A group of Christian leaders from Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical churches have signed a seven page declaration which is supposed to affirm an adherence to certain biblical principles which have recently become hot button political issues in the United States:
- the sanctity of human life
- the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
- the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
Here is a short clip from Fox News:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwMDuMAXoj4&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
The group argues that these are “fundamental truths” not so much about God or about conduct within his church, but rather pertain to: “justice and the common good… to human dignity and the well-being of society.”
This is the beginning of what is surely theologically dangerous language. Why do leaders in the church feel the need to make statements and adhere to declarations which apply to the entire secular culture? It is not our job as Christians to threaten civil disobedience for “the common good” – we are to do it for the glory of God and the magnification of his name – among the nations. We are not called to change the behaviour of the nations.
In fact, when a nation simply focusses on changing behaviour without conversion – this is called hypocrisy. When religions leaders are calling for changes of behaviour of non-believers without the essential and fundamental application of the gospel – it is Phariseeism.
I am not saying this declaration is “bad” or that there are not right principles in it. However, it is advertised as primarily a tool for social change, not for conversion of souls. That is a distraction.
It would have been much better to make a declaration affirming Christian’s responsibility to evangelise and to share the gospel, knowing that aside from the essential fruit of salvation and eternal life – believing and trusting in Jesus Christ and repentance from sin will necessary transform this world for the better.
What the Declaration Gets Right
There is also emphasis in the declaration on affirming our duty to God above the state. This is entirely appropriate – and can not be stated enough:
…that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.
This is correct. The modern state, being an authority structure fundamentally and definitionally opposed to Christian principles and the authority of God, is always a threat to Christianity. It is not a complimentary organisation, as many misreadings of Romans 13 would indicate, but rather it is in direct competition with God. Christians should often assert their desire to follow God and his kingdom when these two entities inevitably come into conflict.
Most governments right now permit much religious liberty – but even this language reveals the problem: religious liberty is not a “permission” from the state. The right to worship God comes from him – and he rules over all the earth and all that is in it. The state has no right to dictate what is permissible or not in this arena. The state has no authority here.
Summary
Nevertheless, it is not good to confuse religious liberty, which is a negative right (being free from aggression against us) into a positive right (being entitled to force our customs and behaviours onto others). This declaration conflates these two kinds of rights. We should be affirming our right to not be aggressed against, but we must avoid language which changes “sharing the gospel” – an act consistent with salvation by faith, human freedom and voluntary choice – into “affirming the state’s role to enforce our values in civic life.” We have no right to do this. It is idolatry.
I read the Manhattan Declaration. It’s true that, as Colin says, the group mentions that these truths pertain to “justice and the common good… to human dignity and the well-being of society.” But the document also makes clear that this justice and common good flows from God’s established order:
The truths laid out in the Manhattan Declaration apply to everyone. It is appropriate for the document to call upon everyone, not just believers, to affirm the truth.
Finally, I’m glad to see that the Manhattan Declaration makes clear several times the need for evangelizing and for converting souls. While the document itself is not evangelistic, it recognizes that “it is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season.”
As for me, I would probably sign the document. I could nitpick and find some bit of incidental language in the document that I don’t like, but on the whole, it affirms the truth. These three issues (sanctity of life, marriage, and religious freedom) are issues that every Christian in America will have to deal with. I’m already faced with a sanctity of life dilemma: there are some standard childhood vaccines that are manufactured using stem cell lines from aborted babies. There are no alternative vaccines available in America for some of them. So do I get my son vaccinated or not?
Seems like doing this for the common good might be a way of expressing love to our neighbor. If you truly believe that the world with abortion and gay marriage creates a detrimental society that is more difficult and painful for all people to live in, then it is loving to try to influence culture to adopt norms that are good for all people.
i especially like the explanation of “negative” and “positive” rights. The distinction is crucial for thinkers to see lines that many don’t notice as significant.
Colin, you might want to check out John the Baptist. He preached the Gospel AND demanded that Herod change his lifestyle. Seems that Jesus is Lord of ALL, not just Christians.
About time Christians stood up for the persecuted as has been the history of the church since its inception. I don’t see there being an issue with the language of the document as the intent and thesis of it are in my opinion a direct witness for what God calls us to do. I would suggest that anyone who questions the basic truths of the Word go and read Revelation and the letter to the church of Laodecia(sp?). Luke warm faith is no faith at all – it is even described as something that like bad food Christ will spit out!!! Stand up or sit down. Make your intentions clear – I have more respect for a man who pronounces his complete lack of faith than one who shows up in his Sunday best and shows well on Sunday but the other 6 days is a scoundrel!!!
