E-Mails containing this document have been circulated recently, and it has been mentioned publicly on some television talk shows, also. “Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience” was drafted on October 20, 2009 and released on November 20th. As of December 2nd, more than 233,000 people had put their signatures on it. Those who composed the message were Robert George (McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University), Timothy George
(Professor, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University), and Chuck Colson (Founder, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview in Lansdowne, Virginia).
Some of the original signers included: Dr. Daniel Akin (President of the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary), Randy Alcorn, Leith Anderson (President of National Association of Evangelicals), Dr. Mark L. Bailey (President, Dallas Theological Seminary), Gary Bauer, Jim Daly (President and CEO, Focus on the Family), James Dobson, Dinesh D’Souza (whose debate with Christopher Hitchens at UCF was covered in Spiritual Perspectives on September 27, 2009), Dr. Michael Easley (President Emeritus, Moody Bible Institute), Dr. William Edgar (Professor, Westminster Theological Seminary), Josh McDowell, J. I. Packer, Dr. Cornelius Plantinga (President, Calvin Theological Seminary), Joni Eareckson Tada, Dr. Timothy C. Tennent (President, Asbury Theological Seminary), and over 130 more. Most are prominent in the Catholic Church and various Protestant denominations.
We have not included the names of these original signers of the document to impress ourselves with the academic credentials of those involved or in any way to endorse division or the concept of denominationalism, which is condemned in the Scriptures. They are mentioned to show the unity of the participants in this matter, which itself is an amazing feat. The declaration contains five sections: Preamble, Declaration, Life Marriage, and Religious Liberty.
Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.
Thus the document begins in a positive way. The rest of the paragraph is almost a response to Hitchens and other atheists who claim that religion has had a bad effect on society. After briefly acknowledging that Christian “institutions” have had “imperfections and shortcomings,” many of the positive benefits that have come from those who claimed to be Christians are listed. The two things that atheists generally bring up are the Crusades and the Inquisition, which probably rate higher than “imperfections” (how about “disasters”?). But how often are the good things noted, which have impacted society in a positive way?
Cited are “Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denounced the Empire’s sanctioning of infanticide,” those who remained “in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues,” and those who “combated the evil of slavery.” “Christians under Wilberforce’s leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines.” “In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings….” Several other accomplishments are also included, but the upshot of it all is that those following New Testament principles have made “a profound contribution to the public good.”
Declaration
This section explains that the declaration was agreed upon by “Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians” and that it is set forth “in light of the truth that is grounded in the Holy Scripture, in natural human reason…and in the very nature of the human person.”
This statement comes as a profound surprise—that those who signed the declaration actually believe this sentence. First, it proclaims that the light of the truth is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, which is reminiscent of John 8:31-32 and 17:17. Members of the body of Christ have believed that the Word of God is truth for centuries, but it sounds strange coming from men who approve of denominationalism despite the truth taught in the Bible, which makes a few pertinent declarations of its own. Jesus prayed for unity among His followers, adding that the result of unity was that the world would believe (John 17:20-21). Paul condemned those who instituted division among brethren (1 Cor. 1:10-13). So why do so many accept division rather than seek the solution to the problem?
Furthermore, Paul wrote that there is “one Lord, one faith [not 200 faiths, GWS], one baptism” (Eph. 4:5). In the preceding verse, he also affirmed that there is one body. What did the apostle mean by that? The word body is the same word used previously: “And He has put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:22-23). In the same epistle, Paul writes later on: “For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church, and He is the Savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23). It is clear that the body of Christ is the church of Christ, and Paul says that there is one. All of the denominational doctors with all of their degrees can not deal with these Scriptures nor explain what justifies denominational bodies.
It is good that they hold in high regard the Scriptures, but they need to believe all of them and define a strategy for dealing with disagreements, such as discussion, debate, research teams, etc. While it is true that all have the desire to fight against Satan, we need to recognize all of his successes, including the deception that division among those professing to be Christians is acceptable.
The second surprise in the “Declaration” section was the emphasis on “natural human reason.” The part omitted in the three dots when quoted earlier contained this additional parenthetical phrase describing reason: which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God. Why is this surprising? For years, many denominationalists have argued that faith is sufficient and that human logic is not necessary. Most often this faulty notion is expressed in encouraging those unconvinced of the truth of Christianity to take “a leap of faith.” Many have long ago tried to make a rational defense of Christianity, and some have no interest in Christian evidences.
How refreshing to see an acknowledgment that God has created human beings with the capacity to reason and think critically—to evaluate what we hear (1 Thess. 5:21-22). Of course, if everyone practiced correct reasoning, religious denominations would disappear, since God never authorized even one of them. It would be wonderful if correct reasoning made a comeback.
Ironically, while all of these religious leaders signed a statement saying they are in agreement with this document, including what was just mentioned about human reasoning, certain academic brethren among us have been decrying its use and calling for a new hermeneutic (which apparently does not require the use of logic). Liberals in the churches of Christ are always a half-century or so behind the denominations. They are always falling into the pit of apostasy about the time our denominational friends are climbing out of it.
