General
Manhattan Declaration
Friday, November 20, 2009, at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., a seminal statement signed by over 145 Evangelical, Orthodox, and Catholic leaders was released. Known as the Manhattan Declaration, this document addresses the necessity of defending and advancing the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty.
This is an important moment of commitment to unchanging truths, solidarity in the broader Body of Christ, and drawing a line in the sand that points the direction of renewal.
Please study the Manhattan Declaration and join me in becoming one of its signers. RB
MANHATTAN DECLARATION
A Summary
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.
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, and (3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty. Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Human Life
The lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are ever more threatened.
Marriage
The institution of marriage, already wounded by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is at risk of being redefined and thus subverted. Marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all. Where marriage erodes, social pathologies rise. The impulse to redefine marriage is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil law as well as our religious traditions. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. Marriage is not a “social construction,” but is rather an objective reality”the covenantal union of husband and wife”that it is the duty of the law to recognize, honor, and protect.
Religious Liberty
Freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized. The threat to these fundamental principles of justice is evident in efforts to weaken or eliminate conscience protections for healthcare institutions and professionals, and in anti-discrimination statutes that are used as weapons to force religious institutions, charities, businesses, and service providers either to accept (and even facilitate) activities and relationships they judge to be immoral, or go out of business. Attacks on religious liberty are dire threats not only to individuals, but also to the institutions of civil society including families, charities, and religious communities. The health and well-being of such institutions provide an indispensable buffer against the overweening power of government and is essential to the flourishing of every other institution”including government itself”on which society depends.
Unjust Laws
As Christians, we believe in law and we respect the authority of earthly rulers. We count it as a special privilege to live in a democratic society where the moral claims of the law on us are even stronger in virtue of the rights of all citizens to participate in the political process. Yet even in a democratic regime, laws can be unjust. And from the beginning, our faith has taught that civil disobedience is required in the face of gravely unjust laws or laws that purport to require us to do what is unjust or otherwise immoral. Such laws lack the power to bind in conscience because they can claim no authority beyond that of sheer human will.
Therefore, let it be known that we will not comply with any edict that compels us or the institutions we lead to participate in or facilitate abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or any other act that violates the principle of the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every member of the human family.
Further, let it be known that we will not bend to any rule forcing 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, marriage, and the family.
Further, let it be known that we will not be intimidated into silence or acquiescence or the violation of our consciences by any power on earth, be it cultural or political, regardless of the consequences to ourselves.
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.
Jim Daly, President and CEO of Focus on the Family adds this encouragement:
While public opinion has moved in a pro-life direction, powerful and determined forces are working to expand abortion, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. Although the protection of the weak and vulnerable is the first obligation of government, the power of government is today often enlisted in the cause of promoting what Pope John Paul II called “the culture of death.” We pledge to work unceasingly for the equal protection of every innocent human being at every stage of development and in every condition. We will refuse to permit ourselves or our institutions to be implicated in the taking of human life and we will support in every possible way those who, in conscience, take the same stand.
It is important, first off, to note that the Manhattan Declaration is not a partisan or political statement–I shared the podium last Friday at the National Press Club with Republicans and Democrats alike. Instead, it addresses and elevates four specific areas of universal consensus. Some have referred to these as “threshold issues,” meaning they represent the foundation of our faith and the pivot point from which everything else flows. This is the bedrock. If we can’t agree on these areas of doctrine, everything else will be of reduced value. These four areas are:
1.The sanctity of human life.
2.The sanctity of marriage.
3.The protection of religious liberty.
4.The rejection of unjust laws.
Our conviction on these matters runs deep; motivating our movement has always been the heartfelt belief that these principles are not ours, but the Lord’s, and that they promise to help and heal a broken world.
The document is a fresh and lively presentation, a renewed rallying cry to those who have been engaged in this historic effort of spiritual and cultural conversion. This is not a manifesto for culture war; it is a prescription for cultural change. It is also a thoughtful invitation to those who might be sitting on the periphery, perhaps hesitant to join this effort, maybe because they’ve never been fully aware of the consequences of inaction.