From a secular viewpoint – a world view if you will – My judgement is our Judeo Christian heritage and the impetus of the founding of our great country under these principles is being heavily compromised by half truths, poor theology, bad civic policy, a government that is anything but a representation of the people and for the people and in general a laziness on the part of our citizens who clamour for entitlements and what their “god” can do for them rather than what we in good conscience are called upon by the Craator to do.
I agree with the assessemnt above that I could go on and nitpik the language which is a waste of time in my judgement and lose sight of the intent and overarching theme of the declaration.
May anyone who has conscience read and sign this document as the Spirit leads.
Darius, there is a difference between a) asking someone to change their lifestyle, saying their lifestyle is sinful or telling them the consequences of their sinful lifestyle and b) getting the police or the government to MAKE them stop sinning.
“A” is perfectly acceptable as a Christian – and is, in fact, what we should be doing with all sin – regardless of who does it. Telling people about sin, and helping them to understand their own personal sin, is essential in sharing the gospel.
“B” is not a Christian attitude and is not biblical. I am not saying it is “unbibilcal” but it is not biblical.
Luke – I appreciate the thoughtful response. There is no question that the motives behind the declaration are just and correct. What I am arguing is that the actions it threatens to take – civil disobedience – are not appropriate for some of the truths it defends. Second, some of these truths should not be in the realm of government power – we should accomplish these through entirely non-coercive means.
Colin,
why are you trying to bring disruption to the biblical TRUTHS that WE as christians need to be concerned with and stand up for.
Please as a brother in Christ I beg you to spend more time with the Lord and less time tring to bring division to believers.
In Christs love,
Dan
Jew – I agree that the declaration is somewhat singable. But it claims not to be a politically ideological document, yet much of the document is political ideology, not religious.
(The rest of this is not a direct response to Jew, but some groundwork that I hop backs up my broader point)
It reads like a standard Republican/Christian document:
As if George W. Bush or the republicans have been friends of the pro-life view. Compared to most democrats, they are, of course. But in any less relativistic sense, they are both bad on abortion in terms of their policies. The GOP had a chance when they were a majority to overturn Roe in one fell swoop and they didn’t.
The document declares that the legal domain is fair game for tampering with voluntary institutions like marriage. That it is also in the “legal domain” to propagandise children about Christian values of marriage.
Standard GOP rhetoric here.
The legal definition is irrelevant. Making people’s sin “illegal” is pointless. Revealing their sin as sin, however, is a Christian duty.
Also, I am a little suspicious of the “evangelising” language. I wonder if it is not arguing that “the gospel” is in some way related to adopting these behavioural changes. The language in the document definitely leaves that possibility open.
Dan – we need to stand up for them in the right way – the biblical way. Just because our ends are correct does not mean we can ignore the means. We must call sin sin and stand up for the truth – we must not set ourselves up as police, however, and MAKE people stop sinning by legal interference.
That’s the part that stood out to me as being rather too political. The rest of the document seemed just political enough, in the sense that politics affects the everyday lives of Christians and so it must be addressed.
“The legal definition [of marriage] is irrelevant.”
That used to be my position, and I agree to a point. Marriage as God created it is not affected by what the state of California or the United States government says. But the legal definition does matter because the law, in this case, is being used as a tool to influence the public understanding of what marriage is. The real issue here isn’t the law, it’s standing up for what’s right. If we accept the redefinition of marriage, even just for legal purposes, we have compromised on the truth and extended a level of acceptance–however small–to sin.
There’s a reason why the gay community won’t settle for civil unions, and it’s not just the legal protections. Gay marriage is about accepting and affirming that lifestyle as valid and right. Legalizing gay marriage is a symbol that says “This society approves and endorses your lifestyle.” As a Christian, I cannot approve, and inasmuch as I am part of this society, I do not wish to see it approve of sin.
Hey Colin, if you have time, maybe you could write up a Colin Declaration. Sort of your own version of the Manhattan Declaration, addressing the same social issues but from what you consider a more biblical perspective.
I agree we must call sin sin and we must not set ourselves up as police but if it comes down to it and we have to pick a side… Eat the meat and spit out the bones, rather than not signing something that will let the world know that we are making a stand for Christ and under NO circumstances will we render to Ceasar what is the Lords.
Luke Simmons – “If you truly believe that the world with abortion and gay marriage creates a detrimental society that is more difficult and painful for all people to live in, then it is loving to try to influence culture to adopt norms that are good for all people.”
