A number of people have asked me to comment on the Manhattan Declaration which I drafted along with my brother in Christ, Professor Robert George of Princeton University and our dear friend, Mr. Charles W. Colson of Prison Fellowship. At the launching of the Manhattan Declaration on November 20, 2009, I wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Post which you can read here. Here are a few additional comments:

WHAT IT IS: The Manhattan Declaration is a statement of Christian conscience, a confession of religious conviction supported by followers of Jesus Christ from the Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical families of faith. The Declaration addresses three of the most pressing issues in our culture today: the sanctity of life, the dignity of marriage, and religious liberty for all persons. These are not the only issues Christians are called to care about but they are threshold issues related to everything else we believe and do. Because these three matters are increasingly under assault in our society today, we feel compelled to speak out in their defense. In doing so, we desire to stand in solidarity with all persons of goodwill for the sake of justice and the common good and on behalf of the most vulnerable members of our community.

WHAT IT IS NOT: The Manhattan Declaration is not a statement of partisan loyalty or political posturing. It cuts across political as well as denominational lines and has garnered support from Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike. The Manhattan Declaration represents an ecumenism of conviction, not an ecumenism of accommodation. While we acknowledge many ecclesial and theological differences among ourselves, we believe that our unity in Christ is sufficiently strong for us to stand together and speak out together on behalf of the least, the last, and the lost.

WHAT TO DO NOW: I encourage you to read the Manhattan Declaration, and if it resonates with your own convictions, endorse it. Our hope would be that we would have up to a million signatories who will want to stand with us. Already, in just a few short days, we are nearly one-third of the way toward that goal. The response to the Manhattan Declaration has far exceeded anything that Chuck Colson, Robert George, and I expected. We see this as a moving of the Spirit in our times. This is an important time for all Christians to come together, stand together and make clear what our convictions are. May the Lord continue to use this statement for the upbuilding of his Kingdom to the praise of his glory.

HOW TO SIGN: Go to www.manhattandeclaration.org for information on how to endorse the Manhattan Declaration.

So, did you take time to read the Manhattan Declaration over the weekend?  I found this video from someone I respect greatly.  Watch and let Chuck Colson help you with your understanding of the declaration and what we should be addressing as a nation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3DRcEr6_gQ

Chuck is a smart, smart man.  I am glad he is redeemed, smart man.  We need more men like him.

There is something about this declaration that demands a response.

The declaration opens with a forthright assertion:

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 family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them.  These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty

What follows is a clear understanding of each these truths.

I make you aware of this declaration because I believe it is newsworthy, and because I believe it will demand a response.

Bill O’Reilly of Fox News has already declared it noteworthy.   A week after its release a Los Angeles Times editorial called it “strong words, but also irresponsible and dangerous ones.”

I advise you to read it.  It may take you a day or two, yet you need to read it so you can discuss it in public discourse.

As a result of my read, I have formed a few conclusions.

First and foremost, The Manhattan Declaration shines a glaring spotlight on America’s deep depravity.

Every nation is carnal because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).  Although we have moments of greatness in our history, America is a carnal nation.  We have always been a carnal nation.  Yet our carnality today seems to permeate every aspect of life.

We live in a culture of death.  And unless something miraculous happens, Americans will be funding abortions with Federal support as a result of the health care reform bill.

We live in a society where sin is celebrated.  We live in an age where greed reigns.  We live in a culture where homosexuality is propagated.  We live in a day where rights are demanded and responsibilities are excused.  We are a sinful nation.

We have elected public officials who are driven by hubris, greed and power.  The American people are losing their hold on public policy and law.  And if we continue down this path, we will lose the freedom of being governed by the people and for the people.
I believe The Manhattan Declaration serves a great purpose in that can open the eyes of those who read it.

Next, The Manhattan Declaration is a line in the sand over the battle for our culture.  It serves as a bold line of demarcation between church and state.

If you don’t think so, then read some of Nathaniel Frank’s blog from the Huffington Post in response to the dignity of marriage portion of the declaration:

The drafters seem to go out of their way to present themselves not as garden-variety right-wing hate-mongers but as highly educated Christian rationalists who have mastered the art of hating the sin and loving the sinner. They seem braced for the smarter folks they sometimes encounter in their daily lives to say, “(Deleted because of its indecency) are you talking about — why are you spending your energy rationalizing your homophobia instead of putting that behind you so you can focus on resolving the far more legitimate concerns you may have about the moral state of modern society?” They insist preemptively that “it is out of love (not ‘animus’) and prudent concern for the common good (not ‘prejudice’), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” And they claim they have no choice: “How could we, as Christians, do otherwise? The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God’s creation covenant.” Funny — the Bible aso teaches that divorce is absolutely prohibited, but there is no movement to take the right to divorce away (just to make it a tad harder). And where’s the battle to pass a law requiring that adulterers get stoned to death?

If that doesn’t bring clarity to the lines of difference, then check out Frank’s rationale for homosexual marriage:

Here’s what’s going on here: Religious opponents of gay marriage don’t have a good understanding of why a modern state should recognize civil marriage in the first place; they view marriage primarily as a religious tradition that has made their lives satisfying and secure and so they are most comfortable justifying it in terms of what’s been — this is one of the roles of a religious narrative. If they thought honestly and rigorously about the civil, rather than just religious, reasons why the state recognizes marriage today, they’d see that gay unions fit into those reasons in the modern world. But, vaguely to ardently anti-gay, they can only view gay rights as a symbol of “anything goes” hedonism. Some purposely deploy the “slippery slope” tactic to try to win the argument. But many others are simply not willing or able to think that maybe there are actual reasons why gay marriage makes rational sense while group and incestuous marriages don’t. So to paraphrase a recent presidential candidate, they cling to gays and God to defend a way of life that’s familiar.

Only if you don’t have a good reason for defending the existence of marriage would you be this insecure about sharing it. When your only defense of the status quo is to suggest it’s always been this way and any change will ruin it, you know you’re out of reasons to defend the status quo.

So let me give the defense-of-marriage crowd a few good reasons to defend marriage that don’t rely on sectarianism: it can provide a stable place to raise kids, if you have them; it channels the boisterous, undirected energy of young singles into unthreatening domestic bonds; it encourages individuals to take care of each other so the state won’t have to; and it helps society recognize and enforce the caretaking commitments people have made to one another. All these functions gay couples can share in.

That kind of logic is what will drive our nation into oblivion.  Again, I support the declaration because it is most definitely draws a line in the sand of the culture wars.

Finally, The Manhattan Declaration, I believe, may serve someday as a call to civil disobedience.

Note the convincing conclusion:

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

There is coming a day when your church will be told who they must hire.  A time is approaching when preachers will be arrested for what they preach. There may come an era when congregations will not be allowed to administer their resources according to their beliefs or convictions.

That day may not come soon.  It may not come this year or the next or the next.  It may not even come in this decade or in your or my lifetime.  But if we continue to follow this path, there will be a day when we will have limited or no religious liberty.  Something, therefore, must be done, and I believe The Manhattan Declaration is moving us in the right direction to do something about it.

Take time to read the declaration and then let me know what you think.

PDF version available for download here