The Manhattan Declaration

[Nate]

I had seen this mentioned in a few places so decided to read it myself this morning, since I woke up earlier than normal and didn't need to do anything for an hour.

Read the declarationif you have a chance.

For starters, my beef with it certainly isn't the same as Pastor John MacArthur's...and I actually disagree with some parts of it that Scot McKnight likes.

*Begin Rant*

My main beef is around the idea of marriage being between a man and a woman. I've worked in the real world long enough to see gay and lesbian people who do not appear to have "chosen" their "lifestyle". I did say real world ... because sometimes I think that Christians live in their own communities and never venture out meeting others different than themselves. I've met and befriended through work or mission trips several in their 50s and 60's. The 60 year old who I have worked with told me about being ostracized by his entire family many years ago. Yeah, that was easy I'm sure. Well, good thing he only "tried" gay for a few years and then went back. No, wait a minute. He's still gay. My belief is they were born that way, that they should be allowed to have a loving relationship with all the legal benefits that normal marriage grants. I believe it is discriminatory otherwise.

Having said that, I'll elaborate on another point that I think is a confusing proposition in the declaration.

Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being—the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual— on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation. That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation.

It seems (unless I misread it) that the declarers want to have their cake and eat it to. They say marriage is for procreation. But they also say if you're infertile you can't get divorced. Balderdash man! Let's keep it simple here. If a straight married couple is unable to have kids, what's the difference between them and a gay or lesbian couple?

Elements of the Church have a lot of work to go yet in getting over this abhorrence of gay couples...who...it seems to me were created by the same God who created infertile couples.

*Rant over*

[russ]

I've been in some pretty involved discussion regarding the Manhattan Declaration (MD) in another forum. I don't have time to post my thoughts here right this minute, but I will try to later today. I also have issues with the MD, and mine are also very different from John MacArthur's. My primary problem with the MD is related to yours, Nate, and yet still different. More later...

[msh]

Russ,

Care to reveal your "other forum"? I frequent three but two of them need to be replaced.

Will comment on the MD at some later point.

[Nate]

I'm interested in both of your thoughts on the the Declaration when you have time.

[russ]

OK guys, sorry for the delay... the other 'forum' I was referring too was Denny Burk's blog. I comment there fairly regularly. I find Denny's politically hyper-right wing, Reformed Baptist underpinnings to be so much silliness... which, of course, makes it fun.

The link above to his blog will actually take you to a very interesting thread on the MD. It centers around the homosexuality issue, but it's not a debate about what the bible says about homosexuality. There is agreement on that. The issue is how our Christian belief regarding such should, in practice, play out in our civic voice. And, this is the fundamental issue I have with the MD. I struggle greatly with my concern that our 'cry' to legislate in the area of certain Christian principles compromises our gospel mandate. Add in the issues that the 'Christian right' tend to push that can't be biblicaly supported (pro-war, anti-gun control, anti-welfare, etc...) and it's no surprise that 'our' voice has become so marginalized. To lose 'our' political voice is too bad, to lose our 'gospel voice' is an unthinkable tragedy. And we should be ashamed.

Here is an excerpt from one of my comments on that thread:

Something has been rumbling around in my head ever since Denny’s post on the singular effectiveness of the voice of the the ‘Christian right’ in the abortion debate. I keep thinking… of all the different political issues associated with conservative Christianity, is abortion not the most vital and most unequivocal in its Christian moral imperative? Maybe that is why it finds the most resonance.

I have grown more and more disgusted over the years with ‘Christian voter guides’ that suppose to tell me how to vote as a Christian on any number of issues, as if being anti-gun control is as incontrovertibly biblical or Christian a position as standing against the slaughter of unborn babies.

I have been wondering. If ‘we’ want to end the killing of babies in this nation, what if it would mean giving up all of ‘our’ other issues (for a time), to focus on that issue that is most clear and most imminent?

I guess what I’m saying in the context of the MD is, I wonder how much more of a powerhouse this document might have been if it had reserved itself to the life issue.

Now... another disgusting, disgusting element of the unfolding MD discussion is all the posturing regarding the idea that the document implies any Christian unity (heaven forbid) between Evangelicals (like Al Mohler and Denny Burk) who signed the document and Catholic and Orthodox authors and signers. Some, like Dr. John MacArthur won't sign, and felt it necessary to express why, with an emphasis on his view that Catholics and Orthodox Christians aren't of the same faith as he, and he wouldn't want anyone to mistakenly see unity where there is still division.

Yipee.

If that is so, Dr. MacGrinch, then 'given the choice between the two of you, I'd take the seasick crocodile!' (Sorry... couldn't resist the Christmastime Grinch reference.) To clarify... if I had to choose between Dr. Mac's brand of Protestantism and Catholicism, then I'm putting on my suit to swim the Tiber. Fortunately, I don't have to make such a choice, and that is the point. I embrace the Catholic and Reformed Baptist Popes both as brothers in Christ.

Even worse to me though, are those who did sign the MD now circling back to assure everyone that their signage of the document does not imply a common faith with Rome (or Constantinople). Don't worry everyone! You can rest easy! The rumors of Christian unity spawned by the MD are greatly exaggerated. We are still divided!!! Well, what a relief.