Right. Can’t have the gays getting married, that would ruin everything!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY
This declaration brings me encouragement and hope for the ENTIRE body of Christ. If saving the lives of defenseless babies isn’t a good enough justification for “civil disobedience” I don’t know what is. We should have written this declaration back in 1973. Besides signing this declaration we can start making a difference NOW by being better stewards of our money (e.g. unsubscribing to HBO).
Jew, do you wish to outlaw adultery then? That’s a sin as well and has a much greater impact on other people than gay marriage.
I’m thankful Christian leaders in this country have finally made a definitive stand for their faith. I pray that many others in our Laodecian cultural Christianity will wake up and do the same. In response to previous comments I don’t feel that the authors of this document are calling for civil disobedience but rather affirming that should the situation arise when the laws of the state violate the infallible word of God, that we should obey God rather than man.We see this throughout the Bible, from Daniel, to the 3 Hebrew boys, Jesus Christ Himself, the Church in Acts, The Apostle Paul. You can even look to the underground Church in China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, all these places where preaching the Gospel is illegal. I believe the Bible is clear that this type of “Civil disobedience” is not only acceptable, but glorifies God.
” It is not our job as Christians to threaten civil disobedience for “the common good” – we are to do it for the glory of God and the magnification of his name – among the nations.”
Ugh. The phrase “the common good” is code for “do it for the glory of God and the magnification of his name among the nations.”
Please, Colin, pay better attention to what’s going on.
Jasen, no, I’m not in favor of outlawing adultery. I’m not in favor of outlawing homosexuality, either.
Jason, sin is sin and NO ONE here hates Homosexuals. Quit trying to put words in peoples mouth. But if sin is sin we need to make a stance against homosexuality. NOT homosexuals, no one is attacking them as people here. Read your bible dude!
Jesus loved on and hung out with sinners, but by no means did he let them think that their sin was ok. He made the ultimate stand against sin. If we are called to be ambassadors of Christ than we MUST make a stance against sin. No if and or but.
(Colin:) “there is a difference between a) asking someone to change their lifestyle, saying their lifestyle is sinful or telling them the consequences of their sinful lifestyle and b) getting the police or the government to MAKE them stop sinning.”
I definitely agree that, in general, b) is unbiblical. But what about situations in which someone’s sin injures another person? Shouldn’t we use the police and the government to protect against murder in all its forms? And isn’t civil disobedience justified in cases where human life is in danger. I would point to the example of the Hebrew midwives in Exodus 1 who deceived and disobeyed the civil authority to protect the Hebrew children. The passage does not leave us uncertain of God’s opinion of their actions: “So God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own.” (v. 21). Abortion seems like the perfect example of a situation where the government should protect the weak through restraining force — and if it fails or contradicts this mandate, civil disobedience appears justified. In this case, the motive would not be to theocratically impose a standard of behavior on a secular culture through law but to protect the innocent from death. Do you disagree?
(Colin:) “The legal definition [of marriage] is irrelevant.”
(Jew:) “That used to be my position, and I agree to a point. Marriage as God created it is not affected by what the state of California or the United States government says. But the legal definition does matter because the law, in this case, is being used as a tool to influence the public understanding of what marriage is.”
This is an issue I’m currently wrestling with, and I am interested in the debate. If you asked me last month, I would have agreed with Colin, but now I’m coming to see the logic of Jew’s position. I don’t think the legal definition of marriage is irrelevant; rather, I don’t think there should even be a legal definition of marriage. It is the duty of the church, not the law, to uphold and exhibit God’s ideal in marriage. But as long as there exists a legal definition for marriage, it unfortunately does inform society’s beliefs about the institution. Young children especially look to rules and laws for moral grounding (though they may try to break them all the time). I remember when I was a kid and Clinton was president, I could not bring myself to disrespect him or think he could be wrong — he was the President, how could he be wrong?! — even though my parents constantly disagreed with his policies and actions. This is the kind of power the law has over kids, and it’s hard for Christian parents to compete with that kind of power in shaping the worldview of their children.
However, I agree that courts and legislatures are not the arenas where marriage will be saved. The Holy Spirit must enable Christians to clean up the church’s mess on marriage so that we can live out God’s ideal. By God’s grace, we will again be a city on a hill, and secular society will take note of the superiority of God’s design and long for it in their own lives. As such, I think the government should not use the word marriage. If necessary, it can confer certain tax benefits and civil rights on qualifying couples, but we should try as much as we can to strip the government of its pedagogical power in using the word marriage, and transfer that power back to the church. What do you think?
I never said anyone here hates anybody. Talk about putting words in people’s mouths.
Bill R. said:
Well said Bill. I agree. If they put me in charge, I’d get the government out of the marriage business entirely. That’s not the reality we live in, though, so we have to muddle through as best we can.
what was meant by ” can’t have the gays getting married that would ruin everything”. no one said that at all. so please exlain what you meant by that then. cause to everyone else it sounded kinda like you were twisting something someone said.
