Posted under Christianity & Pro-Life & Religion
Yesterday, a rather large number of ecclesiastical leaders officially announced the Manhattan Declaration. Many of these leaders came out to the National Press Club in order to make the announcement. Thus far, there’s been a decent amount of media coverage. This document was a collaborate effort from leaders of various faiths, churches, and denominations: Anglicans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc.
Basically, this statement addresses three main issues:
1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty
The document itself is a little too ecumenical for my tastes and I think there are parts of it which could have been written better. That being said, this is not so much a theological document as it is a statement of solidarity on the aforementioned issues. I was pleased to see such notables as J.I. Packer, Al Mohler (president of SBTS), Tim Keller, Wayne Grudem, and Robert Cannada (chancellor of RTS) had signed the document.
Some people may have been caught off guard by this announcement and are wondering what this is all about. The reason this document came out in the first place is because the handwriting is on the wall with respect to religious liberty. In fact, James White posted a story on his blog yesterday about homosexual groups in Britain wanting to force churches to “marry” same-sex couples.
The last paragraph of the Manhattan Declaration sums up its purpose:
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 and marriage and the family. 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.
It will be interesting to see what becomes of this in the coming months. Supposedly it took eight months to draft this document in the first place. Considering the trends taking place within the Obama Administration with respect to erroding rights of conscience, I think these leaders saw what was coming long before the health care debate ever started. Given the passage of the latest “hate crime” bill giving special protections to homosexuals while silencing moral opposition, this couldn’t have come at a better time.
Mitch Turner on 22 Nov 2009 at 6:31 pm #
It’s hard to get excited when prominent signers that I know of (and I assume most if not all the others) have supported the spending of millions of tax dollars to fund abortion through Planned Parenthood and the use of tax dollars for embryo research.
Daly, Perkins, Colson, Dobson supported George W. Bush, who believes there is no right to life, as abortion is fine in cases of rape or incest. Bush sent millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, which, while technically unable to use that money for abortions, of course simply used OTHER Money for abortions and the taxpayer money to replace the OTHER money. Those men also supported John McCain, who claimed to believe that life begins at conception, yet promised to use tax money to fund embryo research. These men supported an expansion of embryo research, and now that Pres. Obama is giving it to them, they are appalled.
As you can see below, we’ve heard vows before. When push has come to shove, such vows have been abandoned.
On April 28, 1990 at the Washington D.C. Rally for Life on video and to hundreds of thousands of Christians, Dr. Dobson stated, “I want to give a pledge to you on a political level… I have determined that for the rest of my life, however long God lets me live on this earth, I will never cast one vote for any man or woman who would kill one innocent baby.”
From Focus on the Family: Radio Program Transcript October 26, 1995 Broadcast title:
Upholding Conservative Moral Values”
JCD: You know, one of the more controversial things that I’ve said on the broadcast in the last two or three years, and many of our friends disagree with this and they’re certainly entitled to their own perspective, but I have said that where you have an incredibly important moral issue like the killing of unborn children, the notion that we should take the lesser of two evils in order to gain in other ways, is a compromise that I personally can’t lend my name to. When people have said that to me, I’ve asked this question: Suppose the year were 1860, and let’s suppose both political candidates for the presidential office were strongly in favor of slavery. But let’s suppose one of them was more fiscally conservative than the other. Would you give him your vote? Would you vote for a person who believed in the involuntary servitude of another human being, allowing them to be bought and sold like cattle, and depriving them of basic human rights because that candidate believed in smaller government and lower taxes? I couldn’t do it, and it’s on that level that I say, “I won’t do it now.”
“I am committed never again to cast a vote for a politician who would kill one innocent baby… Never will I use my influence, however remotely, to support the shedding of their blood.” Dr. James Dobson, March 1995 FOTF Newsletter.
Preacher Man on 23 Nov 2009 at 12:06 am #
Dr. Dobson claims to be a Biblical literalist yet he condemns slavery in his quote. He must not have read the Bible he says he believes is the literal Word of God because the Bible does not condemn slavery. The Bible regulates slavery in several passages. Dobson needs to read his Bible, then read Dabney, then repent for slandering God by calling sin what God does not condemn.
Weaver on 23 Nov 2009 at 1:24 am #
Belloc has some insight on slavery as well.
Patroon on 24 Nov 2009 at 7:27 pm #
Apparently Rod Dreher noticed this as well in this post on Front Porch Republic: http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=7247:
Rod Dreher calls attention to The New York Times which has a piece describing a coalition of religious leaders who are pledging to defy the federal government. From the NYT:
“Citing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s call to civil disobedience, 145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration saying they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples.
“We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence,” it says.
This is exactly the kind of pushback that needs to happen from a variety of centers. It is a kind of “make-weight” to which I referred here. States could do the same sort of thing. The best (only?) way to stop the persistent encroachment of power is to resist it.
I couldn’t agree more. Let’s have more make-weight’s please.
Mariel on 27 Nov 2009 at 9:41 am #
That DOES bother me that God does not condemn slavery. What to do?
Resign from Biblical Christianity? Seriously, this is a problem.