As a unified body, we are acknowledging that our faith is strong and redemptive, but it’s not necessarily a comfortable and easy pursuit. Standing up for our beliefs can often come at great cost. But as Dr. George highlighted at last week’s news conference, even the secularist philosopher Socrates once posed a relevant question Christians should easily answer today. “Is it better to suffer an injustice,” he once asked, “than to commit it?” By affixing our signatures to the Manhattan Declaration, we are answering an unequivocal “yes.”
Although many American Christians understandably feel under assault, the degree of faith-based domestic persecution cannot compare with the ghastly violence perpetuated against believers in other parts of the world. In the Sudan, for instance, hundreds of thousands of Christians have been slaughtered not because of what they’re doing, but because of the One in whom they believe. It is a wise people who act to protect the freedoms they enjoy.
And so I ask you to join me and my friends and colleagues in embracing and standing up for these crucial biblical principles. How? You can start by reading the document, in its entirety, by clicking here. What I think you’ll notice is that, in addressing the issues noted above, The Manhattan Declaration is an excellent example of achieving the balance of Truth and Grace required of us as followers of Jesus. This is a document that exhorts us to champion Christian truths in a Christian manner. It stands for something.
Then, after you’ve read the declaration, consider adding your name to the list of signers–and urge your friends and family to do the same. We are all imperfect. But if we honor God by promoting biblical principles, resisting our sometimes insatiable and admittedly prideful motivations, He will honor us.
The Meaning of Change
“You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16.
The Senate’s latest Saturday night massacre to move forward the federal take-over of health care in the United States is the latest indication of change coming to America.
Barack Obama ran on the theme of “Change” in his 2008 election triumph. 53% of the American public agreed with the message and voted for him as the 45th president of the United States. It’s now been one year since the Obama administration took the reins of government. Many of us were fearful of what an Obama presidency might bring. Others were optimistic about the message of “Hope” that the young Illinois senator trumpeted around the nation.
None of us knew how Barack Obama would actually govern. He ran as a center-left moderate. Would he lead as a centrist politician as Bill Clinton did from 1992-2000 or would he choose a different script for guiding the US into the 21st century?
The verdict is in after the first 365 days. The meaning of change is now clear. Since the words of Jesus above are true–that a man is known by what he does, not what he says–then there are at least twelve changes that we can expect to see during the next three years.
1. More controls – less freedom
The Obama administration is committed to controlling more of life and industry in this nation. The take-over of financial institutions, General Motors, regulating corporate salaries, and now the desire to manage one-sixth of the government economy through a new bureaucracy of health care–complete with over 100 new federal regulatory agencies–is tangible proof that Barack Obama is about power– pure and simple. FDR pushed economic federal controls in the 1930s, Lyndon Johnson championed federal social controls in the 1960s, and Obama is gobbling up both as a new century dawns. More government control means less individual freedom. The bigger government becomes, the more liberty shrinks. The concept of a centralized government is a very anti-American idea. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, said in his 1996 State of the Union address that “the age of big government is over.” It’s now “born again” in the age of Obama.
2. Less prosperity – more dependence
To be fair, a decrease in American prosperity does not appear to be a conscious goal of the present administration, but it will be a necessary consequence of their present course of action. Prosperity is the result of two very American (and biblical) ideas. Free people who have a strong moral standards in their lives are most successful at invention, industry, creativity, generosity, and the production of wealth that has characterized America over the past two hundred years. The Obama administration is removing that freedom by increased taxation, greater federal control, and the blurring and destroying of the Christian moral foundations. Barack Obama is the first American president to have the audacity to say that “America is not a Christian nation” and that he “doesn’t want it to be a Christian nation.” By turning the nation away from Christian principles, he will create less prosperity in the nation and a society of victims that are increasingly dependent on governmental help.
3. No American exceptionalism – just mediocrity
One subject no longer taught in the American public schools is the uniqueness of America in the pantheon of history. Cleon Skousen’s 1981 masterpiece “The 5000 Year Leap” (a great Christmas read) chronicles how decidedly exceptional was the American beginning. As a nation founded “under God” and his wise rules for peoples and nations, America left millenniums of societal bondage behind and pioneered a free nation based on faith, morality, human rights, and limited government. The world had never seen such a model. America is exceptional on the current world stage because our foundations are decidedly Christian–like no other nation. We believe in “Manifest destiny” and that God has “shed his grace on thee.” Barack Obama does not share that view. In the twenty nations he has visited in his first year, he has apologized for America and down-played our Christian roots. He wants to change our exceptionalism. He wants us to be like other nations.
