Get E-Mail Updates

Affirming the Footnotes: What the Manhattan Declaration Gets Right

Although there are several points I find troubling, inaccurate, or misleading in the recent Manhattan Declaration, and although I noticed the relative homogeneity of age, race, and gender of its signors, I want to focus on a section of the document I find positive and helpful:

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and "ethnic cleansing," the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS.

In his response to the declaration, Jonathan Merritt, a younger evangelical in age as well as spirit, wrote in The Washington Post, "Older evangelicals have been largely silent on these issues and in similar fashion this declaration has relegated them to little more than a footnote."

He's right: even though the Declaration mentions this broader range of issues, the same "big three" (abortion, gay marriage, and religious liberty -- defined rather oddly in relation to the first two issues, by the way) do remain at the top, demoting all other issues to near footnote status. Chuck Colson says it with characteristic clarity: "We argue that there is a hierarchy of issues... these are the three most important issues."

But I'm at least happy that a footnote-level acknowledgment of a broader range of issues was included, because that's a step up from where things were even a few years ago. It's an encouraging sign when committed Christian leaders like these take a stand against the suffering of innocent victims of war -- without excluding innocents who have suffered and are suffering because of wars planned and launched by the U.S. It's a good sign when they oppose -- along with child abuse and sex trafficking -- the exploitation of laborers. It's a good sign when leaders defend not only their rights but also the rights of the racially and religiously "other."

Again, I differ with some of their diagnoses, prescriptions, and assumptions. For example, I think we need to raise the question whether the criminalization of abortion is the best or even a good way to reduce it. I remember being shocked to learn that even if the goals of the signors were achieved and Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would have relatively little effect on the number of abortions performed in the United States. And I still can't shake the feeling that the polarities of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" conceal as much as they reveal. But I wholeheartedly agree with the Declaration that our culture suffers from a "loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life."

I would add that the sanctity of human life is what motivates many of us to be so deeply concerned about the status of the environment, including non-human life with which human life is inextricably interwoven. And I would add that this same sense of the dignity of the human person makes many of us want to work harder to seek nonviolent solutions to global problems and avoid wars that make so many suffer as innocent victims. And it is the dignity of human persons who are gay that motivates many of us who are straight to work against violence and discrimination against gay human persons, including in their desire for access to legally protected civil unions (some of us would say) or marriage (others of us would say).

So even though many of us differ -- in varying ways -- with the priorities, policies, and approaches held by the signors of this document, we can agree that much evil flows from a loss of "the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life." Like these signors, we have proven ourselves willing to risk criticism, danger, and even arrest for our convictions, which we believe no less strongly than they do to be rooted in our faith, in the scriptures, and in our great tradition.

[to be continued...]

Brian McLarenBrian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is a speaker and author, most recently of Everything Must Change and Finding Our Way Again.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: letjusticerolldown

11-25-2009 @ 12:00pm

I don't think it fair to expect that a statement designed to address three issues will address all other issues; nor that it means anything about what the signors believe or do not believe about other matters.

I presume the statement is driven both by the perception they needed to make a clear public case on these issues. But the need not only being to state positions on public policy--but to ground them in an ethical construct.

I care about all these issues. In a sense, I agree with them and the Catholic Church, that there can be a "hierarchy" of issues. A right to human life might trump a right to not inhale second-hand smoke. But it is also hard to truly frame and communicate "priority issues" without weaving them into what is truly a broad fabric of many issues.

To a degree I think they attempted this--and is what McLaren is acknowledging/affirming.

Back to the ethical construct. I see a society wrestling with each of these issues on a political level and on a sociological level. In other words--we engage in propoganda and power fights to win public policy battles. Or on better days (few and far between) we have civil dialogue as to how public policy might be better. On the sociological level we attempt to work out new ways of thinking, talking and acting on these matters.

But in my perception--we largely engage in the political and sociological change without addressing the ethical base.

The writers are attempting to state their position but also trying to tie the issues back down into an ethical framework; and in a sense they demonstrate a fear the society is moving to not safeguard the freedom of persons to hold and exercise religious/ethical belief.

I read them as saying the society finds life, marriage, maleness, and femaleness to have no inherent value or order--other than what we assign.

My assumptions here might be wrong--but I think they find this to be very dangerous ground. i.e. that to have no ethical ground on which to oppose abortion-on-demand is more dangerous than abortion itself.

All this to say--they strain at the biology issue because they attempt to speak into a culture that rejects any external authority (e.g. revelation from God in scripture or in a created order). They are saying "male" and "female" and "life" and "sexuality" and "procreation" are neither detached from each other nor are they meaningless.

Why do they hammer it? Because their view is being hammered by the culture everyday. And I do not mean their policy positions are being hammered everyday. I mean their basic ethical construct and right to advance it is being hammered. They believe they are speaking into a culture that cannot hear there is any standard other than us.

by: ckgmail

11-25-2009 @ 1:09pm

Brother Marcus, your response violates the spirit of the code of conduct for this blog. You belittle my conviction by your parenthesis of (such as it is), and you question my right to express my convictions. Please be more civil in your responses!
Charles Kiker

by: BrotherMarcus

11-25-2009 @ 1:12pm

Apparently, ckgmail, your feelings are all that count to you. Go ahead and report me. It wouldn't be the first time I'd been censored by the broad-minded, inclusive folks at Sojourners.

by: BlueDeacon

11-25-2009 @ 1:48pm

I see Brian McLaren, in particular, who has become widely popular, as one of those to whom Paul refers in Acts 20:29,30 because he rejects core Christian beliefs, including the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. Once the reliability of Scripture is undermined (the "Yea, hath God said,"
attack of Satan in Genesis), nothing Scripture states means anything that can be trusted. In undermining Scripture, he is spreading heresy.

And on what do you base this opinion?

Jesus did care for the poor, but the gospel was 100% focused on saving people from their sin. The message of the gospel is 100% grace and 0% works.

Sorry, but that's not right, and one of the problems with our evangelistic efforts is the kind of pietistic thinking that is divorced from everyday existence. The Gospel ("good news") of Jesus Christ is not, and never was, just about "fire insurance"; it's about the coming of the Kingdom of God and His working even in the affairs of men. To say that the Gospel is only about "salvation" as we tend to think of it is to ignore about 90 percent of said Scripture, much of which is indeed focused on the here and now. Indeed, the church should be a model of heaven (imperfect as it would be) because it should demonostrate that things can and will be different when Jesus comes to rule. The Scripture cannot be interpreted properly unless that part is understood. (And it won't be just or primarily about abortion, homosexuality or political freedom.)

by: BlueDeacon

11-25-2009 @ 2:13pm

The fact that, after nearly 37 years of electioneering, demonstrations and "awareness-raising," we have done next to nothing to end legal abortion or even seen a large grass-roots movement to deal with it at its roots should tell you that perhaps we who oppose it need a completely new strategy and/or mindset. And part of that is to marry abortion to a more consistently pro-life ethic -- which some refuse to do because doing that can be a tad inconvenient. Let's remember that abortion isn't even mentioned in Scripture ("child sacrifice" is, at best, a stretch).

by: ckgmail

11-25-2009 @ 2:52pm

I respect your feelings. Your feelings count to me, so mine are not all that
count to me.

by: WaveTossed

11-25-2009 @ 5:07pm

Here is the most troublesome paragraph in the Manhattan Declaration.

"includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit. This is because the body is no mere extrinsic instrument of the human person, but truly part of the personal reality of the human being. Human beings are not merely centers of consciousness or emotion, or minds, or spirits, inhabiting non-personal bodies. The human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being - the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual - on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation."

The sometimes-repeated use of the words "bodily, and "biological" and "flesh" literally makes me cringe.

Why is the BODY so important, so "intrinsic"? Why is it so necessary that people function "biologically as a reproductive unit?" Why is "sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation" so important?

Whatever happened to committment of faithful love? What about those who are unable to procreate or who don't wish to procreate? Can they not love each other? Can they not express their love for each other? Or is it all truly just sexual intercourse, flesh, reproduction, the body and biology?

Bodies can be used or misused in many ways. What matters most in love are matters of the mind and spirit.

by: chadbowen

11-25-2009 @ 3:39pm

hammerud,

I agree with you that our salvation is 100 percent dependent on God's grace, but I also believe that we must respond to God's grace by living as we are called.

Scripture really can be used to argue almost anything, and I don't think that what you have said here is against scripture. However, I do think that it needs to be nuanced.

In response to your reference to works and Christ's rejection, I would challenge you to read Matthew 25:31-46. It seems that, straight from Christ's mouth, and in our canon, Christ DOES assert that our care for others is linked to our salvation. You might even argue, from this scripture alone that salvation is even based on works. In light of Paul's writing, we know that this is not the case, our salvation is dependent solely on God's grace. However, there is some inherent link to that leading to right behavior in some capacity, as James makes quite evident.

I would also really like to challenge your judgment of McLaren's doctrinal commitments. I don't know him personally, and haven't read everything which he has written, but it seems to me like it would be much more appropriate to question his emphasis rather than to assume that his beliefs are entirely against "core Christian beliefs" In fact, I think he would join you in affirming the *authority* and *reliability* of scripture, though inerrancy is another issue. Maybe you should question, on an epistemological level, whether inerrancy is necessarily linked to authority, or if that is simply a modern construct of trying to limit the confines of truth.

Your brother in Christ.

by: letjusticerolldown

11-25-2009 @ 5:57pm

"Why is the BODY so important, so "intrinsic"?"

To counter the notion that it is meaningless. The culture has raised bodily appearance, pleasure and sensuality in reaction to a repression of sexuality and goodness of the body. These are flipsides of the same mistake. The elimination of sexual boundaries and the making of male and female to be meaningless results in an emptiness as complete as ultimate repression.

"Why is it so necessary that people function "biologically as a reproductive unit?""

It is not necessary. But it is to be given preferential value. Work is not necessary--but we give it preferential value over a life of no productivity. It is given preferential value because it is what sustains the species. The pathway to not give it priority is the pathway of saying human life is meaningless.

Why is "sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation" so important?

Because this is an apologetic for heterosexual, monogamous, marriage as being normative.

"Whatever happened to committment of faithful love?"

They identify it.

"What about those who are unable to procreate or who don't wish to procreate?"