I have to admit that as discouraging as it is... it is a little fun to see how it all shakes out. The Evangelical signers of the document tend to be under the big tent of the 'religious right' which can be characterized by political activism, and sometimes, anti-Catholicism. Yikes! What's a self-respecting modern Separatist to do!? Who's right-wing political activism will trump their Calvinist anti-Catholicism (Denny, Al Mohler)? Who's anti-Catholicism will overpower their normal political instincts (John MacArthur)?

[msh]

I have to agree that I think MacArthur completely missed the boat. And I am not going to discuss it from the perspective of whether within the Christian context we should open up marriage, so Scot McKnight’s comments are irrelevant.

What irks me most is the foundational arguments upon which their declaration to get the world to do it their way are entirely un-Christian.

Let’s start with this one:

To strengthen families, we must stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the profound beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love.

Who is the “we” that is glamorizing all of this and needs to restore a sense of [right living] among its young? It should only refer to the Christian community. And if that is the “we” I sure hope we aren’t glamorizing those things. But if the “we” is the world, then what do you expect?

That is the reason we are sent out as salt and light. We were not sent to be shackles and gallows; or kings and dictators over the unsaved. What kind of gospel do we declare when we fight the world to make them live our way without the benefit of the One who we claim we cannot do it without?

The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential.

As far as what is legal for the purposes of the law, it may legitimately do exactly that. The only thing it may not do is define for the church what it must accept as marriage. And, once again, I am not getting into that discussion at this time.

Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel. In Acts 4, Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching. Their answer was, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required.

The first sentence is excellent. We never compromise the proclamation of the gospel. But what is this “civil disobedience” that Christianity has taught for centuries? Where it was in opposition to requirements to give up faith, or to cease proclaiming the good news, it has merit. And the various examples of “crusades” to change society given in various places in the MD — women’s rights, abolition of slavery, full rights and equality for blacks, etc., — are examples of the best Christian thinkers getting involved with issues of freedom for all people, not just Christians. And in each of those cases, there were many Christians engaged in bitter debate against those freedoms.

But here the issue is not something that is (now) clearly a “Christian” improvement to society, but something that society has decided is an improvement that is “clearly” not Christian. In fact, the only similarity between the things being “declared” in this document and those prior advancements spearheaded by (among others) Christians is that Christians are ranting about it. The others gave freedoms to society. This one seeks to limit freedoms. (We will not argue the position of the unborn at this time. That is clearly a question of theology and less clearly a question of science or society.)

We still have the freedom to hold our members to the standards we feel scripturally sound. If we continue to meddle in the way the world deals with its own laws, we may find that they limit our ability to do with ourselves as we wish. Then we would have just cause for civil disobedience.

As others have said, I can agree with the underlying issues as they relate to the church. And I do not deny any individual’s right and even obligation to speak up as they see fit. But it is not the duty of Christianity to force the world into submission. Our duty is to call them into willful submission through our words and our actions. These actions are not compelling. If anything is hindering the gospel of today’s church, it is this propensity to fight to force everyone to live like they are Christian and then later worry about whether or not they actually are.

I could go on and on. But I’ve already said enough.

[russ]

Well said. The fundamental problem for me with the MD is the lack of understanding of what Luther referred to as the 'two kingdoms.' We confuse them to our peril, and to the peril of those to whom Christ's gospel we are called to proclaim. There are no Christian nations, only Christians - born of an internal change of heart, not an external mandate of law.

[msh]

As a follow-on to my previous, oh-too-long post, I offer this link to an article in THEOOZE. I do not fully subscribe to all that it says, but when it comes to the basic purpose of the Christian life, it has hit the nail squarely on the head.

[Nate]

Thanks for posting your thoughts guys.

We were not sent to be shackles and gallows; or kings and dictators over the unsaved. What kind of gospel do we declare when we fight the world to make them live our way without the benefit of the One who we claim we cannot do it without?

Excellent point Mike. And Russ you probably know this but in addition to Luther's two kingdom approach, the anabaptists have a long tradition of separation of church and state. I read Yoder's "Christian Witnesss to the State" and he examines briefly Luther's two kingdom approach. It's worth reading if you have time. He examines some traditional approaches Christian bodies have taken towards the Church and State issue then proposes his own.

Russ, thanks for the link to Denny's blog. I read through the discussion you linked to and some others as well. In particular, Lucas Knisely posts struck a chord with me. I think his approach to civil unions for gay and lesbian couples was a good middle of the road approach (civil unions defined as being under the realm of ceasar and not God).

However, I think at this point I'm still inclined to question the traditional assumption that sexual orientation other than hetero is a sin. Or, at the least, as McLaren wrote that our focus should be more on the culture of lust identifying issues more in terms of sexual obsession rather than orientation.

[russ]

Nate...

I also found Lucas' approach compelling.

As difficult as it is, I do embrace the view that the scripture as well as tradition is pretty plain in its condemnation of of homosexuality, though I might say that my embrace of such is with great struggle and challenge and tears. Mike's quote is golden, and very well crystallizes my fundamental concern.

I would also add that on a more relational level, I am deeply troubled by the lack of struggle and ease with which 'traditional' Evangelicals, particularly some of the more outspoken, approach this issue. I think this is another tragic byproduct of the error in making this a matter of civil law. Political zeal has compromised graceful compassion, and that is nothing short of a compromise of the gospel itself. The manta of 'love the sinner, hate the sin' has become an insulting absurdity in this context.