Manhattan Declaration: Call to Sign and Thoughts from Dr. Brown
Filed under News, Revolution & Justice on November 24th, 2009 by Marcus French
Jesus-followers from various denominations and movements have put together a document called the Manhattan Declaration, which Chuck Colson described as “a wake-up call—a call to conscience—for the church. It is also a crystal-clear message to civil authorities that we will not, under any circumstances, stand idly by as our religious freedom comes under assault.” Colson drafted the declaration along with Robert George (Professor, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University) and Timothy George (Professor, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University). The declaration is summarized on their website in the following way:
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:
- the sanctity of human life
- the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
- the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
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.
Dr. Brown had the following to say about the document:
In the words of this important declaration, this is a clarion call for us to rise up as a “truly prophetic Christian witness,” reclaiming our biblical heritage and the best elements of our historic, sacrificial witness, serving humanity as agents of good and as ambassadors of God’s grace. In this darkened and lost generation, our opportunity to shine as bright lights has never been greater. Let’s seize the moment, affixing our names to this document and investing our lives in the advancement of the Great Commission. If we don’t stand for truth and righteousness and moral sanity, who will?
The full text of the Manhattan Declaration can be found here. You can sign it by clicking here.
Tags: abortion, catholic, chuck colson, Dr. Michael Brown, evangelicals, gay marriage, Manhattan Declaration, orthodox, religious freedom
Possibly Related Posts:
[...] Manhattan Declaration: Call to Sign and Thoughts from Dr. Brown | Voice of Revolution voiceofrevolution.askdrbrown.org/2009/11/24/manhattan-declaration-call-to-sign-and-thoughts-from-dr-brown – view page – cached Jesus-followers from various denominations and movements have put together a document called the Manhattan Declaration, which Chuck Colson described as a [...]
Signed it!
Amen!! Where do we sign?
Brennen,
It’s the last link in the article: http://manhattandeclaration.org/decsign.php
According to gay activist Wayne Besen, the declaration is a “theocratic anti-gay manifesto that seeks to foist compulsory Christianity on the nation, at the expense of basic liberty, pluralism and freedom.” From the summary quoted in the above article, does that sound like an accurate description of the document?
Here’s a conservative evangelical voice with a different take on this issue: http://stackblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/the-manhattan-declaration-a-waste-of-everybodys-time/.
Ben,
Thanks for posting the comments of Dr. Stackhouse, and for sure, a healthy dialog is quite constructive. What is hard to follow for me is a line like this: “I’m conservatively prolife and have traditional Christian views of marriage also. But just because I think those views are right doesn’t entail that I believe they should be law.”
What if we said the same thing about slavery in past generations? Or why should we have laws against polygamy? Is not morality the basis of law?
sined this last week. Count me in!
Dr. Brown,
I think what Dr. Stackhouse meant was that there are “objectively” moral issues and “religious” moral issues.
For discussion purposes, I’d say Objective Moral law would be statements not to kill, not to lie on contracts, etc. It’s things that Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig would see eye to eye on for the most part.
Religious Moral law would be what is believed to be right or wrong simply because a religious text says so. For example, consider an agnostic Jew in the time of Joshua, who doesn’t mind eating treyf or tending his farm on Shabbat. He’s violating religious principles, and could be executed for his behavior, but not what we would call objective moral law.
You have made a well researched case of why homosexuality IS in fact an objective morality violation, but the Dr. Stackhouse, as well as many others, would not agree.
As long as objective cases, such as yours, are being made, we’re in safe territory. It just gets into a problem when we have the attitude of “We know our religion is right, so let’s enforce it.” The argument always has to work even if the Bible was disproved. That’s what the author meant.
–Dan
Dan A.,
Thanks for your comments, which I do appreciate. My caveat would be that I firmly believe that if the Scriptures teach clearly that a particular behavior is morally objectionable, a social analysis of that behavior will confirm that it is, in fact, morally objectionable.
Back to Dr. Stackhouse’s point, if you are rightly interpreting it, I don’t see how it relates to any of the great social issues that we’re dealing with today — abortion; rampant divorce; pornography; violence; injustice; greed; materialism; gay activism, etc. In all these issues, I see a complete intersection between what the Bible teaches and what a moral society would recognize as destructive and objectionable. What then would be Dr. Stackhouse’s point? It’s not like we’re trying to make believe in Jesus, or forcing them to worship God. As citizens of our country, we are simply attempting to stand up for what is universally right.
Dr. Brown,
Could it be that you are reading your scriptural understandings into society’s needs?
It’s easy to see the supposed wrongs of homosexuality, materialism, and pornography as self-evident, if you’ve been in conservative circles for a very long time. In California, as an analogy, I’ve met very passionate vegans who think that unnecessarily contributing to the suffering of animals is self evidently wrong. They would say if you can survive without eating meat, even if it means you’re only at 85% health, then killing animals is an atrocity.
Outside of those circles, for the most part, where friends and family aren’t constantly validating each others’ beliefs, it’s a lot less clear to other people that these issues such as omnivorism or homosexuality might be moral wrongs.
Pornography is another example of something that could be argued either way. As an undergraduate psychology major, one of my term papers was on the effects of pornography. The studies I researched found that while hard-core pornography had negative impacts, especially if any pain was simulated, that soft-core pornography actually resulted in its viewers being kinder. more sociable, and more forgiving after provocation. The studies were not perfect, but there was enough in there to not strictly rule pornography as something bad. As for the effects on the actors/actresses, it’s hard to separate negative effects of the profession, as opposed to negative effects of the stigma attached to the profession.