They don't address it. I lived 39 years as single. And my wife's death on our 10th anniversary makes me single again. The fact most of my life does not fit within a "preferential norm" does not make me "less than." It has its own value. But as a society do you not see any problem when societies no longer sustain themselves with offspring--and treat babies as a special little side project; something like getting a new pet?

But overall the statement does not address the issue. Expressing an ethic affirming marriage does not speak affirmatively or negatively to other circumstances.

"Can they not love each other? Can they not express their love for each other? Or is it all truly just sexual intercourse, flesh, reproduction, the body and biology?"

The meaning of the statement, clearly expressed, is that it is a unity. The cumbersome use of the language you dislike is to counter turning of the body into meaninglessness.

"Bodies can be used or misused in many ways. What matters most in love are matters of the mind and spirit."

It is not a matter of "most". It is a unity. The statement is a case for marital relationships. Life in community involves a full matrix of family and community relationships in which intimacy is developed and expressed in complex and rich fashion. Heterosexual marriage has a unique place in the manifestation of the full life created by God and sustained across the generations. It is not everything. It is one thing. It is a preferred thing. It is unique. Valuing its fullness and its place should not be diminished. A statement expressing that does not have to be taken as answering questions it does not addres..

Thanks for your always considerate, kind, and clear comments. Blessings to you this Thanksgiving.

by: WaveTossed

11-25-2009 @ 5:07pm

Here is the most troublesome paragraph in the Manhattan Declaration.

"includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit. This is because the body is no mere extrinsic instrument of the human person, but truly part of the personal reality of the human being. Human beings are not merely centers of consciousness or emotion, or minds, or spirits, inhabiting non-personal bodies. The human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being - the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual - on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation."

The sometimes-repeated use of the words "bodily, and "biological" and "flesh" literally makes me cringe.

Why is the BODY so important, so "intrinsic"? Why is it so necessary that people function "biologically as a reproductive unit?" Why is "sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation" so important?

Whatever happened to committment of faithful love? What about those who are unable to procreate or who don't wish to procreate? Can they not love each other? Can they not express their love for each other? Or is it all truly just sexual intercourse, flesh, reproduction, the body and biology?

Bodies can be used or misused in many ways. What matters most in love are matters of the mind and spirit.

by: chadbowen

11-25-2009 @ 3:39pm

hammerud,

I agree with you that our salvation is 100 percent dependent on God's grace, but I also believe that we must respond to God's grace by living as we are called.

Scripture really can be used to argue almost anything, and I don't think that what you have said here is against scripture. However, I do think that it needs to be nuanced.

In response to your reference to works and Christ's rejection, I would challenge you to read Matthew 25:31-46. It seems that, straight from Christ's mouth, and in our canon, Christ DOES assert that our care for others is linked to our salvation. You might even argue, from this scripture alone that salvation is even based on works. In light of Paul's writing, we know that this is not the case, our salvation is dependent solely on God's grace. However, there is some inherent link to that leading to right behavior in some capacity, as James makes quite evident.

I would also really like to challenge your judgment of McLaren's doctrinal commitments. I don't know him personally, and haven't read everything which he has written, but it seems to me like it would be much more appropriate to question his emphasis rather than to assume that his beliefs are entirely against "core Christian beliefs" In fact, I think he would join you in affirming the *authority* and *reliability* of scripture, though inerrancy is another issue. Maybe you should question, on an epistemological level, whether inerrancy is necessarily linked to authority, or if that is simply a modern construct of trying to limit the confines of truth.

Your brother in Christ.

by: letjusticerolldown

11-25-2009 @ 5:57pm

"Why is the BODY so important, so "intrinsic"?"

To counter the notion that it is meaningless. The culture has raised bodily appearance, pleasure and sensuality in reaction to a repression of sexuality and goodness of the body. These are flipsides of the same mistake. The elimination of sexual boundaries and the making of male and female to be meaningless results in an emptiness as complete as ultimate repression.

"Why is it so necessary that people function "biologically as a reproductive unit?""

It is not necessary. But it is to be given preferential value. Work is not necessary--but we give it preferential value over a life of no productivity. It is given preferential value because it is what sustains the species. The pathway to not give it priority is the pathway of saying human life is meaningless.

Why is "sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation" so important?

Because this is an apologetic for heterosexual, monogamous, marriage as being normative.

"Whatever happened to committment of faithful love?"

They identify it.

"What about those who are unable to procreate or who don't wish to procreate?"

They don't address it. I lived 39 years as single. And my wife's death on our 10th anniversary makes me single again. The fact most of my life does not fit within a "preferential norm" does not make me "less than." It has its own value. But as a society do you not see any problem when societies no longer sustain themselves with offspring--and treat babies as a special little side project; something like getting a new pet?

But overall the statement does not address the issue. Expressing an ethic affirming marriage does not speak affirmatively or negatively to other circumstances.

"Can they not love each other? Can they not express their love for each other? Or is it all truly just sexual intercourse, flesh, reproduction, the body and biology?"

The meaning of the statement, clearly expressed, is that it is a unity. The cumbersome use of the language you dislike is to counter turning of the body into meaninglessness.

"Bodies can be used or misused in many ways. What matters most in love are matters of the mind and spirit."

It is not a matter of "most". It is a unity. The statement is a case for marital relationships. Life in community involves a full matrix of family and community relationships in which intimacy is developed and expressed in complex and rich fashion. Heterosexual marriage has a unique place in the manifestation of the full life created by God and sustained across the generations. It is not everything. It is one thing. It is a preferred thing. It is unique. Valuing its fullness and its place should not be diminished. A statement expressing that does not have to be taken as answering questions it does not addres..

Thanks for your always considerate, kind, and clear comments. Blessings to you this Thanksgiving.

by: thegoldenrule

12-01-2009 @ 11:15pm

The Church has been lying to us

The priests of Cotytto, the goddess of free love, were called "Baptae," the same base form of Baptism. Why would God order a major sacrament that represents free love? See: http://www.Goldenrule.name/Baptism-Cotytto/

"Fornication" and "sexual immorality" only meant "prostitution" in the original Scriptures. See: http://www.Goldenrule.name/#THE_SEX_LIE__EVIDENCE

Today's churches stating "agape" love (Jesus' "new commandment" in John 13:34) is "non-sexual" love, is a flat-out lie; and therefore proves they are the "Antichrist." See: http://www.the-goldenrule.name/Agape-Eros_GodsO... then http://www.Goldenrule.name/Septuagint_overview.htm

The first non-Christian writing told that Christians "came together to celebrate genitalia," which included St. Peter and Paul. See: http://www.Goldenrule.name/Orgy_Tacitus-Nero.htm I've found over 30 different accounts of early Christian ritual orgies, now indexed on the homepage.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT: Jesus commanded us to NOT marry in Matthew 19:10-12. See: http://www.Goldenrule.name/Marriage--JESUS_COMM...

There are many other supportive findings in protection of the innocent, indexed on the homepage: http://www.Goldenrule.name

by: BlueDeacon

11-27-2009 @ 4:05am

by: WaveTossed

11-25-2009 @ 8:19pm

Happy Thanksgiving to you.

You wrote: "[WT wrote]'Why is the BODY so important, so "intrinsic?'

"[LJRD wrote]To counter the notion that it is meaningless. The culture has raised bodily appearance, pleasure and sensuality in reaction to a repression of sexuality and goodness of the body."

That's one of the major problems; bodily appearance, pleasure, and sensuality in the absence of true commitment to love. There is no spirit in all of these emphases on sexual intercourse and the body. When the MD keeps emphasizing the body, it contributes a similar focus rather than moving away from it.

I believe that a person's body is important. However, when it comes to relationships, committment, the mind and the spirit are more important than the body. The MD keeps emphasizing the body rather than the mind and the spirit.

"These are flipsides of the same mistake. The elimination of sexual boundaries and the making of male and female to be meaningless results in an emptiness as complete as ultimate repression."

When the MD makes biological maleness and femaleness to be so important, more important than the spiritual side of love, then once more, the MD trumps body -- and male and female body parts -- over spiritual consciousness.

"[WT wrote]'Why is it so necessary that people function "biologically as a reproductive unit?'

[LJRD wrote]"It is not necessary. But it is to be given preferential value."

Why? In all cases, reproduction is to be given preferential value, over love? Over commitment? Especially when there is so much overpopulation? I volunteer at animal rescue agencies. We see everyday the tragedy of too much reproductive activity. Cats and dogs being euthanized every day in shelters because there are no homes. Our motto is always "neuter and spay."

I'm not saying that humans should neuter or spay themselves. However, there is a limit over how much reproduction can be emphasized, given the scarcity of so many resources. One can see the tragedy of too much human reproductive activity especially in poorer areas where the humans are unable to support what their reproductive activities have brought into the world.

So in the end, I have to disagree with the entire premise that the physical, biological act of sexual intercourse that results in reproduction is preferable to other relationships, preferable to other expressions of love and committment.

It is this emphasis on the physical body parts and certain sexual acts instead of on the spirit that makes me cringe everytime I read this Manhattan Declaration.

by: thegoldenrule

12-02-2009 @ 1:15am

The Church has been lying to us

The priests of Cotytto, the goddess of free love, were called "Baptae," the same base form of Baptism. Why would God order a major sacrament that represents free love? See: http://www.Goldenrule.name/Baptism-Cotytto/

"Fornication" and "sexual immorality" only meant "prostitution" in the original Scriptures. See: http://www.Goldenrule.name/#THE_SEX_LIE__EVIDENCE

Today's churches stating "agape" love (Jesus' "new commandment" in John 13:34) is "non-sexual" love, is a flat-out lie; and therefore proves they are the "Antichrist." See: http://www.the-goldenrule.name/Agape-Eros_GodsO... then http://www.Goldenrule.name/Septuagint_overview.htm

The first non-Christian writing told that Christians "came together to celebrate genitalia," which included St. Peter and Paul. See: http://www.Goldenrule.name/Orgy_Tacitus-Nero.htm I've found over 30 different accounts of early Christian ritual orgies, now indexed on the homepage.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT: Jesus commanded us to NOT marry in Matthew 19:10-12. See: http://www.Goldenrule.name/Marriage--JESUS_COMM...