4. Elite leadership – not people power
Barack Obama has surrounded himself with intellectual and professional elites who seem to look down on regular folks. They were irritated by the tea parties and town halls that foretold a people revolution beginning in this nation. In the various bills passed thus far by an ultra-liberal Congress, the Saturday night votes, meetings behind closed doors, and flat-out rejection of the polls shows that this administration doesn’t care what the people think–they have an agenda and they’re going to ram in through no matter what. This is not democracy–it borders on tyranny. In Obama’s world, the government elites know best.
5. Environment first – people and jobs second
Cap and trade–what some call “Crap and Tax”–is a scary law that passed the House and is pending in the Senate. It would force massive changes in energy policy in the US by use of carbon credits and raising energy taxes on virtually every family in the nation ($1500 per household). It’s based on the propaganda of global warming, and a desire to control the energy future of America. It will kill any economic revival in the name of saving the trees and air. It will ham-string small business and sky-rocket the already disastrous 10% unemployment rate. But that’s no matter. The Obama administration and Congressional leaders put dirt air & water first–not individuals and families.
6. Redistribute – not create wealth
The 787 billion stimulus package has proven to stimulate very little–just bail out other poorly run state governments and keep many unions and ACORN agencies in business. President Obama said it was necessary to keep unemployment below 8%. Unemployment now stands at 10.2% and climbing. This and other government policies are classic socialist maneuvers to appear that you’re helping. Under Obama we have forgotten that governments don’t create wealth–only the private sector does. To increase wealth you must cut taxes and place more resources back in the hands of entrepreneurs and businesses to produce goods and services. You must increase the economic pie through private investment and good stewardship–not take it away from the productive to prop up the unproductive.
7. Radical policies – not moderate bi-partisanship
Barack Obama said he would change the tone in Washington and legislate by bi-partisan consensus. That promise has turned out to be a farce. And for one reason: When you’re a radical with radical ideas for changing the American nation, it’s impossible to forge a consensus with others who may have different ideas or nuances on a subject. Sean Hannity was right to warn us about Barack Obama’s past associations. Obama is a radical who has worsened the tone and unity in DC by his unbending, hardball politics. At this point, Hillary Clinton as president looks temptingly better–even to this conservative. Barack Obama may be the most strident ideologue to ever occupy the White House.
8. Increased deficits – with a weak dollar and slow economic growth
Everyone admits that the Obama administration inherited a bad economy only worsened by a Republican-led bailout of the financial institutions. But the current government has gone much further by massive spending, multiplying deficits into the trillions, and putting in jeopardy the soundness and world-acceptance of the dollar through the unsound printing of fiat money. Gold is now at record highs, China is backing away from paying for our debt, and either increased inflation or deflation looms. The present government is doing all the wrong things. “Sound as a dollar” is now a distant memory.
9. Indecision – not bold clarity
The present administration has not increased America’s stature in the world due to indecisiveness and “dithering” on Irag, Iran, Afghanistan, and North Korea. They don’t seem to understand that peace is gained through strength, and that to repel foreign enemies you need to fight to win. Barack Obama apparently doesn’t even want to win nor admit that we are at war with radical terrorists around the world. General Stanley McChrystal, head of military operations in Afghanistan, asked for a surge of troops four months ago. He’s still waiting–and increased numbers of our troops are dying. This is not “thoughtfulness.” It’s political cowardice and paralysis.
10. Incompetence, not skilled governance
The decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of 911 and other Gitmo detainees in New York City–just blocks from where 3000 Americans perished on September 11, 2001–is the most idiotic decision I have every witnessed by a US president in my lifetime (via his Attorney General Eric Holder). 1) It’s asinine to try enemy combatants in civil courts and give them the privileges of citizenship, 2) It will cost millions of dollars and give world-wide terrorism a “Reality Show” for years right off Broadway, and 3) It’s “stick it in your ear” to every New York family that lost a loved one on that fateful day.
11. Moral confusion – not godly character
So far most social and moral policies adopted by the Obama adminstration have been anti-biblical and anti-family. Perversion has been exalted and celebrated, abortion is being encouraged and promoted (the Senate Healthcare bill), the president wants to do away with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and kill more potential-human-beings through the increased use of embryonic stem cells. This administration seems committed to tearing down the 200-year moral order of the United States and replace it with a secular future. This assault on American traditional values will have ominous affects for years to come.
