes away the general liberty of self-government when it is imposed upon the people by the few.
This sweeping claim is supported by anecdotes of the sort radio talk-show hosts purvey.
So if a radio talk show host discusses it, it can't be true? At least it is "sweeping", rather than "dangerous".
This apocalyptic argument for lawbreaking is disingenuous, but it is also dangerous.
Again, "dangerous", and now "apocalyptic". Read it for yourself. Does it sound dangerous?
Did the Roman Catholic bishops who signed the manifesto consider how their endorsement of lawbreaking in a higher cause might embolden the antiabortion terrorists they claim to condemn?
Speaking out against abortion = murder, you see. Never mind the fact that abortion = murder. By this reasoning, the editorial board is inciting violence against Christians.
Did they stop to think that, by reserving the right to resist laws they don't like, they forfeit the authority to intervene in the enactment of those laws, as they have done in the congressional debate over healthcare reform?
This is so muddled. Of course we can resist laws we don't like (why would we resist laws we like?), and still participate in lawmaking. That's exactly what happened in the civil rights movement of the 1950s/1960s. The board has called for resistance of the California Marriage Amendment. So I guess this is a matter of, "Christians shouldn't stand up for what they believe. Only people who agree with us should."?
They need to be reminded that this is a nation of laws, not of men -- even holy men.
You mean like where they write:
As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral.
…like that?
Again - read the document yourself. You may want to sign it after you do.