There are many other supportive findings in protection of the innocent, indexed on the homepage: http://www.Goldenrule.name

by: BlueDeacon

11-26-2009 @ 7:40pm

hammerud -- I can't respond directly, so I'll do it here.

The problem I have with a lot of social welfare things though is that they create a dependency culture rather than helping people to get moving in life for their own good and self-esteem. The govt has been giving all sorts of handouts to the inner cities for decades and what do we have to show for it -- nothing but ongoing poverty.

That's an overstatement. Part of that is because, when wealthier folks began leaving the cities in the 1950s, they took their resources with them, basically isolating the poor. Anyone trying to get a job knows full well that you generally have to "know someone" even to get your foot in the door, and many of the poor simply don't have those connections. My church understands this now, so we're not so judgmental when it comes to dealing with the underclass.

I believe a lot of lip-service is given to caring for the poor (especially by the Democrats) when the real motive is controlling the poor.

Doesn't make any sense -- the poor often don't vote, even for Democrats.

I do read 11 chapters of the Bible every day and have been doing so for 40-plus years so God has sensitized me to heresy when I see it, and I see it in McLaren and Robb Bell. I disagree that the authors of the
Manhattan Declaration are trying to maintain their own authority.
The positions they put forth are in concert with the authority of
Scripture.

They would not have even written it if they weren't -- they wouldn't have felt the need. That said, if you spend that much time in the car going to and from work, I can assume that you listen to Christian radio on a regular basis, and I don't know any Bible-teaching program that doesn't sprinkle a little conservative commentary on the teaching -- I'm a regular listener to Charles Stanley and even he does once in a while. And since I assume you attend a church, you'll hear it there too, couched as Biblical preaching.

FWIW, as a child I attended a Christian academy sponsored by that Orthodox Presbyterian church I wrote about earlier, and I was taught quite well. However, I'm not so committed to the Reformed mindset that I can't appreciate different approaches to Scripture, and in the 1990s I was actually involved in counter-cult ministry. This is why your charges of "heresy" don't wash with me.

by: hammerud

11-26-2009 @ 7:12pm

Blue - I am glad you are committed to helping the poor and I am glad
your church gets it right. The problem I have with a lot of social
welfare things though is that they create a dependency culture rather
than helping people to get moving in life for their own good and self-
esteem. The govt has been giving all sorts of handouts to the inner
cities for decades and what do we have to show for it -- nothing but
ongoing poverty. I don't trust the motivations of people in general.
I believe a lot of lip-service is given to caring for the poor
(especially by the Democrats) when the real motive is controlling the
poor. I don't defend conservative denomination Christians. I happen
to be a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian, and I do not apologize
for it. I spend most of my time commuting up and down the highway
into DC to my job, getting up early in the morning, coming home late
in the afternoon, usually worn out, trying to make a living. I give a
lot of money and try to be generous, but I know I fall short. I do
read 11 chapters of the Bible every day and have been doing so for 40-
plus years so God has sensitized me to heresy when I see it, and I see
it in McLaren and Robb Bell. I disagree that the authors of the
Manhattan Declaration are trying to maintain their own authority.
The positions they put forth are in concert with the authority of
Scripture. You may have legitimate criticisms of conservative
denominations, but the points I have made are my points based on
Scripture. I did not adopt them from conservative denominations, and
I do not fundamentally identify myself with any denomination. I
assess anything I hear in any denomination or from any Christian
tradition or from any commentary in light of what I personally know of
the Word of God, and the points I make are based on Scripture. It is
obvious to me that you also are well versed in Scripture, so I
appreciate your input. Just be aware that I am not speaking as a
representative of conservative denominations. Hey, have a great
Thanksgiving Blue. I consider you a thoughtful friend and a brother
in Christ

by: BlueDeacon

11-26-2009 @ 6:46pm

I might do so, but I seriously doubt that a conservative denomination would
allow such erroneous teaching within its walls. And if anyone is sensitive to
heresy, it's yours truly. On the other hand, a former pastor of mine noted
that heresy isn't the biggest problem in the church -- it's idolatry.

The Manhattan Declaration basically is saying "we will obey God rather than
man" when the two conflict. I don't see how that would be a problem,
theologically or ideologically.

It certainly will be when you're trying to maintain your own authority in the
world, which is the real message of the Manhattan Declaration. Essentially,
its apologists want the world to bow down to them, Christ being only an
excuse, because they have never really trusted the message of the Gospel to
cause change. Basically, they don't understand that authority flows from
ministry; they mistakenly believe that having authority makes it easier to do
ministry.

My own church, which is also CMA, gets it right. While we certainly agree
with conservative "positions" on such issues, we're actually too busy doing
outreach to make it a priority. Ten years ago the then-mayor of the city
actually called our pastor and told him, "Any help we can offer we will" --
but we live those values and not push them.

by: WaveTossed

11-26-2009 @ 6:16pm

Thanks. In the other Manhatten Declaration thread, there are links to McLaren's views on the Uganda human rights violations. However, I'm still awaiting him to write a separate blog piece on this situation in Uganda.

by: hammerud

11-26-2009 @ 1:33pm

Blue -- Google Robb Bell, check out what he says, and it will be
obvious that he is a heretic -- as is McLaren. They are "wolves in
sheep's clothing." I don't like confrontation, but I will confront
heresy. The fact that some, if not all, NOOMA videos are sound does
not change Bell's heretical messages. Satan always clothes error
within truth, it makes the error more palatable.

The Manhattan Declaration basically is saying "we will obey God rather
than man" when the two conflict. I don't see how that would be a
problem, theologically or ideologically.

by: BlueDeacon

11-26-2009 @ 11:39am

Well, I've seen Rob Bell's NOOMA videos and frankly haven't detected any of
that "heresy" that you're talking about. (This was in a Christian &
Missionary Alliance church, which is quite conservative theologically, and I
also grew up Orthodox Presbyterian.) So before you call people heretics in my
presence you'll have to be a bit more precise in your accusations. As such, I
still see your support of the Manhattan Declaration as ideological, not
theological.

by: hammerud

11-26-2009 @ 10:03am

Blue, I do understand that that is the issue, and it is the issue with
a lot of Emergent Church stuff too. I do not oppose adjusting
strategies to reach the lost at all, but when the strategies include
the introduction of heresy, I have a problem -- and that is what has
gotten me so fired up of late. People like McLaren and Robb Bell have
introduced heresy into the mix, and some of it has found its way into
the church I attend. Satan always takes a good idea and subtly
introduces his little twists, as Paul said, "we're not unaware of his
devices." Most of the church does not seem to be discerning.

I think those behind the Manhattan Declaration do see the moral issues
of abortion, homosexuality etc as paramount issues, which
fundamentally erode the culture, and I agree with that. The
declaration takes a stand against an increasing threat from government
to force compliance with immoral edicts.

by: BlueDeacon

11-26-2009 @ 1:32am

What we are arguing about, frankly, is how a believer should think and live
after conversion. I hear you saying that he or she should be concerned
about a number of "moral issues" that self-identified conservatives have
identified as paramount -- and just happen to raise a lot of money and outrage
in the process. I have always disagreed, believing (as a Calvinist) that God
has a say over every single area of life. The problem is that many "older
evangelicals" are basically ossified in their thinking; most of the major
figures in the "religious right" were already middle-age in the early 1980s
and simply could not adjust their strategies to new challenges. This was part
of the problem with the Manhattan Declaration -- it's too "old-school" and
tied to a time that is long gone.

by: Daniel Batt

11-25-2009 @ 11:37pm

Personally, I don't think any Christian leader should make any statement about the so-called sin of homosexuality unless she has taken a stand at the much greater sin of homophobia in government, organisations and people.
If Christians had been there with GLBT people in the trenches when McCarhty launched his anti-gay and in Stonewall protests/'riots' then they may have a bit more credibility having already tackled what are unquestioningly the greater sins.
Regarding McClaren's silense, I think either (a) he hasn't made up his mind yet, or (b) he is not quite ready to become a pariah among his bread and butter evangelical brethren, prefering to take them on a journey into cognitive dissonance where they will finally be able to act like Jesus.

by: hammerud

11-25-2009 @ 10:41pm

Blue -- I guess I am a little bit confused with what we are arguing about. I absolutely agree that works affirm and confirm salvation, but they are not part of the actual event of salvation. Regarding Nicodemus, being born again does have to do with the hear and now, but it impacts eternity. God bless. Winston

by: BlueDeacon

11-25-2009 @ 10:06pm

No, it isn't, and your saying so won't change things -- an emphasis on "fire
insurance" is a result of Greek dualistic philosophy, which promotes a gulf
between the sacred and secular that simply doesn't exist in Hebrew thought.
But please don't accuse me of believing in works-based salvation; I would
never do that. However, all us Christians have work to do, and some of that
work may come out of that of a more "liberal" ideological persuasion. One of
the problems with the fundamentalist/modernist "split" of the 1920s was the
fundamentalists' unwilling to consider that works affirm and
confirm salvation.

And in fact, the Jewish people have never placed much emphasis on the
afterlife. It's clear from the context that, when Jesus told Nicodemus that
"you must be born from above" [a better translation than "born again"], He was
talking about the here and now -- remember that Nicodemus was
marveling at His teaching -- and it was His way of saying, "You don't quite
have it right."

by: NC77

11-25-2009 @ 9:52pm

Bless you sister.

by: NC77

11-25-2009 @ 9:50pm

McLaren does not believe in the Jesus of Christians (or the bible if you prefer) because he does not address the sin of mankind and the fact that Jesus came to die for the forgiveness of sin for all mankind, and was raised from the dead for our justification before God. McLaren never addresses the need for all to receive Jesus for salvation from their sins and to receive the gift of eternal life rather than the death their sins ultimately lead to. It is all about political justice. With McLaren, it's all about being the perfect Pharisee in the name of Jesus.

by: Monte_Asbury

11-25-2009 @ 8:46pm

Take a look, hammerud, with pen in hand, at the gospels. Tally up in how much of the story Jesus is focusing on the immediate physical needs of people, or telling stories about those immediate physical needs, vs. how much of the time he is issuing a call to become born again. I think you'll find it ten or twenty to one. Read carefully the parable of the sheep and the goats, and listen to Jesus as he describes why "the nations" are so punished and rewarded.
Do our evangelical priorities truly reflect that about which Jesus demonstrates the most concern?

by: WaveTossed

11-25-2009 @ 8:19pm

Happy Thanksgiving to you.