I apologize for being disrespectful, I just don’t understand the wimpy Christainity today. Bottom line, the bible is truth it’s what we as followers of Christ have to hold everything up against to test. I do not mean to attack anyone I am sorry Jason.
we totally agree that our savior’s teachings should be paramount firstly in our hearts and certainly in our actions especially when our elected officials use their office to attempt to overcome our lord’s teachings.
“If they put me in charge, I’d get the government out of the marriage business entirely.”
Jew, don’t you think, though, that it’s in the government’s best interest to promote marriage (for many reasons)?
It seems to me that there are some differences here. It is one thing for the ‘Church’ (regardless of belief) to impose morality upon the State; it is a completely different thing for the ‘State’ (regardless of government) to attempt to tell the ‘Church’ what it should/should not believe/practice. If the ‘State’ attempts to legalize such things that are considered wrong by people of faith and in so doing attempt to force said people of faith to in essence change their faith because the state says so, then what has happened to the concept of separation of church and state?
Does not the state then become God? It is arguable that the state does protect people; there have been some odd ‘religious’ groups around. But does it logically follow that any ‘religious’ affiliation is bad, and that one should obey only the ‘State’? Should religious convictions be set aside because some are offended? What happens when people of faith are offended because they are asked to believe/act outside of their faith by the ‘State’?
Didnt the pilgrims come to this continent to escape such oppression?
Darius: “Jew, don’t you think, though, that it’s in the government’s best interest to promote marriage (for many reasons)?”
I’m libertarian-minded, so I would prefer a small government that does not promote any sort of social agenda, even if it’s a good one. There are a lot of good reasons to promote marriage, though. God invented marriage and he didn’t make it for no reason. It’s what human beings are created for, and it’s no surprise that societies work best when healthy marriages are valued and promoted.
Jew – thanks for the additional thoughts. I can empathise with the slightly more pragmatic view you have, and I think you’ve articulately why you think the way you do.
I think the compromise might be to have statements from churches and other non-government organisations that re-affirm our duty as Christians to call sin out for what it is – including homosexuality.
I would even think it is fine for Christian organisations to endorse candidates which sign pledges not to use the state to promote sinful activities.
But I would still be against the federal government taking a Christian position against homosexual marriage. As Christians, we should be radically opposed to state action which promotes or encourages sin especially. We must fight it at every place possible. But we must make sure we are always waging a defensive battle with regards to the state – defending against force being used against us. We must avoid going on the offensive, unless it be with the sword of the spirit and the word of God – we must not try to use the weapon of the state.
I find it interesting that the declaration begins by painting Christianity as progressive in the Renaissance period, but then proceeds to promote an outdated (natural) theology, a warmed over Common Sense Realism, and one group’s own ‘fashionable’ beliefs. It might as well cite the Canon Law definition of marriage (‘Canon 1061.1 A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.’) and exclude both intersex couples (which differs from transsexual) and normal, heterosexual couples who marry knowing that they are unable to reproduce. In short, I find this declaration a really poor, outdated political theology that is masquerading as a stance against ‘relativism’.
Well said Colin.
My declaration would go something like this (Though I’ve thought about this for five minutes or so). And I would use a lot more flowery language and details. But the gist is:
Tubes, please explain to me where you get this. In what context has “the common good” ever meant “the glory of God?” One is talking about for the good of humanity, one is talking about the glory of God. Apples and oranges, mate.
Bill, thanks for the really thoughtful comments. Obviously, were dealing with a complicated issue – especially with abortion.
I think that, assuming that the state exists to protect against crimes: things like murder, fraud, theft, etc…, and abortion is murder, which is a crime, then the state should be protecting the unborn.
I’m realising that I should have made that clear. Homosexuality and abortion are completely different because one is a crime and the other is not a crime.
I also want to add that we accept submissions on this site – which has multiple authors. If you have a few paragraphs of thoughts on this issue – whether in agreement or disagreement – it might be nice to feature them.
They will go through an editorial process and we cannot publish anything, but we have had some great guest posts and several people who have come to this site commenting on articles like this, have ended up as regular contributors.
Please send them along to me:
colin[-at-}zealfortruth{-dot-]org (hopefully they make it through the spam filter)
Colin, I agree with your declarations, but also agree with Jew’s view that the entire POINT of government recognized “same sex” marriages is that government is encouraging sinful behavior. I have no objection to “civil unions” that allow any pair of individuals marriage like legal status, but this should also be available to a single man and his aging mother or siblings wishing to share medical benefits.
