My friend, Scot McKnight has taken a stand on the Manhattan Declaration. Read his post here and weigh in on the discussion.Please keep it civil.
My friend, Scot McKnight has taken a stand on the Manhattan Declaration. Read his post here and weigh in on the discussion.
6 comments:
I agree with Scot's statements but not his conclusion. Yes, abortion is immoral: indeed culture rotting immoral. All of our success in moving people in the matter has not been because of legal action or political action (other than indirectly because of raising awareness). Abortion will never be illegal in US. When it is lowered it will be lowered because hearts have been changed.
Gay marriage is not going to lead to any more rot in marriage than already exists - in Christian marriages.
There is a civil battle for a empty public square rather than a full one. That is the only one of the three main points that requires political action by Christians.
My full reason for not supporting the Declartion is here
The MD is a simple statement that ought to be generally supported. Most of the reasons to not support the MD are due to what has not been said, rather than what is said. It is rather curious that Christians cannot make a simple statement in unity. Our culture is working hard to self-destruct. It seems that Christians are too.
Anyone who posts on Beliefnet can't hope for a conversation that stays civil.
If I'm being honest, I'm highly suspicious that I probably don't have a lot in common with people who would support these ideas and I'm not against gay relationships.
Some off-the cuff thoughts:
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:
1. the sanctity of human life
I support the sanctity of human life but until I hear someone say that they think God also wants to save murderers and that capital punishment is wrong, I'll be suspicious that this is more about a conservative political agenda than about the actual sanctity of all human life.
the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
All sorts of thoughts here. I wholeheartedly believe that marriage is the best way to go, but I'm also not convinced about the heinousness of committed monogamous relationships outside of marriage. In my opinion, this is a discipleship mistake and I'd see many other sins that society regularly blesses as being more heinous (e.g. petty theft). Also, I suspect that these people believe that monogamy can be committed as a sin (she says, being provocative).
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
This will probably be heard as anti-Catholic prejudice since I'm Protestant, but I'm saying this as someone who grew up in a half-Catholic family and who studied theology at a Catholic university: The current Pope can hardly speak about rights of conscience and religious liberty; I think he's proven that he is against these things. And American Protestant evangelicals hardly have a good track record in this regard.
Also, I again suspect a conservative political agenda which idolizes individualism as next to godliness.
So whilst these all sound fine, I remain suspicious.
PamBG, My thoughts are not political. They are a response to the Gospel, prayer, study and life. Sanctity of life means all of life. A consistant postition includes being against capital punishment. Your suspicions are sometimes correct in that there are those who hold positions based upon political positions. MD is responding to attacks against basic Christian principles. Perhaps that opens it up to some of the criticisms you put forth. Yet, your objections are based upon the assumptions of those making or supporting the MD. Why not look at the theological, biblical, philosophical backround of the MD, and comment on those things? Simply because some parts of the political right align with the MD does not invalidate the theological assumptions of the MD. My suspicions are that all kinds of people on the politcal left and right will use and abuse the MD for their own agendas.
Yet, your objections are based upon the assumptions of those making or supporting the MD.
No, my objections are based on my belief that I can utter these same words and mean the exact opposite of what I'm pretty certain that this group means.
Simply because some parts of the political right align with the MD does not invalidate the theological assumptions of the MD.
I agree totally with the idea that an idea is not invalidated just because someone I don't like has articulated the idea. I'm anti-abortion and I'm pretty certain no conservative would want to have me in their group.
My suspicions are that all kinds of people on the politcal left and right will use and abuse the MD for their own agendas.
Not endorsing something is very different from "using and abusing a group for one's own agenda".
By the way,if you assume that I'm a knee-jerk liberal in the American sense of the word - either politically or theologically - you won't really get a sense of where I'm coming from. Where-ever possible, I try to avoid "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" or "the friend of my enemy is my enemy". That's just sloppy thinking.
Post a Comment