You wrote: "[WT wrote]'Why is the BODY so important, so "intrinsic?'

"[LJRD wrote]To counter the notion that it is meaningless. The culture has raised bodily appearance, pleasure and sensuality in reaction to a repression of sexuality and goodness of the body."

That's one of the major problems; bodily appearance, pleasure, and sensuality in the absence of true commitment to love. There is no spirit in all of these emphases on sexual intercourse and the body. When the MD keeps emphasizing the body, it contributes a similar focus rather than moving away from it.

I believe that a person's body is important. However, when it comes to relationships, committment, the mind and the spirit are more important than the body. The MD keeps emphasizing the body rather than the mind and the spirit.

"These are flipsides of the same mistake. The elimination of sexual boundaries and the making of male and female to be meaningless results in an emptiness as complete as ultimate repression."

When the MD makes biological maleness and femaleness to be so important, more important than the spiritual side of love, then once more, the MD trumps body -- and male and female body parts -- over spiritual consciousness.

"[WT wrote]'Why is it so necessary that people function "biologically as a reproductive unit?'

[LJRD wrote]"It is not necessary. But it is to be given preferential value."

Why? In all cases, reproduction is to be given preferential value, over love? Over commitment? Especially when there is so much overpopulation? I volunteer at animal rescue agencies. We see everyday the tragedy of too much reproductive activity. Cats and dogs being euthanized every day in shelters because there are no homes. Our motto is always "neuter and spay."

I'm not saying that humans should neuter or spay themselves. However, there is a limit over how much reproduction can be emphasized, given the scarcity of so many resources. One can see the tragedy of too much human reproductive activity especially in poorer areas where the humans are unable to support what their reproductive activities have brought into the world.

So in the end, I have to disagree with the entire premise that the physical, biological act of sexual intercourse that results in reproduction is preferable to other relationships, preferable to other expressions of love and committment.

It is this emphasis on the physical body parts and certain sexual acts instead of on the spirit that makes me cringe everytime I read this Manhattan Declaration.

by: Android Tablets

06-14-2011 @ 5:42pm

by: Android Tablets

06-14-2011 @ 5:42pm

by: thegoldenrule

12-02-2009 @ 1:15am

The Church has been lying to us

The priests of Cotytto, the goddess of free love, were called "Baptae," the same base form of Baptism. Why would God order a major sacrament that represents free love? See: http://www.Goldenrule.name/Baptism-Cotytto/

"Fornication" and "sexual immorality" only meant "prostitution" in the original Scriptures. See: http://www.Goldenrule.name/#THE_SEX_LIE__EVIDENCE

Today's churches stating "agape" love (Jesus' "new commandment" in John 13:34) is "non-sexual" love, is a flat-out lie; and therefore proves they are the "Antichrist." See: http://www.the-goldenrule.name/Agape-Eros_GodsO... then http://www.Goldenrule.name/Septuagint_overview.htm

The first non-Christian writing told that Christians "came together to celebrate genitalia," which included St. Peter and Paul. See: http://www.Goldenrule.name/Orgy_Tacitus-Nero.htm I've found over 30 different accounts of early Christian ritual orgies, now indexed on the homepage.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT: Jesus commanded us to NOT marry in Matthew 19:10-12. See: http://www.Goldenrule.name/Marriage--JESUS_COMM...

There are many other supportive findings in protection of the innocent, indexed on the homepage: http://www.Goldenrule.name

by: thegoldenrule

12-01-2009 @ 11:15pm

The Church has been lying to us

The priests of Cotytto, the goddess of free love, were called "Baptae," the same base form of Baptism. Why would God order a major sacrament that represents free love? See: http://www.Goldenrule.name/Baptism-Cotytto/

"Fornication" and "sexual immorality" only meant "prostitution" in the original Scriptures. See: http://www.Goldenrule.name/#THE_SEX_LIE__EVIDENCE

Today's churches stating "agape" love (Jesus' "new commandment" in John 13:34) is "non-sexual" love, is a flat-out lie; and therefore proves they are the "Antichrist." See: http://www.the-goldenrule.name/Agape-Eros_GodsO... then http://www.Goldenrule.name/Septuagint_overview.htm

The first non-Christian writing told that Christians "came together to celebrate genitalia," which included St. Peter and Paul. See: http://www.Goldenrule.name/Orgy_Tacitus-Nero.htm I've found over 30 different accounts of early Christian ritual orgies, now indexed on the homepage.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT: Jesus commanded us to NOT marry in Matthew 19:10-12. See: http://www.Goldenrule.name/Marriage--JESUS_COMM...

There are many other supportive findings in protection of the innocent, indexed on the homepage: http://www.Goldenrule.name

by: BlueDeacon

11-27-2009 @ 4:05am

by: BlueDeacon

11-26-2009 @ 7:40pm

hammerud -- I can't respond directly, so I'll do it here.

The problem I have with a lot of social welfare things though is that they create a dependency culture rather than helping people to get moving in life for their own good and self-esteem. The govt has been giving all sorts of handouts to the inner cities for decades and what do we have to show for it -- nothing but ongoing poverty.

That's an overstatement. Part of that is because, when wealthier folks began leaving the cities in the 1950s, they took their resources with them, basically isolating the poor. Anyone trying to get a job knows full well that you generally have to "know someone" even to get your foot in the door, and many of the poor simply don't have those connections. My church understands this now, so we're not so judgmental when it comes to dealing with the underclass.

I believe a lot of lip-service is given to caring for the poor (especially by the Democrats) when the real motive is controlling the poor.

Doesn't make any sense -- the poor often don't vote, even for Democrats.

I do read 11 chapters of the Bible every day and have been doing so for 40-plus years so God has sensitized me to heresy when I see it, and I see it in McLaren and Robb Bell. I disagree that the authors of the
Manhattan Declaration are trying to maintain their own authority.
The positions they put forth are in concert with the authority of
Scripture.

They would not have even written it if they weren't -- they wouldn't have felt the need. That said, if you spend that much time in the car going to and from work, I can assume that you listen to Christian radio on a regular basis, and I don't know any Bible-teaching program that doesn't sprinkle a little conservative commentary on the teaching -- I'm a regular listener to Charles Stanley and even he does once in a while. And since I assume you attend a church, you'll hear it there too, couched as Biblical preaching.

FWIW, as a child I attended a Christian academy sponsored by that Orthodox Presbyterian church I wrote about earlier, and I was taught quite well. However, I'm not so committed to the Reformed mindset that I can't appreciate different approaches to Scripture, and in the 1990s I was actually involved in counter-cult ministry. This is why your charges of "heresy" don't wash with me.

by: hammerud

11-26-2009 @ 7:12pm

Blue - I am glad you are committed to helping the poor and I am glad
your church gets it right. The problem I have with a lot of social
welfare things though is that they create a dependency culture rather
than helping people to get moving in life for their own good and self-
esteem. The govt has been giving all sorts of handouts to the inner
cities for decades and what do we have to show for it -- nothing but
ongoing poverty. I don't trust the motivations of people in general.
I believe a lot of lip-service is given to caring for the poor
(especially by the Democrats) when the real motive is controlling the
poor. I don't defend conservative denomination Christians. I happen
to be a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian, and I do not apologize
for it. I spend most of my time commuting up and down the highway
into DC to my job, getting up early in the morning, coming home late
in the afternoon, usually worn out, trying to make a living. I give a
lot of money and try to be generous, but I know I fall short. I do
read 11 chapters of the Bible every day and have been doing so for 40-
plus years so God has sensitized me to heresy when I see it, and I see
it in McLaren and Robb Bell. I disagree that the authors of the
Manhattan Declaration are trying to maintain their own authority.
The positions they put forth are in concert with the authority of
Scripture. You may have legitimate criticisms of conservative
denominations, but the points I have made are my points based on
Scripture. I did not adopt them from conservative denominations, and
I do not fundamentally identify myself with any denomination. I
assess anything I hear in any denomination or from any Christian
tradition or from any commentary in light of what I personally know of
the Word of God, and the points I make are based on Scripture. It is
obvious to me that you also are well versed in Scripture, so I
appreciate your input. Just be aware that I am not speaking as a
representative of conservative denominations. Hey, have a great
Thanksgiving Blue. I consider you a thoughtful friend and a brother
in Christ

by: BlueDeacon

11-26-2009 @ 6:46pm

I might do so, but I seriously doubt that a conservative denomination would
allow such erroneous teaching within its walls. And if anyone is sensitive to
heresy, it's yours truly. On the other hand, a former pastor of mine noted
that heresy isn't the biggest problem in the church -- it's idolatry.

The Manhattan Declaration basically is saying "we will obey God rather than
man" when the two conflict. I don't see how that would be a problem,
theologically or ideologically.

It certainly will be when you're trying to maintain your own authority in the
world, which is the real message of the Manhattan Declaration. Essentially,
its apologists want the world to bow down to them, Christ being only an
excuse, because they have never really trusted the message of the Gospel to
cause change. Basically, they don't understand that authority flows from
ministry; they mistakenly believe that having authority makes it easier to do
ministry.

My own church, which is also CMA, gets it right. While we certainly agree
with conservative "positions" on such issues, we're actually too busy doing
outreach to make it a priority. Ten years ago the then-mayor of the city
actually called our pastor and told him, "Any help we can offer we will" --
but we live those values and not push them.

by: ckgmail

11-24-2009 @ 7:30pm

Thqnk you Brian. I consider myself pro-life. I find abortion abhorrent, but I am not convinced that a constitutional amendment is a good way to express that conviction. I am pro-life when it comes to war and capital punishment as well. I am certainly pro-religious liberty, but had some apprehension about the context in which that affirmation is made in the Manhattan declaration.

by: WaveTossed

11-26-2009 @ 6:16pm

Thanks. In the other Manhatten Declaration thread, there are links to McLaren's views on the Uganda human rights violations. However, I'm still awaiting him to write a separate blog piece on this situation in Uganda.

by: hammerud

11-26-2009 @ 1:33pm

Blue -- Google Robb Bell, check out what he says, and it will be
obvious that he is a heretic -- as is McLaren. They are "wolves in
sheep's clothing." I don't like confrontation, but I will confront
heresy. The fact that some, if not all, NOOMA videos are sound does
not change Bell's heretical messages. Satan always clothes error
within truth, it makes the error more palatable.

