There are a bunch of things I’d like to talk about today, but I don’t know whether any of them will necessarily occupy the entire hour. Here, in no particular order, is what’s on my mind:~Adam Lambert and Lady Gaga at the AMA
~The Manhattan Declaration
~Dancing bunnies and Internet security.
Links:
Manhattan Declaration
7 comments:
The Manhattan Declaration: A Waste of Everybody's Time?
I’m conservatively prolife and have traditional Christian views of marriage also. But just because I think those views are right doesn’t entail that I believe they should be law. Deciding what ought to be law in a pluralistic, democratic society that welcomes immigrants from, and seeks to influence helpfully, countries all over the world, requires careful political theory. Indeed, it requires fundamental and detailed consideration of a variety of related subjects, including the nature and intentions of divine providence over nations, what God expects of human beings individually and corporately short of the return of Christ, what is politically feasible in a given situation, and more. There is none of that sort of thinking evident in this declaration, but rather a strong sense—common enough among conservative evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox around the world—that particular Christian convictions are simply right and therefore ought to be law.
Furthermore, America is not an officially Christian nation, but rather a Christian-majority one. So if we apply the same logic elsewhere, then Muslim-majority countries should enshrine shari’ah as their laws, since Muslims are equally convinced that shari’ah is right, and should brook no exceptions for non-Muslims. The same would go for about Hindu- or Buddhist-majority countries. Then what happens then to religious liberty? Or is liberty important only if your views are correct—namely, Christian?
I note that the three drafters are Timothy George, an evangelical historian of theology and academic administrator who shows up frequently in such projects; Robert George, a distinguished Princeton University scholar who is a stalwart defender of Roman Catholic conservative social policy; and Charles Colson, another evangelical whose impressive Prison Fellowship ministry arose out of his previous political career, a career that by any account was extremist and ended in the extremes of Watergate disgrace and a prison term. Such authorship confirms the sense that the project of building a “Christian America” according to the value of the Religious Right, rather than building the best possible pluralist and free society, is the agenda guiding such a declaration.
Others of us, however, will think that God’s will might run to greater liberty for all, greater tolerance for ambiguity and dissent, greater pluralism of belief and practice, and perhaps paradoxically therefore greater opportunity for the Gospel. For it is not clear to us that such declarations, and the outlook that prompts them, really increase non-Christian willingness to respect conservative Christian concerns, let alone to seriously entertain any proclamation of the Gospel. It certainly is not clear that they move anyone closer to prolife, pro-traditional marriage, or pro-religious liberty views.
Indeed, it’s not clear to some of us what good they do at all.
P1: The basis of law is morality. What other basis would there be? Your author claims nuance and encourages "detailed consideration of a variety of related subjects," but offers no real clues about what those would be or how they would lead to different conclusions than those of the declaration.
P2: Your author belies his cultural relativism. The document does not say these principles ought to be law because of a Christian majority, but because they are God's principles. To make a straw man and then use the straw man to jettison the religious liberty aspects in some Muslim country is disingenuous.
P3: Yes, yes, we all want a hard theocracy. That's why the document so clearly talked about religious liberty, love for those who disagree, and self-examined humility. For a Christian leftist, he sure is eager to bring up Colson's past from 30+ years ago. Why is that?
P4: And yet...what is your counter-offer? Are you saying that increased access to abortion, progress toward commonplace euthanasia, increased sexual immorality, increased divorce and disintegration of the family, and decreased Christian freedom are the key ingredients to Gospel renewal? You can sweep the specifics of such evils under the rug of some vague terms like "pluralism" and "tolerance for ambiguity," but at the end of the day, that's what you're tolerating.
Naum, the most interesting paragraph of the original post was labeled 4., and you neglected to include this one. However, even there, the author clearly misunderstands the nature of liberty and dissent. Dissent is only justified on the basis of clear Divine mandate being violated by human law. Thus, when asking whether Christians would tolerate dissent from their social agenda, the author fails to indicate what would be the Divine rationale behind breaking the law and performing illegal abortions or conducting an illegal killing of an elderly person? Are such acts of Civil Disobedience really justifiable on the basis of Divine mandate? The Manhattan Declaration actually explains this. Did you or this author actually read the document? I hope so, but I worry he's so saturated in his pluralistic relativism that he can't even see clear to say that MLK was right in his dissent because of God. It's interesting BTW to read the letters from the Baptist leaders to MLK and how they said he was wrong for dishonoring the law. Prof. Stackhouse seems to think that creating righteous laws is wrong because it dishonors pluralistic moral individualism.
