Chuck Colson and friends recently issued a document known as the Manhattan Declaration. The group hopes to affirm a biblical worldview in politics, and present it to Congress as a means of unifying Christians under common convictions that they claim are bipartisan, or rather non-partisan. Although the affirmations in the document are fairly consistent with the more conservative social agenda of the Republican party, the group does not want to allign itself politically in any way.
I’m not sure what kind of attention this will get in the Church, but I have the feeling it would be impossible for the President to ignore if it begins to hit the multi-million mark. So far there has been the “Evangelical” voting bloc, the ”Catholic” voting bloc, the “Southern Baptist” voting bloc, etc. But never before have I heard of any sort of united “Christian” voting bloc. If one were to form, it would likely be the most influential demographic in the country. If this were another nation, and there wasn’t such a deeply-entrenched two-party system, a third major political party would not be out of the question. The document is already at 227,000 signatures and it’s climbing by the minute.
I just want to start a discussion here on your thoughts about this kind of initiative. Do you think the country needs this? Are you glad Christians have come together across denominational lines to support something like this, or do you think it alienates the Church from the larger culture by taking a hard stance on controversial issues?
For your opinion perhaps after taking a look at this summary posted on the group’s home page:
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:
- 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.
For more information, check out http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/
No related posts.
what do YOU think about it?
Against abortion and gay marriage, sounds like they are pretty clearly aligning with the conservatives, despite their efforts to make it seem non-partisan. It’s unclear how this sort of unified Church political entity will be any different from what’s going on now. Conservative church-goers will likely sign the document and they will likely continue voting for republicans.
I don’t think they are aligning with the conservatives, I think the conservatives aligned themselves with the truths of the Bible, the Bible is older than the republican party.
I think the most important question we can ask is not whether the country needs this, but whether the Church needs this. I think it unifies the Church across denominational lines and places the truths in bold, plain language that is difficult to argue with as long as we read the same Bible, no matter your political leanings. This document is good for the Church as its purpose is unity, something Paul exhorts the Church to (Rom 15:5, Eph 4:3, 13) as well as something Jesus prays for (John 17:23).
Perhaps it will alienate the Church from the culture by taking a hard stance on these issues, however the Church was never called to assimilate to the culture, but to stand out from the culture of the world.
Ben,
To me, a statement about non-partisanism means that the writers of the declaration want these to be issues that everyone can agree on. To be non-partisan doesn’t necessarily mean that the opinion you present isn’t already shared by some organization, but rather it just means that you don’t think that this is something to be disagreed about. And certainly the writers of the document would regard their views as non-negotiable, I guess you would say, and thus in that sense, non-partisan.
Anyway, I feel like among Christians, abortion has definitely started to become more non-partisan, with more and more (most?) Christians siding with pro-life. There are certainly many pro-life Democrats out there. With regards to gay marriage, there are certainly Christians on both sides of the issue, and although many of those who oppose gay marriage identify as Republicans, there are Christian Democrats who do not support gay marriage, as well as many Christians who do not affiliate with either party.
Anyway, personally, I thought that the document was very well-written. I must admit that I have been disillusioned with the entire political system for a long time now (for various reasons), but the Manhattan Declaration has given me some new hope. A Christian presence is essential in politics. I think I agree with all the stances taken by the Declaration. I have been on the fence for a while regarding the gay marriage issue, and while I’m still not totally sure on my opinions, I think that this document has helped me decide, at least for now (I signed it)
Oh Anne, you would ask that. It’s part of why I like you so much. I could talk more about this in a post, but I have a couple thoughts.
1) I think it’s great that Christians feel the freedom to speak up for the rights of the poor and oppressed. I love that there’s a sense of prophetic voice among secular voices in government, and I hope the Church never loses that.
2) In general, I’m a bit skeptical/confused when Christians seem to want/demand political power. I think it’s one thing to say “This is what our God is for, and this is what He is against. Government, we want you know that”, and it’s another thing to say “Christians are really important (check the Preamble to this Declaration) and we’re entitled to be heard in government. So please give us what we want.” This declaration struck me as leaning too far toward the latter. Because I don’t buy that. I think we as Christians should expect to be aliens. Aliens who speak prophetically in the culture, but aliens who are broken sinners and entitled to nothing, including political sway. Any influence in politics, any legislation that exemplifies the heart of God is a grace; it is not owed to us. I think Christians would do well to lose any sense of entitlement or importance as far as it relates to politics (and everything else, for that matter). That line of thinking violates what I understand to be the scanadalous grace of Christ poured out among the most dependent of beggars.
1. “the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife ”
Really? The love, commitment for life, sacrifices made, etc don’t contribute to the dignity of the marriage but the breaking of the hymen does?
2. The Declaration is vague. It’s easy to rally behind “The sanctity of life” and hard to rally behind “Rape victims can’t take drugs that increase the rate fertilized eggs fail to implant even if their religion/conscience permits it” or “dying homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to see their loved ones like married couples can” or “bound-for-destruction stem cells shouldn’t be used for potentially life-saving research” or “Muslims should/shouldn’t be allowed to sound the call to prayer at 5am.”
Love your thoughts…to sum up mine broadly, I’ll just say the only thing we have the right to declare is love and truth. I’m not sure if a political document is the best way to say those things….
VERY well said, Shalako. I couldn’t agree more. Most Christians would wholeheartedly agree with the words themselves, but naming the politlcally assumed implications of said values is a whole different issue. It would be a mistake to leave the policy implications of such a broad statement in the hands of a few when the declaration represents such a diverse group.
Anne, I love your thoughts as well
This sums it up well:
http://www.inhabitatiodei.com/2009/11/20/why-conservatives-shouldnt-make-manifestos/