The Manhattan Declaration basically is saying "we will obey God rather
than man" when the two conflict. I don't see how that would be a
problem, theologically or ideologically.

by: jesse3

11-24-2009 @ 7:43pm

"I think we need to raise the question whether the criminalization of abortion is the best or even a good way to reduce it."
--It's not even necessarily a matter of whether it is "best" or even "good." Unborn children need legal protections because they are persons deserving of protection....just like you and me. I believe abortion is an injustice and it compels me to seek changes in laws. Unfortunately, you do not feel it is an injustice, and this is the fundamental source of our differences in approach.

"I remember being shocked to learn that even if the goals of the signors were achieved and Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would have relatively little effect on the number of abortions performed in the United States."
--Sorry, I find it hard to believe you were "shocked" because this is a standard argument used by most who are pro-legalized abortion ("laws won't do anything"). It is far from proven. The relatively low abortion rates post-Roe and their gradual increase thereafter indicate that laws in fact DID affect abortion rates. Peer-reviewed research has also demonstrated the effectiveness of more conservative laws and the absence of abortion providers as being linked to lower abortion rates. No peer-reviewed research has been published suggesting increases in welfare would reduce abortion rates (contrary to the opinions always being pushed on this site related to this topic).

In truth, polls suggest overturning Roe would likely lead to more conservative laws in most states and outright bans in a few states.
Overturning Roe would also correct an egregious, intellectually and morally indefensible, anti-democratic power grab by the supreme court. It is to Sojo's shame that they have never spoken against this horrible decision.

by: BlueDeacon

11-26-2009 @ 11:39am

Well, I've seen Rob Bell's NOOMA videos and frankly haven't detected any of
that "heresy" that you're talking about. (This was in a Christian &
Missionary Alliance church, which is quite conservative theologically, and I
also grew up Orthodox Presbyterian.) So before you call people heretics in my
presence you'll have to be a bit more precise in your accusations. As such, I
still see your support of the Manhattan Declaration as ideological, not
theological.

by: BlueDeacon

11-24-2009 @ 8:07pm

Here's the problem with that reasoning: The abortion laws that were enacted around the turn of the last century had huge popular support, so much so that even Margaret Sanger, long vilified as a Nazi sympathizer and "baby-killer," remarked in 1920, when abortion had already been illegal for a generation, that it was a "disgrace to civilization" that abortions were still happening. Today, however, even if abortion laws were enacted they could easily be overturned with a change in the legislature because the broad-based support just isn't there.

by: hammerud

11-26-2009 @ 10:03am

Blue, I do understand that that is the issue, and it is the issue with
a lot of Emergent Church stuff too. I do not oppose adjusting
strategies to reach the lost at all, but when the strategies include
the introduction of heresy, I have a problem -- and that is what has
gotten me so fired up of late. People like McLaren and Robb Bell have
introduced heresy into the mix, and some of it has found its way into
the church I attend. Satan always takes a good idea and subtly
introduces his little twists, as Paul said, "we're not unaware of his
devices." Most of the church does not seem to be discerning.

I think those behind the Manhattan Declaration do see the moral issues
of abortion, homosexuality etc as paramount issues, which
fundamentally erode the culture, and I agree with that. The
declaration takes a stand against an increasing threat from government
to force compliance with immoral edicts.

by: WaveTossed

11-24-2009 @ 8:16pm

[from Brian McLaren's comments]"Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and 'ethnic cleansing," the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable
diseases like AIDS."

Here are some prime examples. Though I have serious doubts that the signers of the Manhatten Declaration would support thisee campaigns:

http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/pres...

by: BlueDeacon

11-26-2009 @ 1:32am

What we are arguing about, frankly, is how a believer should think and live
after conversion. I hear you saying that he or she should be concerned
about a number of "moral issues" that self-identified conservatives have
identified as paramount -- and just happen to raise a lot of money and outrage
in the process. I have always disagreed, believing (as a Calvinist) that God
has a say over every single area of life. The problem is that many "older
evangelicals" are basically ossified in their thinking; most of the major
figures in the "religious right" were already middle-age in the early 1980s
and simply could not adjust their strategies to new challenges. This was part
of the problem with the Manhattan Declaration -- it's too "old-school" and
tied to a time that is long gone.

by: BuckeyeDon

11-24-2009 @ 8:20pm

"Unfortunately, you do not feel it is an injustice, and this is the fundamental source of our differences in approach."

I take issue with this statement. It does not accord with what Sojourners has said or written, and it does not accord with what Brian McLaren says here: "I wholeheartedly agree with the Declaration that our culture suffers from a 'loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life.'"

You are putting your spin on Sojourners' statements, Jesse, that does not reflect what they say or believe. You are equating "upholding the sanctity of life" with "making abortion a criminal act." That is a false dichotomy.

by: Daniel Batt

11-25-2009 @ 11:37pm

Personally, I don't think any Christian leader should make any statement about the so-called sin of homosexuality unless she has taken a stand at the much greater sin of homophobia in government, organisations and people.
If Christians had been there with GLBT people in the trenches when McCarhty launched his anti-gay and in Stonewall protests/'riots' then they may have a bit more credibility having already tackled what are unquestioningly the greater sins.
Regarding McClaren's silense, I think either (a) he hasn't made up his mind yet, or (b) he is not quite ready to become a pariah among his bread and butter evangelical brethren, prefering to take them on a journey into cognitive dissonance where they will finally be able to act like Jesus.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: ckgmail

11-24-2009 @ 7:30pm

Thqnk you Brian. I consider myself pro-life. I find abortion abhorrent, but I am not convinced that a constitutional amendment is a good way to express that conviction. I am pro-life when it comes to war and capital punishment as well. I am certainly pro-religious liberty, but had some apprehension about the context in which that affirmation is made in the Manhattan declaration.

by: ckgmail

11-24-2009 @ 7:30pm

Thqnk you Brian. I consider myself pro-life. I find abortion abhorrent, but I am not convinced that a constitutional amendment is a good way to express that conviction. I am pro-life when it comes to war and capital punishment as well. I am certainly pro-religious liberty, but had some apprehension about the context in which that affirmation is made in the Manhattan declaration.

by: jesse3

11-24-2009 @ 7:43pm

"I think we need to raise the question whether the criminalization of abortion is the best or even a good way to reduce it."
--It's not even necessarily a matter of whether it is "best" or even "good." Unborn children need legal protections because they are persons deserving of protection....just like you and me. I believe abortion is an injustice and it compels me to seek changes in laws. Unfortunately, you do not feel it is an injustice, and this is the fundamental source of our differences in approach.

"I remember being shocked to learn that even if the goals of the signors were achieved and Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would have relatively little effect on the number of abortions performed in the United States."
--Sorry, I find it hard to believe you were "shocked" because this is a standard argument used by most who are pro-legalized abortion ("laws won't do anything"). It is far from proven. The relatively low abortion rates post-Roe and their gradual increase thereafter indicate that laws in fact DID affect abortion rates. Peer-reviewed research has also demonstrated the effectiveness of more conservative laws and the absence of abortion providers as being linked to lower abortion rates. No peer-reviewed research has been published suggesting increases in welfare would reduce abortion rates (contrary to the opinions always being pushed on this site related to this topic).

In truth, polls suggest overturning Roe would likely lead to more conservative laws in most states and outright bans in a few states.
Overturning Roe would also correct an egregious, intellectually and morally indefensible, anti-democratic power grab by the supreme court. It is to Sojo's shame that they have never spoken against this horrible decision.

by: jesse3

11-24-2009 @ 7:43pm

"I think we need to raise the question whether the criminalization of abortion is the best or even a good way to reduce it."
--It's not even necessarily a matter of whether it is "best" or even "good." Unborn children need legal protections because they are persons deserving of protection....just like you and me. I believe abortion is an injustice and it compels me to seek changes in laws. Unfortunately, you do not feel it is an injustice, and this is the fundamental source of our differences in approach.

"I remember being shocked to learn that even if the goals of the signors were achieved and Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would have relatively little effect on the number of abortions performed in the United States."
--Sorry, I find it hard to believe you were "shocked" because this is a standard argument used by most who are pro-legalized abortion ("laws won't do anything"). It is far from proven. The relatively low abortion rates post-Roe and their gradual increase thereafter indicate that laws in fact DID affect abortion rates. Peer-reviewed research has also demonstrated the effectiveness of more conservative laws and the absence of abortion providers as being linked to lower abortion rates. No peer-reviewed research has been published suggesting increases in welfare would reduce abortion rates (contrary to the opinions always being pushed on this site related to this topic).

In truth, polls suggest overturning Roe would likely lead to more conservative laws in most states and outright bans in a few states.
Overturning Roe would also correct an egregious, intellectually and morally indefensible, anti-democratic power grab by the supreme court. It is to Sojo's shame that they have never spoken against this horrible decision.

by: BlueDeacon

11-24-2009 @ 8:07pm

Here's the problem with that reasoning: The abortion laws that were enacted around the turn of the last century had huge popular support, so much so that even Margaret Sanger, long vilified as a Nazi sympathizer and "baby-killer," remarked in 1920, when abortion had already been illegal for a generation, that it was a "disgrace to civilization" that abortions were still happening. Today, however, even if abortion laws were enacted they could easily be overturned with a change in the legislature because the broad-based support just isn't there.

by: BlueDeacon

11-24-2009 @ 8:07pm

Here's the problem with that reasoning: The abortion laws that were enacted around the turn of the last century had huge popular support, so much so that even Margaret Sanger, long vilified as a Nazi sympathizer and "baby-killer," remarked in 1920, when abortion had already been illegal for a generation, that it was a "disgrace to civilization" that abortions were still happening. Today, however, even if abortion laws were enacted they could easily be overturned with a change in the legislature because the broad-based support just isn't there.

by: WaveTossed

11-24-2009 @ 8:16pm

[from Brian McLaren's comments]"Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and 'ethnic cleansing," the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable
diseases like AIDS."

