Having already discussed the preamble to the Manhattan Declaration, along with the first two sections of it, we now turn our attention toward the portion that comprises around 40% of the total, and that subject is marriage. The first Scriptures quoted are Genesis 2:23-24, followed by these comments:
In Scripture, the creation of man and woman, and their one-flesh union as husband and wife, is the crowning achievement of God’s creation…. Marriage then, is the first institution of human society…. In the Christian tradition we refer to marriage as “holy matrimony” to signal the fact that it is an institution ordained by God, and blessed by Christ in his participation at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. In the Bible, God Himself blesses and holds marriage in the highest esteem.
These observations are stated well and are completely harmonious with the Scriptures, and anyone familiar with the Word of God knows the truth of these words. So what is the application?
Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits – the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves.
Do we not have sufficient data and experience to demonstrate the truth of this statement? A society is stable when the husband is committed to his wife and the wife is committed to her husband. When couples remain married to each other and are determined to rear their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, communities benefit. Not every marriage or household will be perfect, but a norm is established.
So what has encroached upon this ideal situation? What or who has assaulted the family? First, recognition is given to the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Fifty years ago it was 5%; today it stands at 40%. This is a significant change and reflects a careless and casual attitude toward marriage. That is not to say that many women who have made mistakes do not recognize their error or devote themselves to recovery, but the statistics do reflect a society that has grown permissive. The Declaration, not unfairly, associates with this high rate of illegitimacy such social problems as “delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair.”
An even greater threat to marriage—cohabitation— receives scant attention in the Declaration. The percentages of those living together outside of marriage have risen dramatically in the past thirty years, which further reflects an erosion of respect for the Bible: All who choose this arrangement are living in fornication, for which they will be condemned (Heb. 13:4). The widespread acceptance of this sin shows that society as a whole has lost respect for God’s arrangement; young people are either not being taught or else are rebelling against God’s wisdom.
Divorce
Divorce receives slightly more attention, but the following paragraph is quite an admission.
We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage. Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same.
That denominations have too easily embraced “the culture of divorce” is obviously true, as have some congregations of the Lord’s church. In almost every area of the country one will find a “church of Christ” that has departed from the faith and is known as the place where all the unscripturally divorced and remarried couples are. In the Peoria area one of “our” churches with 150 members once had seven such couples. In one instance, both a divorced husband and wife of a previous marriage had remarried, and both new “families” were attending the same congregation! Anyone with the IQ of a kumquat would realize that, while both husband and wife might be guilty parties, both could not possibly be innocent.
The Lord’s church has been plagued by the Bales’ doctrine and the Hicks’ heresy (see the seven part series on this Website beginning 10-9-05). At least faithful brethren have fought these errors, and godly preachers of the gospel are among the few who have actually opposed divorce. But many in denominationalism have easily succumbed. Popular authors like Chuck Swindoll have opened the door wide for acceptance of the divorce culture. Many who are prominent among them are actually part of a second or third marriage. The above statement is right on the mark, and we pray that all who have signed this Declaration are sincere in their repentance. Everyone should watch to see if religious denominations begin to take a stronger stance against unscriptural divorce and remarriage.
One solution to the various attacks made on the family thus far is to “stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity” and to exalt the “holiness of faithful love.” That brings us to the source of most of the glamorization of sin, and that is television, which the Declaration does not mention. From where do citizens get the idea that fornication, adultery, and “unilateral divorce” are acceptable? They do not read that God approves of these things in the Scriptures; they watch it on various television programs. Those who flaunt God’s laws of moral conduct through this medium are not heroes or role models worthy of imitation. In fact, most of the weekly fare that is broadcast into our living rooms contains dialogue that sounds as though it were written by high school sophomores around the lunch table. All Christian households would do well to severely limit the amount of screen-gazing that goes on every night. Even Wheel of Fortune had three contestants one night during the week of November 29th that were poor role models—one was a lesbian, one was a fornicator (living with her boyfriend), and the other was a young divorced man. The man won, which was gratifying—at least he might have had a Scriptural divorce.
We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make.
The Manhattan Declaration is correct in its assessment. Next it moves on to a controversial topic.