And while greed (which I define as excessive indulgence in scarce times), could fit most paradigms as being immoral, materialism is another discussion entirely. If you can afford ten cars, and have worked and invested honestly to get there, indulging in material excess does not fit any clear moral violation. Even if someone prefers having 10 cars over fulfilling relationships, it’s a personal choice.
I know you don’t plan on forcing people to worship Jesus. However, there are efforts from conservative circles to keep the Christian God involved in as many places as possible. We have Bill O’Reilly structuring a boycott to keep Wal-Mart from inclusively saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” We have a number of people fighting to keep the ten commandments on federal buildings, despite that a number of the rules (i.e. graven image), have nothing to do with how our country is run.
If along with these efforts, we have more balanced Christians fighting to have biblical laws turned into federal laws, we do get a lot closer to enforced Christianity than a free country should be.
So, in short, I believe the definition of a secular “moral society” would not match the Bible’s ideas as clearly as you are making it sound out to be.
–Dan
Agree!!!!!
It seems that Dr. R.C. Sproul & Dr. James White are not in agreement with the “unity” displayed in the Manhattan Declaration. Here’s Dr. White’s blog post: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3669
Dr. Brown,
In light of these comments by Dr. Sproul & Dr. White will you consider pulling your name off of this document? If not, where do these brothers have it wrong in your view?
Steve
Pastor John MacArthur also is not signing the document. He explains why here: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A390
Steve
Steve,
Yes, I’ve been following the decisions of those who don’t want to sign, and I certainly understand and respect their decisions.
I guess the question is this: Are we reading the document as a call to all those who claim the name of Jesus to stand against certain trends in America — just as people from different faiths sometimes work together against abortion — or are we reading this as a call for specific gospel-only, born-again-only participation in kingdom work? Since I was at a leadership gathering where Chuck Colson announced the document, I heard the spirit of it and was very happy to sign. That being said, I can understand how other folks, especially who weren’t there, can be concerned about the apparent ecumenical language involved.
This makes for good discussion!
Dr. Brown,
I understand your position and I agree with it. James White, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul and others always seem to view these things in this way. They view themselves as not compromising the gospel when they make these stands. By implication that means they view those who don’t agree as compromising the gospel. I know you don’t like to publicly criticize other believers but could I get your take on the mindset these brothers have? Do you feel frustrated or intimidated by their words? Do they cause you to examine your stance on such issues? Is it something you simply dismiss and “roll your eyes” at as being a little extreme?
I only ask because I often wonder how someone like you processes stuff. I’ve read most of your books and have listened to over a hundred messages from you and greatly respect your viewpoints.
Steve
Steve,
Thanks for your interaction and your gracious words. I’m getting ready for some meetings in India now but will write with my thoughts ASAP. One quick response, however: No, I never feel intimidated by the words of these brothers whom I respect but with whom I sometimes differ (especially in terms of their views on gifts and power of the Spirit for today, along with their views on Calvinism vs. Arminianism), and I don’t feel frustrated by their stances.
Dr. James White spent 90 minutes on his Dividing Line program playing the comment of J. Ligon Duncan on why he signed. He also commented and contrasted them with his perspective. I thought this was really good. You can listen or download that program here:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3682
Just found your site, hence late comment. Can’t believe you would trust Chuck Colson who is the master of ecumenical documents starting with Evangelicals & Catholics Together I. This was a big step in the enemy’s wiles to waterdown, no meltdown the Gospel, the narrow way. This document was framed with the verbage of faith in Jesus Christ and yet Mormons and atheists are invited to join in. Whatever happened to “come out and be separate” and “light has no fellowship with darkness”? This document betrays the Gospel, pure and simple. Sadly, our reformed brothers have been the voices crying in the wilderness. I don’t agree with their Calvinist doctrine, but they are right on with this issue. It is sad to see prominent evangelical leaders signing and promoting the MD. Where is the discernment? The Bible is correct in predicting the apostasy in the last days. We are seeing it come to full fruition. The “falling away” is in freefall and most are oblivious. The way is narrow and the concerted effort of the enemy is to widen it and deceive many. Those who expect revival are deceived. The Bible predicts the opposite.
John MacArthur & Pretrib Rapture
.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P {padding:0px;} .ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;} Who knows, maybe John (Reformedispy) MacArthur is right and the greatest Greek scholars (Google “Famous Rapture Watchers”), who uniformly said that Rev. 3:10 means PRESERVATION THROUGH, were wrong. But John has a conflict. On the one hand, since he knows that all Christian theology and organized churches before 1830 believed the church would be on earth during the tribulation, he would like to be seen as one who stands with the great Reformers. On the other hand, if John has a warehouse of unsold pretrib rapture material, and if he wants to have “security” for his retirement years and hopes that the big California quake won’t louse up his plans, he has a decided conflict of interest. Maybe the Lord will have to help strip off the layers of his seared conscience which have grown for years in order to please his parents and his supporters - who knows? One thing is for sure: pretrib is truly a house of cards and is so fragile that if a person removes just one card from the TOP of the pile, the whole thing can collapse. Which is why pretrib teachers don’t dare to even suggest they could be wrong on even one little subpoint! Don’t you feel sorry for the straitjacket they are in? While you’re mulling all this over, Google “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty” for a rare behind-the-scenes look at the same 180-year-old fantasy.