Here are some prime examples. Though I have serious doubts that the signers of the Manhatten Declaration would support thisee campaigns:

http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/pres...

by: WaveTossed

11-24-2009 @ 8:16pm

[from Brian McLaren's comments]"Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and 'ethnic cleansing," the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable
diseases like AIDS."

Here are some prime examples. Though I have serious doubts that the signers of the Manhatten Declaration would support thisee campaigns:

http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/pres...

by: BuckeyeDon

11-24-2009 @ 8:20pm

"Unfortunately, you do not feel it is an injustice, and this is the fundamental source of our differences in approach."

I take issue with this statement. It does not accord with what Sojourners has said or written, and it does not accord with what Brian McLaren says here: "I wholeheartedly agree with the Declaration that our culture suffers from a 'loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life.'"

You are putting your spin on Sojourners' statements, Jesse, that does not reflect what they say or believe. You are equating "upholding the sanctity of life" with "making abortion a criminal act." That is a false dichotomy.

by: BuckeyeDon

11-24-2009 @ 8:20pm

"Unfortunately, you do not feel it is an injustice, and this is the fundamental source of our differences in approach."

I take issue with this statement. It does not accord with what Sojourners has said or written, and it does not accord with what Brian McLaren says here: "I wholeheartedly agree with the Declaration that our culture suffers from a 'loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life.'"

You are putting your spin on Sojourners' statements, Jesse, that does not reflect what they say or believe. You are equating "upholding the sanctity of life" with "making abortion a criminal act." That is a false dichotomy.

by: mdenning

11-24-2009 @ 8:50pm

McLaren was charitable but I think he and the Washington Post writer he quotes from are mistaken with the criticism that "Older evangelicals have been largely silent on these issues and in similar fashion this declaration has relegated them to little more than a footnote." The these issue referred to are "...genocide and 'ethnic cleansing,' the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS."

For example: the older evangelicals are represented by an organization like the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). This association represents more than 45,000 local churches from over 40 different denominations and serves a constituency of millions. If you check the NAE's Government Affairs/Policy Page you will see that they have come out with strong statements on almost all of these things. Statements about most of the things mentioned above were done ten years ago or more. Looks to me like the older evangelicals might have been in the vanguard rather than the rear guard as the uber hip "progressives" would have you believe.

by: mdenning

11-24-2009 @ 8:50pm

McLaren was charitable but I think he and the Washington Post writer he quotes from are mistaken with the criticism that "Older evangelicals have been largely silent on these issues and in similar fashion this declaration has relegated them to little more than a footnote." The these issue referred to are "...genocide and 'ethnic cleansing,' the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS."

For example: the older evangelicals are represented by an organization like the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). This association represents more than 45,000 local churches from over 40 different denominations and serves a constituency of millions. If you check the NAE's Government Affairs/Policy Page you will see that they have come out with strong statements on almost all of these things. Statements about most of the things mentioned above were done ten years ago or more. Looks to me like the older evangelicals might have been in the vanguard rather than the rear guard as the uber hip "progressives" would have you believe.

by: jesse3

11-24-2009 @ 9:08pm

No, I'm saying that if you believe abortion is an injustice to unborn children then you will seek to remedy this injustice through legal means--i.e., you will work for their legal protection.

You probably would find it hard to believe that someone would consider slavery an "injustice" but also feel that people have a right to own slaves. We call things "injustices" when people are being denied their rights...in the case of abortion, the right to life. Sojo has never said that the unborn are being denied their rights. They have never said that abortion is an injustice to unborn children. Please tell me if I have missed anything.

McLaren, Wallis et al. have said that abortion is a "tragedy" and something sad, but they have nowhere expressed any sentiment that would suggest they believe it is an injustice that must be righted. These may seem like subtle distinctions but they are real and important differences between what we believe.

by: jesse3

11-24-2009 @ 9:08pm

No, I'm saying that if you believe abortion is an injustice to unborn children then you will seek to remedy this injustice through legal means--i.e., you will work for their legal protection.

You probably would find it hard to believe that someone would consider slavery an "injustice" but also feel that people have a right to own slaves. We call things "injustices" when people are being denied their rights...in the case of abortion, the right to life. Sojo has never said that the unborn are being denied their rights. They have never said that abortion is an injustice to unborn children. Please tell me if I have missed anything.

McLaren, Wallis et al. have said that abortion is a "tragedy" and something sad, but they have nowhere expressed any sentiment that would suggest they believe it is an injustice that must be righted. These may seem like subtle distinctions but they are real and important differences between what we believe.

by: jesse3

11-24-2009 @ 9:14pm

"Today, however, even if abortion laws were enacted they could easily be overturned with a change in the legislature because the broad-based support just isn't there."
--If that were also the case for slavery would you still give up the fight against it? You could argue this for almost any injustice...just because the legislature could suddenly overturn it (which is not the case in heavily prolife states such as Louisiana), does that mean we should do nothing about it?

Also, there are many countries where abortion is illegal right now (e.g., Ireland, Poland) and public opinions are far from unanimous. The latest polls show the public is divided on the issue, though strong majorities have always supported some restrictions (restrictions that are not allowed by Roe).

Why do people treat abortion differently? If we treated it like any other injustice, we wouldn't be so resigned to just accepting things as they are.

by: jesse3

11-24-2009 @ 9:14pm

"Today, however, even if abortion laws were enacted they could easily be overturned with a change in the legislature because the broad-based support just isn't there."
--If that were also the case for slavery would you still give up the fight against it? You could argue this for almost any injustice...just because the legislature could suddenly overturn it (which is not the case in heavily prolife states such as Louisiana), does that mean we should do nothing about it?

Also, there are many countries where abortion is illegal right now (e.g., Ireland, Poland) and public opinions are far from unanimous. The latest polls show the public is divided on the issue, though strong majorities have always supported some restrictions (restrictions that are not allowed by Roe).

Why do people treat abortion differently? If we treated it like any other injustice, we wouldn't be so resigned to just accepting things as they are.

by: hammerud

11-24-2009 @ 9:24pm

Well said. Brian McClaren and Jim Wallis and others are more committed with not offending people than making clear, bottom-line, statements on such things, as you do here. The Jesus of the Bible was not afraid of offending people. He said, "the world hates me because I testify of it that its deeds are evil." Brian McClaren may have noble intentions, but he and others of like mind, embrace a Jesus that is not the Jesus of the Bible, Who said, "I did not come to send peace, but rather division." He brought division because He loved the lost enough to proclaim truth to them, even though it offended them; and His ministry eventually led to His crucifixion.

by: hammerud

11-24-2009 @ 9:24pm

Well said. Brian McClaren and Jim Wallis and others are more committed with not offending people than making clear, bottom-line, statements on such things, as you do here. The Jesus of the Bible was not afraid of offending people. He said, "the world hates me because I testify of it that its deeds are evil." Brian McClaren may have noble intentions, but he and others of like mind, embrace a Jesus that is not the Jesus of the Bible, Who said, "I did not come to send peace, but rather division." He brought division because He loved the lost enough to proclaim truth to them, even though it offended them; and His ministry eventually led to His crucifixion.

by: carolynhyppolite

11-24-2009 @ 10:10pm

I am black, female, and 30 years old. I signed the manhattan declaration.

by: carolynhyppolite

11-24-2009 @ 10:10pm

I am black, female, and 30 years old. I signed the manhattan declaration.

by: teachermommy73

11-24-2009 @ 10:35pm

mdenning, I fear that our generation does not know or acknowledge this because those who (as you point out) have been and are the vanguards on such issues have not been nearly as vocal as the "religious right" or "moral majority" whose narrow focus, whether accurately or not, defined "the Church" in the eyes of society/culture for years...

by: teachermommy73

11-24-2009 @ 10:35pm

mdenning, I fear that our generation does not know or acknowledge this because those who (as you point out) have been and are the vanguards on such issues have not been nearly as vocal as the "religious right" or "moral majority" whose narrow focus, whether accurately or not, defined "the Church" in the eyes of society/culture for years...

by: Common Loon

11-24-2009 @ 10:42pm

There's certainly a range of theological perspectives represented among the signatories of the MD (Orthodox, Anglican, Catholic & Evangelical), but not everyone in the evangelical world who typically contributes to these types of ecumenical public policy collaboratives has endorsed the MD.Ron Sider, David Neff, Cornelius Plantinga and Dennis Hollinger notwithstanding, I haven't noticed much support from the evangelical "moderate" camp, including some who were instrumental in drafting last year's Evangelical Manifesto.Noticeably absent from the Manhattan Declaration's signatories are respected evangelical scholars like Richard Mouw, David Gushee, Jim Skillen, Mark Noll, Stephen Monsma, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Dallas Willard, J.P. Moreland and Os Guinness.

This doesn't mean it's not an impressive feat of coalition-building (Neuhaus would be proud), but the narrow range of policy emphases could be a reason why some evangelicals, including yours truly, have yet to sign on.

by: Common Loon

11-24-2009 @ 10:42pm

There's certainly a range of theological perspectives represented among the signatories of the MD (Orthodox, Anglican, Catholic & Evangelical), but not everyone in the evangelical world who typically contributes to these types of ecumenical public policy collaboratives has endorsed the MD.Ron Sider, David Neff, Cornelius Plantinga and Dennis Hollinger notwithstanding, I haven't noticed much support from the evangelical "moderate" camp, including some who were instrumental in drafting last year's Evangelical Manifesto.Noticeably absent from the Manhattan Declaration's signatories are respected evangelical scholars like Richard Mouw, David Gushee, Jim Skillen, Mark Noll, Stephen Monsma, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Dallas Willard, J.P. Moreland and Os Guinness.

This doesn't mean it's not an impressive feat of coalition-building (Neuhaus would be proud), but the narrow range of policy emphases could be a reason why some evangelicals, including yours truly, have yet to sign on.

by: MacArthur4

11-24-2009 @ 11:08pm

It was a very well document . It has a FaceBook link to it also.
Glad it was so articulate and yet kept it to some basic beliefs that Christianity and different denominations could share . I may have a theological difference with a Catholic on Justification , but the basic message of the Cross and what it helps us provide for our loved ones and those who are not loved is basic 101 Christianity.
Good to see so many different Faith Groups realizing and seeing the time is now to choose our God or the god of the present culture.