Also, the language he uses here is so marginalizing. "[The Manhattan Declaration] argues for religious liberty for Christians to dissent from views they don't like..." As if abortion is like broccoli, something that a few people simply lack the taste for and therefore want outlawed. He goes on to say he is conservatively pro-life, but I just can't reconcile a robust stance on abortion with such flimsy descriptions of the position.
"Is liberty important only if your views are correct--namely, Christian?" Well, historically speaking, yes. Rather than going the path of MLK and rooting his views of liberty (and the LIMITS of tolerance) in Divine Law, Prof. Stackhouse offers no grounding whatsoever.
Look, I certainly don't mind you posting (I like it, actually), and I don't really mind you posting someone else's stuff. But please find things that offer more substance in the future. If Prof. Stackhouse represents the "best Christian thinking available on ethics and politics" whom he laments being absent from the original signers, I'm not surprised in the least.
Andrew, I just clipped his summary and included none of the 4 points…
Really, you doubt Prof. Stackhouse "substance"? A M.A. from Wheaton, PhD from University of Chicago, author of some really heady books (I have read Making the Best of It: Following Christ in the Real World which is a dense read, a more academic version of "Culture Making" by Andy Crouch (which is an excellent read, and more suited to layman)…
…he has a much greater intellectual pedigree than you (though you are no slouch, but your education background is philosophy, correct?).
Cultural relativism? That's a blanket bogeyman those of these sympathy always cast out… …especially when one side pronounces their interpretation the absolute "word of God" because somebody deemed it, without recognition of nuance, heart, spirit, etc.…
Stackhouse is stating that you don't change people's hearts by imposing, pluralistically, your view of morality… …it not a win for the Kingdom.
And LOL at reference to MLK, which in no way contradicts Stackhouse here, but funny because many of the same people that are in this camp are the same folks (like Dobson, Billy Graham, Robertson, Falwell, $OtherFundamentalistPreacher, etc.…) who railed against MLK and stood against civil rights…
I posted it because you stated on your show how Christians were unanimous in supporting this declaration, when you should have qualified with "conservative evangelical"/fundamentalist… …lots of dissent I've read in emergent/missional web streams…
Personally, while there is a lot to find agreement with in the document, I find it troubling the focus on abortion and gay marriage, with nary a word on poverty, health care, human rights, illegal and immoral wars (like Iraq), etc.…
Being prolife is more than being against abortion - it also means anti-death penalty, antiwar, feeding the hungry, etc.…
That some choose to emphasize gay marriage and abortion over other sins is not a win for the Kingdom…
You're right. I should have also added the phrase "If this particular post by Prof. Stackhouse represents both his own depth and..." That wouldn't have allowed any room for interpreting this as a broader swipe at him, which I surely didn't mean. I was working from the inference that you would only have quoted him if this was some of his best work...
I was only intending to disparage the quality of this particular post. Since he is unknown to me, that's all I had to go on. But allow me to notice that you have thought fit to respond to my fairly specific comments about the substance of this post as though I had impugned the character or competence of this man in its entirety, a person whom you clearly admire. So, take that lesson to heart and consider the way your broad generalizations about conservatives and their tendencies and even particular people comes across.
The relativism critique was accurate based on what he wrote. His immediate move to compare the prohibition of abortion and a refusal to recognize gay marriage with Sharia law (along with the comments about majority power) certainly fit cultural relativism. Again, his other work may be more clear that he eschews that, but I have only this post to work with.
I already agree that the highest form of persuasion is not by imposing laws, but that is not to say that laws have no persuasive or educational effect. And every time I talk about abortion on the air I emphatically point out that the law won't stop it entirely if people want it and that there is plenty of common ground between pro-life and pro-choice people, although there's almost none with pro-abortion people.
