Tag Archive for 'evangelical_churches'

Christian “Manhattan Declaration” Hit and Miss

Written by Colin. Published on November 23, 2009 ago in Apologetics, Politics and Religion. 46 Comments

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.

Critiquing the Modern Church

Written by Bryan. Published on August 21, 2007 ago in Emerging Church and Religion. 9 Comments
This entry is part 2 of 6 in the series Changing Church

The critique of the church that is the most broad in scope is that it has embraced a modern world view, divorcing itself from the way church has been done in the past. This critique goes beyond the idea that the church should minister to those in the culture around it by being relevant to that culture. It’s argument is that a large part of the North American church today has become to identify the church of modernity with the way church must be, and there can be no other.

An example may be helpful here. Someone may argue that, given the modern culture around us, the church should produce apologetic arguments based on science and rationality as that is the language and world view that the world around us understands. This would be a way of making the church relevant to the current culture. Another person however may go further and say that the only apologetic arguments that the church can use is those grounded on science and rationality and begin to read, understand, and identify only with a Christianity that fits within the rational and scientific understanding of Christianity. That would be identifying “The Church” as a modern church.

Often the line between the two practices is blurred. A practice may be adopted by a church because it best ministers to the community around them, but as the generation which adopted it begins to die out and the next generation takes over the church, the practice is maintained simply because that is what they have always understood church to be.

It is important, therefore, to look critically at the practices of local evangelical churches. Worship bands, alter calls, baby dedications, greeting time (the list could go on)…are all ways that various churches have sought to put biblical teachings into a specific cultural and philosophical world view; the modern world view. Arguments can be made for how biblical or unbiblical these practices are, however, that is not the point here. We must first recognize that these practices are a way that the church has sought to be relevant to a particular culture; the church should not hold these practices as the only way to do church.

As I noted in the first entry in this series, one of the ways advocated by some in the church to counter this identification with modernity is to revive practices from the pre-modern church. There is certainly some merit to this position. Reviving such practices will encourage the church to understand itself as neither pre-modern, modern, or post-modern, but as a universal object with different instantiations in different times. However, caution must be exercised not to begin to identify the church only with historical practices and rejected the modern church as it has done to the historical church.