"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."

by: MacArthur4

11-24-2009 @ 11:08pm

It was a very well document . It has a FaceBook link to it also.
Glad it was so articulate and yet kept it to some basic beliefs that Christianity and different denominations could share . I may have a theological difference with a Catholic on Justification , but the basic message of the Cross and what it helps us provide for our loved ones and those who are not loved is basic 101 Christianity.
Good to see so many different Faith Groups realizing and seeing the time is now to choose our God or the god of the present culture.

"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."

by: teachermommy73

11-25-2009 @ 12:12am

I hate abortion (as much for women as for babies) but I do not think there is a consistent analogy between slavery and abortion. Pregnancy occurs inside a woman's body, and there is nothing else in this world that really works as an analogy for that...

by: teachermommy73

11-25-2009 @ 12:12am

I hate abortion (as much for women as for babies) but I do not think there is a consistent analogy between slavery and abortion. Pregnancy occurs inside a woman's body, and there is nothing else in this world that really works as an analogy for that...

by: letjusticerolldown

11-25-2009 @ 2:09am

If the Human Rights Campaign failed to address religious persecution in China--would that nullify its legitimacy?

by: letjusticerolldown

11-25-2009 @ 2:09am

If the Human Rights Campaign failed to address religious persecution in China--would that nullify its legitimacy?

by: letjusticerolldown

11-25-2009 @ 2:18am

All for peace. All for tolerance. All for understanding. All for inclusion. All for life. All for common ground.

But don't dare identify me with those nutcases who think priority consideration ought be given to life itself. They don't formulate it quite right. The writers are too old. They are too white. Oh, but they are finally seeing a glimmer of light. They were oblivious to human suffering and injustice before. If only we had lived in their day there would be no injustice today.

by: letjusticerolldown

11-25-2009 @ 2:18am

All for peace. All for tolerance. All for understanding. All for inclusion. All for life. All for common ground.

But don't dare identify me with those nutcases who think priority consideration ought be given to life itself. They don't formulate it quite right. The writers are too old. They are too white. Oh, but they are finally seeing a glimmer of light. They were oblivious to human suffering and injustice before. If only we had lived in their day there would be no injustice today.

by: BlueDeacon

11-25-2009 @ 2:25am

If that were also the case for slavery would you still give up the fight against it? You could argue this for almost any injustice...just because the legislature could suddenly overturn it (which is not the case in heavily prolife states such as Louisiana), does that mean we should do nothing about it?

What I would not do is to denounce consistently pro-slavery folks as an enemy to be defeated and slander them left and right. But even during the fight against slavery, abolitionists did try to get as many people on their side as possible because that was the only way anything could get done. You don't think public opinion doesn't matter? It does. That was the reason for nonviolent protest during the civil-rights movement -- let the bad guys act up and the populace would hopefully be aroused.

Also, there are many countries where abortion is illegal right now (e.g., Ireland, Poland) and public opinions are far from unanimous.

But that has to do with the strong Catholic influence, which doesn't always translate in America. In fact, when the Roe decision came down the head of the Southern Baptist Convention praised it because, in those days, abortion was seen as a Catholic issue.

Why do people treat abortion differently?

In part because the conservative movement hijacked the issue during the late 1970s for the sake of votes. Being anti-abortion but indifferent to other issues of "life" is simply hypocritical.

by: BlueDeacon

11-25-2009 @ 2:25am

If that were also the case for slavery would you still give up the fight against it? You could argue this for almost any injustice...just because the legislature could suddenly overturn it (which is not the case in heavily prolife states such as Louisiana), does that mean we should do nothing about it?

What I would not do is to denounce consistently pro-slavery folks as an enemy to be defeated and slander them left and right. But even during the fight against slavery, abolitionists did try to get as many people on their side as possible because that was the only way anything could get done. You don't think public opinion doesn't matter? It does. That was the reason for nonviolent protest during the civil-rights movement -- let the bad guys act up and the populace would hopefully be aroused.

Also, there are many countries where abortion is illegal right now (e.g., Ireland, Poland) and public opinions are far from unanimous.

But that has to do with the strong Catholic influence, which doesn't always translate in America. In fact, when the Roe decision came down the head of the Southern Baptist Convention praised it because, in those days, abortion was seen as a Catholic issue.

Why do people treat abortion differently?

In part because the conservative movement hijacked the issue during the late 1970s for the sake of votes. Being anti-abortion but indifferent to other issues of "life" is simply hypocritical.

by: RevTonyLin

11-25-2009 @ 4:33am

Brian... I'm sorry to point this out to you. But of all the SoJo bloggers, you were the only one to blog about the Manhattan Declaration... you who fit "the homogeneity of age, race, and gender of its signors"... Great post thought!

by: RevTonyLin

11-25-2009 @ 4:33am

Brian... I'm sorry to point this out to you. But of all the SoJo bloggers, you were the only one to blog about the Manhattan Declaration... you who fit "the homogeneity of age, race, and gender of its signors"... Great post thought!

by: chadbowen

11-25-2009 @ 4:59am

Hammerud, I think that your statement here is ironic on a few of levels.

First, you say that these guys are too scared to make bottom line statements for fear of offending people. Clearly, their stances (or lack thereof, as you might prefer) are offensive to you, and you seem to find them quite divisive.

Second, I would challenge your notion that they do not believe in the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus of the Bible was very concerned with the least of these, the lost sheep, and those overlooked by society. McLaren (and the selection on which he remarks from the MD) is pointing us to examples of those things beyond our boundaries. To point out our blind spots is one that is divisive and hard to hear. While I understand your concern about the unwillingness to speak against abortion, please do not let that harden your heart from hearing the proclamation that unborn babies are not the only ones who need our concern and activism at the moment. In fact, there are some issues with much less moral/ethical ambiguity.

Third, part of the mission of Sojourners, as I understand it, is to provide some middle ground on which fruitful efforts can be carried out. Rather than asking, "How do we make abortion illegal," they ask, "How can we reduce abortion?" The goal is to bring people together, but not in the name of allowing everyone to leave with unharmed feelings. Instead, the motive for bringing people together is to allow them to *actually DO something*. You are crticizing them for doing the very thing that they aspire to do.

Finally, I would like to say that I don't agree with everything that goes on on the Sojourners website-- particularly when the effort becomes one to change public policy rather than call the church back to its mission.

by: chadbowen

11-25-2009 @ 4:59am

Hammerud, I think that your statement here is ironic on a few of levels.

First, you say that these guys are too scared to make bottom line statements for fear of offending people. Clearly, their stances (or lack thereof, as you might prefer) are offensive to you, and you seem to find them quite divisive.

Second, I would challenge your notion that they do not believe in the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus of the Bible was very concerned with the least of these, the lost sheep, and those overlooked by society. McLaren (and the selection on which he remarks from the MD) is pointing us to examples of those things beyond our boundaries. To point out our blind spots is one that is divisive and hard to hear. While I understand your concern about the unwillingness to speak against abortion, please do not let that harden your heart from hearing the proclamation that unborn babies are not the only ones who need our concern and activism at the moment. In fact, there are some issues with much less moral/ethical ambiguity.

Third, part of the mission of Sojourners, as I understand it, is to provide some middle ground on which fruitful efforts can be carried out. Rather than asking, "How do we make abortion illegal," they ask, "How can we reduce abortion?" The goal is to bring people together, but not in the name of allowing everyone to leave with unharmed feelings. Instead, the motive for bringing people together is to allow them to *actually DO something*. You are crticizing them for doing the very thing that they aspire to do.

Finally, I would like to say that I don't agree with everything that goes on on the Sojourners website-- particularly when the effort becomes one to change public policy rather than call the church back to its mission.

by: WaveTossed

11-25-2009 @ 11:02am

"If the Human Rights Campaign failed to address religious persecution in China--would that nullify its legitimacy?"

My problem with the Manhatten Declaration is that it spends paragraph after paragraph on abortion and on arguments on why biology is supposedly so important in dealing with lifelong faithful relationships. And spends barely a sentence on human rights issues such as religious persecution in China.

On top of that, I specifically cited the persecution of Gay people in Uganda because of the myriad paragraphs that were spent on explaining biology's role (as opposed to spiritual facets) in intimate relationships. I'm not saying that the Manhatten Declaration signers would endorse Uganda's persecution of Gays. But I certainly haven't seen any outcry from these signers against these human rights violations. As opposed to the Episcopal church and other Protestant churches who have spoken out on human rights issues -- such as religious persecution in China (my own church has addressed this topic during our services) or the persecution of Gays in Uganda.

I truly don't understand -- I really don't understand -- why biology is so important as to take several paragraphs whereas human rights violations merit barely a sentence or two. All of the emphasis on biology that I came across actually has made me quite uncomfortable while I was reading the declaration.

by: WaveTossed

11-25-2009 @ 11:02am

"If the Human Rights Campaign failed to address religious persecution in China--would that nullify its legitimacy?"

My problem with the Manhatten Declaration is that it spends paragraph after paragraph on abortion and on arguments on why biology is supposedly so important in dealing with lifelong faithful relationships. And spends barely a sentence on human rights issues such as religious persecution in China.

On top of that, I specifically cited the persecution of Gay people in Uganda because of the myriad paragraphs that were spent on explaining biology's role (as opposed to spiritual facets) in intimate relationships. I'm not saying that the Manhatten Declaration signers would endorse Uganda's persecution of Gays. But I certainly haven't seen any outcry from these signers against these human rights violations. As opposed to the Episcopal church and other Protestant churches who have spoken out on human rights issues -- such as religious persecution in China (my own church has addressed this topic during our services) or the persecution of Gays in Uganda.

I truly don't understand -- I really don't understand -- why biology is so important as to take several paragraphs whereas human rights violations merit barely a sentence or two. All of the emphasis on biology that I came across actually has made me quite uncomfortable while I was reading the declaration.

by: hammerud

11-25-2009 @ 11:09am

You have a pleasant way of sharing your thoughts. I see Brian
McLaren, in particular, who has become widely popular, as one of those
to whom Paul refers in Acts 20:29,30 because he rejects core Christian
beliefs, including the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. Once the
reliability of Scripture is undermined (the "Yea, hath God said,"
attack of Satan in Genesis), nothing Scripture states means anything
that can be trusted. In undermining Scripture, he is spreading heresy.

