E-note 1/7: The Manhattan Declaration

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

Yesterday afternoon there was a fruitful conversation at the monthly Reformation Society meeting in White River. By that remark I in no way intend to suggest the quality of yesterday's conversation was rare. It was fruitful in the usual sort of way, but worth mentioning here.

We were reviewing the Manhattan Declaration, a seven-page document recently put before you, the dear saints of TBC, in the What Do You Think? series on Dec. 1. The Manhattan Declaration was released on November 20 by a coalition of Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical leaders as something of a "statement of principles upon which the signatories will not compromise." Some of the signatories that you might recognize are Bryan Chappell, Chuck Colson, Tim Keller, Dinesh D'Souza, Wayne Grudem, J.I. Packer, Cornelius Plantinga, and Joe Stowell. The principles upon which these men are now "co-belligerents" are explicitly moral principles and firmly rooted in our Christian faith.

The principles all entail a refusal to comply with any governmental policy that calls Christians to step away from Christian teaching as it concerns the sanctity of life, or the sanctity of marriage, or the justice of religious liberty. The Manhattan Declaration closes with these words: "Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s."

I like the Manhattan Declaration for several reasons. One, it avoids the acidic spirit of the religious right. The religious right was ruled by an impulse that put them at odds with Christian theology, that being the impulse to insist that God wants America to be a safe place for Christians. The religious right renewed the patent on the notion that America is the new Israel of God. A notion that is patently unbiblical (the Church is the new Israel of God). Fortunately, the poor theology of the religious right can not be found in the Manhattan Declaration, nor in scripture for that matter. What is here is a call for Christians to ready themselves for faithfulness as the West prepares to take a plunge into moral chaos.

I also like the timeliness of the Declaration. It addresses a period of moral ignorance that is uniquely Western and recent. Of course neither the fall nor the curse is new, but the particular de-humanizing shape both are taking in this early century require careful exposure. "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them," said the apostle Paul (Eph. 5:11). This seems to me a responsibility laid freshly at the feet (or upon the pen) of each new generation of those who "themselves were once darkness, but now are light in the Lord" (Eph 5:8). The exposing is first and foremost to benefit the Church. The Church, if she is repenting at all, is repenting not in abstract ways of no substance or consequence. No, if she is repenting for Christ's sake she is repenting of the specific ways in which she still clings to godless systems and godless principles and godless standards. Our repentance is not over with our baptism, it is just beginning. So I like how the Declaration holds me as a Christian complicit for the culture of death while simultaneously calling all men everywhere to repent. This reflects a graciousness and seriousness worthy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I like how the Declaration calls the Church and the world to repent in passages like this: "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. We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce."

And finally, I like the Manhattan Declaration because it broadens and deepens everything. Because I am a sinner, determined to justify myself at every opportunity, I tend to reduce evil. For example, a self-justifying conservative reduces evil to abortion, homosexuality and taxes. A self-justifying liberal reduces evil to intolerance, conservatives, and religion. The Manhattan Declaration does its best to broaden the present darkness to its full dimension as you can see from the passage just quoted above about marriage. Heterosexuals who practice serial monogamy trample the sanctity of marriage too. Pro-lifers who demand more and more cheap goods can trample the sanctity of life too. Such are two lessons for the careful reader of the Declaration.

I do have one beef with the Manhattan Declaration. Though it stands on John the Baptist's shoulders in calling the state to repent for lawlessness (Mark 6), it could have gone further and called the state to receive the forgiveness and light that is available in Christ, the only gift that explains how the signatories themselves have the convictions they have. In short, the Declaration could have used some of the explicit proselytizing we saw early this week from Brit Hume toward Tiger Woods and which we saw from Paul at Athens. Grace & Peace, John