I heard about The Manhattan Declaration through Twitter and FB and then on Christianity Today, so I read it to see what was being said and I read through the list of those who were invited to sign it to see who was officially on board.Here's the opening set of claims:
A CALL OF CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE
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:
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.
Here are my first thoughts:
First, I agree with the moral stands: I'm against abortion, I'm for marriage between a man and a woman and I do not support same-sex marriages, and I'm surely also for civil and religious liberties. I'm also for agitating for what one believes is right, and I'm also for tolerance for the views of others, even if those views become laws and even if I disagree deeply.
Second, not only do I agree with these basics, but I really do like their opening descriptions of the Christian conscience (on the full statement linked above) and how Christians have addressed key issues in the history of Western civilization. I like that they link the poor to the unborn; that is an important moral argument -- the Eikonic status of the unborn. I like that they fight for the sanctity of marriage.
Third, I also agree that society's numbers show that more are against abortion than for and that we, as believers in representation and the voice of the public, need to let the people speak. Furthermore, I support the belief that while Obama says he is opposed to abortion at the personal level but finds it defensible under current laws (Roe v. Wade) his policies have only increased the chances of abortion and not decreased them.
Fourth, I am concerned about a culture of death -- about both stem-cell research and where it "might" lead (I think we need to avoid a slippery slope necessity here) and the issues surrounding euthanasia have within the possibility of mandating the necessity of hospitals to conform and they are too often framed in ways that do not support the culture of life. I want us to have laws that respect the sanctity of life.
Fifth, I totally agree on the rock-bottom sanctity and cultural significance of marriage and family. I appreciate their willingness to admit and confess complicity in a culture that has degraded marriage and family. I would love to hear from The Manhattan Declaration inner circle how they intend to give legs to their commitments to spreading the influence of sound marriages and healthy families. Their commitment to refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who participate in sexual sins is a notable statement. I like that they connect marriage to the procreative element -- a historic position of the Church -- and not just to the romantic element. This commitment to procreation and the care for the procreated is inherent to marriage.
Sixth, and I agree that movements now in culture and in legal circles should not lead to demanding and mandating that hospitals and doctors and churches and parachurch organizations conform against religious conscience.
Finally, because of the above points and because this is from a widespread group of Christian leaders, because I respect those who have signed it and those who drafted it, because it is ecumenical both on the basis of the great tradition and on the basis of shared moral values, because they have overtly claimed this is not just a partisan statement -- and there are folks from both sides of the political spectrum on their list -- and because they are not claiming these moral statements about abortion and marriage are the only central moral issues of our day, I hereby publicly endorse The Manhattan Declaration.
I hope you will join me or at least join us in a conversation.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
That would be me in 76
Mike M.,
My main concern is the jurisprudence issue, which is in play however the various signers are grounding their moral intuitions. But you raise an interesting question. The signers appeal in general to the light of reason and so on but do not explicitly cite one moral theory or meta-ethic versus another. Implicitly, I'm aware of how the Catholic neoconservatives and bishops employ natural law reasoning, but I'd like to know how other signers are implicitly or explicitly making their case vis a vis various other theories, which might be variously more vs less compelling to most people in our pluralistic society.
In the Frequently Asked Questions at manhattandeclaration.org a question and answer are posed, affirming natural law:
"There are plenty of people of other religious faiths that would agree with your stands. Why is the Manhattan Declaration a statement by Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and Evangelical Christians?
There are indeed people of many faiths who agree with our stands, and we applaud and honor them, and pledge to labor together with them in a true spirit of brotherhood for justice and the common good. Robert George has said: "For too long, the historic traditions of Catholicism, Evangelical Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy have failed to speak formally with a united voice, despite their deep agreement on fundamental questions of morality, justice, and the common good. The Manhattan Declaration provided leaders of these traditions with an opportunity to rectify that. It is gratifying that they were willing--indeed eager--to seize that opportunity. Of course, as Cardinal Justin Rigali observed at the press conference at which the Declaration was released, the foundational principles it defends ‘are not the unique preserve of any particular Christian community or of the Christian tradition as a whole....They are principles that can be known and honored by men and women of goodwill even apart from divine revelation. They are principles of right reason and natural law.’ So the signatories are happy to stand alongside our LDS brothers and sisters who have worked so heroically in the cause of defending marriage, our Jewish brothers and sisters, members of other faiths, and people of no particular faith (even pro-life atheists such as the great Nat Hentoff), who affirm our principles and wish to join us in proclaiming and defending them."
See: Frequently Asked Questions
In an article earlier this year in First Things,Reforming Natural Law, J. Daryl Charles reviews Stephen J. Grabill's "Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics" and describes, within the history of Protestantism, "a broad consensus that rejects the natural law as a metaphysical notion rooted in divine revelation." He suggests that the "general reason for the bias against natural-law thinking is the anti-metaphysical predisposition of much nineteenth-century German thought that exerted itself on the Protestant mainstream well into the twentieth century."
I wonder if all the signatories of the MD would sign on to this FAQ.
Great post, I signed it as well. It's time for us to be heard as one voice.
The first words of the first two paragraphs are "Christians" and "we." The remainder of the document explains that these two words are meant to join Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Evangelicals together as fellow-Christians. Indeed, even the Papal Edicts of the 16th and 17th centuries are deemed as contributing to the cause of Christ. Were the authors thinking of the Counsel of Trent which anathematized the Gospel?
What divides biblical Christianity from Roman Catholicism is not simply matters of "ecclesial differences" but the issue of the Gospel itself. Rome teaches a false, soul-damning gospel of works-righteousness. Unless the Reformation was a colossal mistake, and the Protestant martyrs died in vain, then for any true Christian to sign this document is a betrayal of Christ and the Gospel.
The Gospel is our true power to change human hearts and effect change in the social issues the Declaration addresses, but it is this very Gospel that is sacrificed for the sake of pragmatic ecumenism.
Count me out.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.