Homosexuality
Almost one-third of this document is devoted to the topic of homosexual “marriage” or multiple partner (polyamorous) relationships. The Declaration states that acceptance of either of these practices as “marriage” “reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law.”
With the other sinful practices, such as fornication, adultery, and divorce, the Declaration was not nearly as careful to avoid offending anyone, but with this perversion they use kid gloves. They claim that there are some who are “disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct” (as opposed to being “born that way”), but they quickly add that they are no more “disposed” than others are towards different “forms of immoral conduct.”
They add: “We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings….” Apparently, in a politically correct universe, it is not acceptable to just call a sin a sin—not that every human being is not unique and of possible worth to God, but no mention was made of this point when discussing adultery, fornication, divorce, or out-of-wedlock births. In fact, they make it clear that they want to “refrain from disdainful condemnation of those” who practice such things. This kind of flattery may appeal to a few but probably not to most, since most folks resent being told they are wrong about anything. God’s philosophy is to declare what is good and what is evil. If people are not told in no uncertain terms why something is a sin, what motivation are they going to have to depart from it? Such revelations need not be harsh or based on the wrong motivation, but they should be factual.
They do, however, take issue with the idea that all of these alternatives should be regarded as legally acceptable. They argue 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.” They further affirm: “No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage.” Since the Bible is our basis for marriage, it only makes sense to abide by what it teaches in that regard, and as almost anybody knows, God’s design was one woman for one man for life (Gen. 2:18-24). Men do not have the right to tell God that He got it wrong because we want the right to live out our fantasies. Rather it was God who told Sodom and Gomorrah that they got it wrong (Gen. 19)! The Declaration rightly says concerning the attempts of those in power:
First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized. Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as “marriages” sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non-marital and immoral. Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends.
The final sentence of this section of the Manhattan Declaration serves as a smooth transition to the final subject discussed: “And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.”
Religious Liberty
This is the section that has drawn some media attention; although it does encourage civil disobedience, which sounds like strong language, it would be more accurate to say that those signing this Declaration have agreed that government does not have the right to impose its will against the freedom of religion as defined by our Constitution. After some introductory remarks, the following idea is set forth:
No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.
One would think this insight would be self-evident, but many laws and courts have already infringed on Christian liberties. Some seek to impose upon pro-life hospitals, physicians, surgeons, nurses, and others the demand that they participate in or perform abortions. No one should ever be faced with such a dilemma. Let a bureaucrat or a justice come in and take the human life that means nothing to him. No one in the health care community should be required to violate the Hippocratic Oath, the Scriptures, or his conscience.
Second, “anti-discrimination statutes” should not be imposed “to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business.” In Massachusetts a court imposed same-sex “marriage” upon the populace, and:
Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than com-ply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching. In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital “civil unions” scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions.
These are not things that alarmists are alleging could possibly happen in the future; these tragic events have already occurred! Certain “hate-crimes” legislation may lead to putting preachers in prison for speaking out against sin in America, as it has already occurred in Canada and Europe. It looks as though the forces of secular humanism are winning, although most people do not subscribe to that belief system. Therefore, it is time for the citizenry of this nation to make its voice heard. Those in the Congress and the Senate who are promoting these ideas need to be voted out of office—regard-less of the economic incentives they bring to their states to keep them in office. Those promised economic stimuli are nothing more than bribes being financed by taxpayers! Hello! No governmental official is going to help a state financially distressed with his own money. He is attempting to buy votes with the money of voters.
The Declaration is Biblically correct when it states:
As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical ad-monition to respect and obey those in authority. We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral.
Citing Acts 4, when Peter and John declared that they would disobey the command not to speak at all or teach in the name of Jesus, the writers of this Declaration affirm that “Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required.” They could have cited Daniel disobeying the king’s edict to pray to no one but him (6) or his three friends who refused to bow down and worship the king’s image (3). Christians in the first few centuries went to their deaths rather than obey the law to worship the king. Likewise, today, Christians cannot bow to the secular humanist requirements of the state.
The Declaration states that Martin Luther “King’s willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.” The final paragraph of this document speaks eloquently.
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.
Although this document is not without a few flaws, presumably all who call upon the name of the Lord can and will say, “Amen!” to its main intent.