MLK and other conservatives? Naum, talk to me. Talk to me. Talk to me. Stop referring to all the other conservatives who (again) you lump together as being evil, narrow-minded bigots who opposed racial equality. You really need to pray to God about your tendency to resort to ad hominem. I'm serious about this.
Dissent from other Christians who don't love the Manhattan Declaration? Okay. If that had been your point, you should have said so. Just saying that would have been much more productive than this post. Even opening your post with, "Andrew says all Christians love this..." would have been far more helpful.
Being pro-life does not necessitate being anti-just-war nor anti-just-capital punishment. Stop conflating political/personal innocence and guilt. You've read enough to know that there's plenty of philosophical room between being against abortion and being against capital punishment and all warfare. "Use the least force necessary" is very different from "never use force."
On emphasis, I agree. I wish those who want to help the poor would be more clear about abortion and sexual ethics. And I wish those who are clear about those things would demonstrate more heart for the poor. I wish all of us would talk more about greed, gluttony, pride, etc. But you know this about me already.
The question is, why do you only post your objections when I talk about things you disagree with but post nothing on the days when I take two hours at a shot to explore the ramifications of the commands to help the poor and to sell all your possessions (that's four hours altogether)?
Let me repeat. On my blog, talk to me. Talk to me. Don't talk near me about all the conservatives in the world. I'm working on them, too.
Andrew, we're talking about this Manhattan Declaration, didn't intend for it to be me v. you… :)
Not an admirer of Stackhouse, but do respect his take, just as I do many of the signers (including you :))… …I know I've heard you discuss bible + poverty, but when I see a document like this, such concerns disappear…
All the thousands of Christian radio stations (most all I wager are of a conservative evangelical/fundamentalist bent — all the ones in Phoenix market definitely are…) and the TV preachers (and in many RL churches) all rail on abortion, gay marriage, yet this is so sad and appalling and must make Jesus weep:
Who Said It? Obama or God? — Perhaps the most disturbing finding of the study was that 80% of Americans claim to be familiar with the Bible. In other words, the vast majority of Americans believe they know what the message of the Bible is at least in general terms. And yet survey after survey reveals just the opposite. It seems we have a population that is largely inoculated to the Christian message. They believe they know it and have written it off as invalid, unhelpful, bigoted, or antiquated. But in truth they don’t know what they don’t know.
On MLK, civil rights, etc.… it is relevant — look at signatories and that is the stream that opposed MLK — is changing, with "kinder/gentler" leaders now…
You changed your picture...cute. =)
Fully agreed about that Obama story. I'll likely talk about that tonight or tomorrow. It also may say more about how few leaders refer to the Bible the way he does. Their neglect makes the Bible sound novel (even original) in his mouth!
Also, in case I wasn't clear, I TOTALLY agree with you that help for the poor is a tier 1 social issue that conservatives all too often aren't serious enough about. I have particularly learned this by listening to Tim Keller.
People from all sides expressing their dissent with this:
John MacArthur
In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.
Frank Turk
My answer to that is to read the preamble of this document a little more closely. The historical metanarative of document is that because Christians fought hard to change the Government and the law, our society changed — that society is changed by altering its laws. Yet it seems to me that as often — for example, in prohibition — misguided pietism makes the problems worse because it is misguided pietism and not the Gospel.
You know: when Paul looked at a church like the folks in Corinth, his urgent advice to them was to remember what was of first importance — that is, the Gospel. If they would remember the Gospel and live like it is true, they would resolve their relational and religious problems. He told the Romans that the love consequence of the Gospel exceeds the demands of the law, and puts their critics to shame. And when he was faced with Festus, rather than lecture him about the gross immorality of the Roman Empire, he preached the Gospel to him in hopes he would be converted.
This document does none of that. It assumes a big tent for the definition of what it means to be a “believer”, assumes that law is greater than grace in reforming the hearts of men, and provides moral reasoning that those who are unbelievers have no reason to accept — because they are unbelievers. And in making these three items “especially troubling” in the “whole scope of Christian moral concern”, it overlooks that the key solution to these moral concerns is the renovation of the human heart by supernatural means established by the death and resurrection of Christ.
Post a Comment