After lauding truth and reason, the declaration goes on to say that the composers and signers of this essay
are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.
This is a very comprehensive and well-phrased paragraph that explains in a nutshell the entire purpose, although clarifications are forthcoming.
Our final two criticisms are here mentioned so that such interruptions need not be made later on. The first of these involves their use of the New International Version of the Bible. This version has never been acceptable to serious Bible students. See the chapter that can be found on spiritualperspectives.org. Click on Articles (top left), then click on Bible, and finally look for “A Review of the NIV.”
The other objection is to the following statement:”We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right – and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation – to speak and act in defense of these truths.” As already stated, since we believe in the truth, we cannot step across “ecclesial lines” to work with those who do not respect truth enough to work toward the eradication of denominationalism.
While we are in full sympathy with most of the aims of this declaration (as articulated in the paragraph quoted above), we decided many years ago not to join inter-denominational groups in anything because it will be immediately assumed that, besides expecting that everyone will accept the NIV as a translation, everyone believes in “faith only” salvation and is comfortable with the use of instrumental music. Those who do not teach what the New Testament teaches concerning salvation are not brothers, and we cannot work together. Many of these people are devout and sincere, but for us to fellowship their errors in what would otherwise be a good cause cannot be entertained. We can advocate the moral stances they take without joining with them.
Life
Although public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction, we note with sadness that pro-abortion ideology prevails today in our government. The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense.
No specific instances are supplied here, but they could easily have been. Former Governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius (now head of the Department of Health and Human Services) had no desire to prosecute Dr. George Tiller, called by many “Tiller the Baby Killer,” since he had no qualms about performing late-term abortions, by which is meant that the baby was fully developed and close to the time of birth. The declaration continues:
The President says that he wants to reduce the “need” for abortion – a commendable goal. But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available by eliminating laws prohibiting government funding, requiring waiting periods for women seeking abortions, and parental notification for abortions performed on minors. The elimination of these important and effective pro-life laws cannot reasonably be expected to do other than significantly increase the number of elective abortions by which the lives of countless children are snuffed out prior to birth. Our commitment to the sanctity of life is not a matter of partisan loyalty, for we recognize that in the thirty-six years since Roe v. Wade, elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to what Pope John Paul II described as “the culture of death.” We call on all officials in our country, elected and appointed, to protect and serve every member of our society, including the most marginalized, voiceless, and vulnerable among us.
The writers of the declaration did an excellent job showing that this is not a party issue. Many of us decided years ago not to support a candidate of either party who did not respect life in the womb. Both medically and Biblically, that tiny human body has life and must be considered a human being (Luke 1:41, 44; Luke 2:12, 16). If politicians will not protect those who are most vulnerable and unable to protect themselves, how much will they actually care about the rest of us? Although the economy is an extremely important election issue, nothing can take precedence over the injustice of terminating the lives of those about to be born. The same is true regarding Supreme Court nominees and other judges (no one wants lenient appointees).
This section goes on to decry “therapeutic cloning,” which results in “the industrial mass production of human embryos to be killed for the purpose of producing genetically customized stem cell lines and tissues.”
Some may not have read about the way cloning works and how many embryos end up being destroyed. This is truly an area which ought not to involve human beings. One wonders what kind of “thriller” Mary Shelley would write if she were alive today. There are, however, other life issues as well.
At the other end of life, an increasingly powerful movement to promote assisted suicide and “voluntary” euthanasia threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons. Eugenic notions such as the doctrine of lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”) were first advanced in the 1920s by intellectuals in the elite salons of America and Europe. Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid-20th century, they have returned from the grave. The only difference is that now the doctrines of the eugenicists are dressed up in the language of “liberty,” “autonomy,” and “choice.”
Once people begin determining what lives are not worthy of living, as Hitler and his henchman actually did, it may be a surprisingly short amount of time before this category becomes much broader than anyone would have imagined. It is frightening enough that “health” care proposals have provisions in them to weed out those “unworthy,” of treatment. Our president is on record as saying that the elderly should just take pain killers rather than have surgery or a pacemaker put in.
One affirmation concerning life is: “We will be united and untiring in our efforts to roll back the license to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion.” This is the kind of commitment that all who call themselves Christians ought to have. Although the news and entertainment media have been overwhelmingly in favor of abortion for 36 years, more than 50% of Americans now hold a pro-life perspective. The more that people have come to know the facts, the more certain they have become that the child in the womb is a human being—despite propaganda to the contrary.
Commitment in this cause means stating the facts to people who have not seen them and speaking up in conversations about the subject. Quite often a conversation can be turned entirely around with the presentation of irrefutable evidence—Biblical and medical. One cannot view embryo development and conclude that “the product of conception” is not a human being. Christians must be ready to make the argument or have material ready that will make the case for them.
Finally, the declaration states that the writers and signers are concerned about more than what is just happening in the United States. They are concerned also about genocide, “ethnic cleansing,” the innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, racial oppression, religious persecution, and “the sexual trafficking of girls and young women.” The preaching of the gospel (and its acceptance) would eliminate every one of these evils in the world. We who profess Christianity have been idle too long; we need to repent.