Dan, I was responded to (mocking, if you prefer) a previous comment.
Which was, “If you truly believe that the world with abortion and gay marriage creates a detrimental society that is more difficult and painful for all people to live in.”
You know i am not from America but I am from a country in South East Asia. A place very far away from America. Perhaps this helps me to see things better as it is a view from afar, i mean when you stand back and look you avoid a myopic view of things. You see I have no problem accepting the declaration because it states the obvious and the natural. What? you may ask. Well isn’t it natural that marriage is between a man and a woman and not for any same 2 sex. For me this argument about homosexual right to be married legally is absurd and ridiculous from the point of procreation. One may argue that there is the artificial insemination and so forth..well the name speaks for itself, “artificial” meaning it is not natural i.e meaning not intended by nature. Just because there are more homosexual people around now than before does not make homosexual behaviour right nor does it qualify homosexuals to a right which never existed in the first place. It is just like arguing that there are more criminals now than before so we ought to legalise criminal behaviour. And they have the cheek to invent the word “homophobia” to label those who stand for right thinking ad right morals so as to make such people guilty of a crime or wrong. Absurdity.
I agree with your post on two counts:
Christians, acting as Christians, especially as representatives of denominations and churches, should not try to impose their beliefs on nonchristians. However, as private individual citizens, they have the right to support any legislation in line with their beliefs and values.
We should not be using the power of the state to further our agenda. That is a wrongheaded and wrong approach. We should work within the process laid out in the Constitution to try to get just laws enacted. We should practice civil disobedience, if necessary, if unjust laws are enacted. However, we should not create a theocracy with morality police and everything.
you all have it wrong! this is a declaration! not a call to change people or the state. we, (I include myself, since I signed it) are just declaring our beliefs and the reasons behind why we believe what we do. I feel like a First Century Christian! it has come this far, that we, as Christian’s must, need and should uphold our beliefs in this ever changing country. we are looked upon with disdain because of our belief in our Lord Jesus Christ. Quit arguing about how it is written, and that we are trying to change the laws, people, or the state, (we all know that comes with prayer and conversion.) We MUST take a stand! and that is what this “delaration” is all about.
Sharon, the irony is that you’re not a first century Christian. Not only that, but you cannot be (we live in very different contexts) and you should not be. However, if you were a first century Christian, you would be discussing much more than just homosexuality as there were strong debates on whether to accept the OT texts as authoritative (most people fail to mention that Marcion was by far the most popular teaching in Christendom at his time), whether Jesus was both human and divine, etc. Oh, and let’s not forget the common practices of polygamy (which died out earlier on) and premarital sex (which stayed around Christianity up to the 17th century!). You talk about standing firm and upholding beliefs but it sounds like you’re failing to notice how much those ‘firm beliefs’ have changed over time. That’s why this declaration — like many other actions of American political theologies — is really poor theology: it tries to make situated, contextual beliefs into timeless, immutable laws while ignoring its own genealogy. One might as well affirm that sex without the intent of procreation is sinful. Oh wait, someone’s beaten us there…
Hey Colin,
Thanks for the compliment and the invitation. I appreciate what I’ve seen so far of this blog: a Christ-centered perspective on pressing issues without an overly political approach or a prior commitment to strictly conservative or liberal ideology. It’s refreshing to visit a site where politics is not touted as the Solution for Everything or the Christian’s Last Stand.
I am theoretically interested in submitting something for this blog (I say theoretically because I may not have enough free time, as I am a grad student), but I’d like to learn more about your focus. What types of issues do you generally cover here? Are purely doctrinal discussions acceptable, or should they be related to current events/government/society? For example, would a discussion of, say, morality under a theistic vs. an atheistic framework be something you would feature, or is that too irrelevant? Also, I know next to nothing about libertarianism, but to what extent does a libertarian outlook influence the content of this blog?
If you want a sample of my writing/thinking on the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, check out this post on my personal blog (http://loveplustruth.blogspot.com/2009/10/working-out-truth-and-love-in-context_29.html). I started the blog about a month ago in order to organize my own thoughts, and it is very much a work in progress. Let me know if you think it is appropriate (or could be made so with some vigorous editing). I fear that post is way too long to be featured here, and I suspect I would be preaching to the choir anyway (though I could be wrong!) since the post deals only with marriage in the church, and not in secular law. If you’re interested in an opinion regarding secular law and same-sex marriage, then unfortunately I have more questions than answers on that topic.
Bill, let me know if you do not receive my email.
In practice, the Puritans didn’t really mind religious oppression, as long as they got to do the oppressing, and others, like the Quakers, got to be the oppressed.