Regarding changing public policy, I believe Christians should use
tools we have available. God has given us the privilege to live in
this country where, at least for the time being, tools to make change
are available. God expects us to do what we can -- "to whom much is
given is much expected."

Jesus did care for the poor, but the gospel was 100% focused on saving
people from their sin. The message of the gospel is 100% grace and 0%
works. It is Ephesians 2:8,9. Adding any human works to salvation
from sin is a perversion of the gospel message, which is based 100% on
the work of Christ, not man. Good works, taking care of the poor
etc, are things that God expects his people to undertake after they
become "his people," after they are sealed by the Holy Spirit, having
trusted in the atoning work of Christ. It is the point at which
Ephesians 2:10 comes into play. Good works are to be done FROM
salvation, not FOR salvation. Jim Wallis has made statements that
actually link good works (caring for the poor etc) TO salvation, and
that is not just a semantic divergence; it is adding leaven to the
lump and "a little leaven leavens the whole lump." In the gospels
there is a picture of the judgment where many say (paraphrased),
"Lord, haven't we done this in your name and that in your name," and
Jesus replies, "depart from me for I never knew you." The outwardly
good activities of these people, human merit activities in which they
trusted, counted for nothing in the judgment because they were not
done in the power of God, and could not have been, because they never
knew God, they never had trusted Christ for salvation. Wallis and
McLaren do not emphasize actually trusting in Jesus to save from sin,
and it seems McLaren, at least, does not like to deal with sin at
all. His message is all about being inclusive and not offending
people. Unlike the truth proclaimed by Jesus, one example of which
caused the crowd to carry Him to the brow of a hill to cast Him down
to kill Him, the message of McLaren is non-offensive to the masses.
It is one of inclusive worship and fluff devoid of content. It is
heretical. His message offends me because, even though I am a faulty,
sinful person, I do know truth and am saved, and know when I see "a
wolf in sheep's clothing."

by: hammerud

11-25-2009 @ 11:09am

You have a pleasant way of sharing your thoughts. I see Brian
McLaren, in particular, who has become widely popular, as one of those
to whom Paul refers in Acts 20:29,30 because he rejects core Christian
beliefs, including the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. Once the
reliability of Scripture is undermined (the "Yea, hath God said,"
attack of Satan in Genesis), nothing Scripture states means anything
that can be trusted. In undermining Scripture, he is spreading heresy.

Regarding changing public policy, I believe Christians should use
tools we have available. God has given us the privilege to live in
this country where, at least for the time being, tools to make change
are available. God expects us to do what we can -- "to whom much is
given is much expected."

Jesus did care for the poor, but the gospel was 100% focused on saving
people from their sin. The message of the gospel is 100% grace and 0%
works. It is Ephesians 2:8,9. Adding any human works to salvation
from sin is a perversion of the gospel message, which is based 100% on
the work of Christ, not man. Good works, taking care of the poor
etc, are things that God expects his people to undertake after they
become "his people," after they are sealed by the Holy Spirit, having
trusted in the atoning work of Christ. It is the point at which
Ephesians 2:10 comes into play. Good works are to be done FROM
salvation, not FOR salvation. Jim Wallis has made statements that
actually link good works (caring for the poor etc) TO salvation, and
that is not just a semantic divergence; it is adding leaven to the
lump and "a little leaven leavens the whole lump." In the gospels
there is a picture of the judgment where many say (paraphrased),
"Lord, haven't we done this in your name and that in your name," and
Jesus replies, "depart from me for I never knew you." The outwardly
good activities of these people, human merit activities in which they
trusted, counted for nothing in the judgment because they were not
done in the power of God, and could not have been, because they never
knew God, they never had trusted Christ for salvation. Wallis and
McLaren do not emphasize actually trusting in Jesus to save from sin,
and it seems McLaren, at least, does not like to deal with sin at
all. His message is all about being inclusive and not offending
people. Unlike the truth proclaimed by Jesus, one example of which
caused the crowd to carry Him to the brow of a hill to cast Him down
to kill Him, the message of McLaren is non-offensive to the masses.
It is one of inclusive worship and fluff devoid of content. It is
heretical. His message offends me because, even though I am a faulty,
sinful person, I do know truth and am saved, and know when I see "a
wolf in sheep's clothing."

by: letjusticerolldown

11-25-2009 @ 12:00pm

I don't think it fair to expect that a statement designed to address three issues will address all other issues; nor that it means anything about what the signors believe or do not believe about other matters.

I presume the statement is driven both by the perception they needed to make a clear public case on these issues. But the need not only being to state positions on public policy--but to ground them in an ethical construct.

I care about all these issues. In a sense, I agree with them and the Catholic Church, that there can be a "hierarchy" of issues. A right to human life might trump a right to not inhale second-hand smoke. But it is also hard to truly frame and communicate "priority issues" without weaving them into what is truly a broad fabric of many issues.

To a degree I think they attempted this--and is what McLaren is acknowledging/affirming.

Back to the ethical construct. I see a society wrestling with each of these issues on a political level and on a sociological level. In other words--we engage in propoganda and power fights to win public policy battles. Or on better days (few and far between) we have civil dialogue as to how public policy might be better. On the sociological level we attempt to work out new ways of thinking, talking and acting on these matters.

But in my perception--we largely engage in the political and sociological change without addressing the ethical base.

The writers are attempting to state their position but also trying to tie the issues back down into an ethical framework; and in a sense they demonstrate a fear the society is moving to not safeguard the freedom of persons to hold and exercise religious/ethical belief.

I read them as saying the society finds life, marriage, maleness, and femaleness to have no inherent value or order--other than what we assign.

My assumptions here might be wrong--but I think they find this to be very dangerous ground. i.e. that to have no ethical ground on which to oppose abortion-on-demand is more dangerous than abortion itself.

All this to say--they strain at the biology issue because they attempt to speak into a culture that rejects any external authority (e.g. revelation from God in scripture or in a created order). They are saying "male" and "female" and "life" and "sexuality" and "procreation" are neither detached from each other nor are they meaningless.

Why do they hammer it? Because their view is being hammered by the culture everyday. And I do not mean their policy positions are being hammered everyday. I mean their basic ethical construct and right to advance it is being hammered. They believe they are speaking into a culture that cannot hear there is any standard other than us.

by: letjusticerolldown

11-25-2009 @ 12:00pm

I don't think it fair to expect that a statement designed to address three issues will address all other issues; nor that it means anything about what the signors believe or do not believe about other matters.

I presume the statement is driven both by the perception they needed to make a clear public case on these issues. But the need not only being to state positions on public policy--but to ground them in an ethical construct.

I care about all these issues. In a sense, I agree with them and the Catholic Church, that there can be a "hierarchy" of issues. A right to human life might trump a right to not inhale second-hand smoke. But it is also hard to truly frame and communicate "priority issues" without weaving them into what is truly a broad fabric of many issues.

To a degree I think they attempted this--and is what McLaren is acknowledging/affirming.

Back to the ethical construct. I see a society wrestling with each of these issues on a political level and on a sociological level. In other words--we engage in propoganda and power fights to win public policy battles. Or on better days (few and far between) we have civil dialogue as to how public policy might be better. On the sociological level we attempt to work out new ways of thinking, talking and acting on these matters.

But in my perception--we largely engage in the political and sociological change without addressing the ethical base.

The writers are attempting to state their position but also trying to tie the issues back down into an ethical framework; and in a sense they demonstrate a fear the society is moving to not safeguard the freedom of persons to hold and exercise religious/ethical belief.

I read them as saying the society finds life, marriage, maleness, and femaleness to have no inherent value or order--other than what we assign.

My assumptions here might be wrong--but I think they find this to be very dangerous ground. i.e. that to have no ethical ground on which to oppose abortion-on-demand is more dangerous than abortion itself.

All this to say--they strain at the biology issue because they attempt to speak into a culture that rejects any external authority (e.g. revelation from God in scripture or in a created order). They are saying "male" and "female" and "life" and "sexuality" and "procreation" are neither detached from each other nor are they meaningless.

Why do they hammer it? Because their view is being hammered by the culture everyday. And I do not mean their policy positions are being hammered everyday. I mean their basic ethical construct and right to advance it is being hammered. They believe they are speaking into a culture that cannot hear there is any standard other than us.

by: BrotherMarcus

11-25-2009 @ 12:19pm

It's not about expressing your conviction (such as it is). It's about protecting the unborn from being killed. That's the problem with so-called "progressives" like McClaren: while the poor and hungry are very concrete to them, the unborn are an almost pure abstraction. Perhaps if the bodies of the aborted could be seen in the public parks and on subway grates of our big cities, the "progressives" at Sojourners would care. As it is, the unborn are nothing more to them than an "expression" or a "conviction."

by: BrotherMarcus

11-25-2009 @ 12:19pm

It's not about expressing your conviction (such as it is). It's about protecting the unborn from being killed. That's the problem with so-called "progressives" like McClaren: while the poor and hungry are very concrete to them, the unborn are an almost pure abstraction. Perhaps if the bodies of the aborted could be seen in the public parks and on subway grates of our big cities, the "progressives" at Sojourners would care. As it is, the unborn are nothing more to them than an "expression" or a "conviction."

by: ckgmail

11-25-2009 @ 1:09pm

Brother Marcus, your response violates the spirit of the code of conduct for this blog. You belittle my conviction by your parenthesis of (such as it is), and you question my right to express my convictions. Please be more civil in your responses!
Charles Kiker

by: ckgmail

11-25-2009 @ 1:09pm

Brother Marcus, your response violates the spirit of the code of conduct for this blog. You belittle my conviction by your parenthesis of (such as it is), and you question my right to express my convictions. Please be more civil in your responses!
Charles Kiker

by: BrotherMarcus

11-25-2009 @ 1:12pm

Apparently, ckgmail, your feelings are all that count to you. Go ahead and report me. It wouldn't be the first time I'd been censored by the broad-minded, inclusive folks at Sojourners.

by: BrotherMarcus

11-25-2009 @ 1:12pm

Apparently, ckgmail, your feelings are all that count to you. Go ahead and report me. It wouldn't be the first time I'd been censored by the broad-minded, inclusive folks at Sojourners.