12. Faith in man (government) – not faith in God
The true crux of the change that Barack Obama is bringing to American is increased trust in government, not God. This is the battle for the America soul: Will it be “In God We Trust” or in “Government We Trust?” Barack Obama has revealed himself to be a radical secular progressive. His view of “progress” is the eroding of the Judeo-Christian past, including morality and limited government, and replacing it with secular or socialistic norms. Do you know why the secular press disdains Sarah Palin? She powerfully represents traditional American Christian values. The progressives hate her because she is the antithesis of Barack Obama. They want “progress” in secularism–not Americanism. Their faith is in men. America’s past faith was in God.
Our current national leaders want to change the idea and destiny of America. They do not want an America that is free, prosperous, exceptional, of the people, conservative-moderate, strong, decisive, morally sound, and one nation under God. They want a controlled society that is dependent, poorer, mediocre, far left, weak, cowardly, immoral, and focused on men.
If you voted for Barack Obama, this is the change you’ve ordered. Is that really what you want?
God also has a meaning for the word change. In the language of the New Testament, the word is metanoia or repentance. Repentance means to “re-think” or “change your mind and direction.”
I encourage those who voted for our 45th president to repent (re-think) your decision.
I call upon all Americans to repent before God and ask him to “hear from heaven, forgive our sins and heal our land (2 Chronicles 7:14). That includes voting for better leadership in 2010 and 2012.
The Equality Smokescreen in the Marriage Debate
smoke screen: noun 1. a mass of dense smoke produced to conceal an area, vessel, or plane from the enemy. 2. something intended to disguise, conceal, or deceive; camouflage.
In times past when armies wanted to disguise their tactics to gain an advantage over the enemy, they would often resort to producing a cloud of smoke to hide their true intentions.
The same tactic is being used today in the battle for marriage.
In the past forty years of Western civilization where secularism has gained some ground, many time-tested moral codes are now under attack. Secularism wants it to be “okay” i.e. moral to fornicate (remember the “free love” of the sixties?), to commit adultery, and engage in homosexual acts. If you’re a consistent secularist, you’re also okay with pedophilia (if its “consensual,”), and even bestiality. In a secularist utopia, sex is a high priority god–and ones’ worship of it can take any form he chooses. Makes sense only if you accept the faulty premise that man is his own master.
Which brings us to the issue at hand. In a few days, on November 3, the states of both Maine and Washington will vote on various bills related to the definition of marriage. In Washington, Referendum 71 is a bill by the state legislature that expands the definition of domestic partnerships to include all the rights of married folks–the “Everything but Marriage” bill. It’s a massive legislative monstrosity that contains scores of pages because every time marriage is mentioned in our state regulations, Referendum 71 changes the statute to include domestic partnerships. Though these domestic partnerships include some seniors living together, they were basically designed to create moral legitimacy for homosexual acts.
That’s the true intent of Referendum 71–to change the five thousand year historical, two thousand year civilizational, and two hundred and twenty year American definition of sexual morality.
It’s all being done under the smokescreen of a very American and hallowed word–equality. Listen to the words of the Seattle Times, the Emerald City’s only remaining newspaper and strong advocate for the passage of Referendum 71.
In an October 24, 2009 lead story in the “NW Saturday” section called “Religion No Litmus Test on Ref 71,” the writers acknowledge that though 2000 years of history should have Christians voting to reject Referendum 71, there are “many believers [that] support the domestic partnership partnership law saying that the referendum is not about marriage, but about equality–which the Bible calls them to work toward.”
Quoting a liberal Episcopal bishop–from a dying denomination that is losing many churches and thousands of Christians over their anti-Christian position on homosexuality, the article goes on to say, “All Referendum 71 is trying to do is to give them (gay and lesbian couples) some of the equal protections that help them function as a committed couple in society. I’m for that.” And quoting a leader in another diminishing church–the United Methodists–the case for equality is mentioned a third time: “Our faith community believes that all people deserve equal rights and protection under the law.”
Equality. Equal rights.
How can anybody be against such an apple pie American concept as equality?
But the argument of “equality” is a smokescreen that blurs our line of sight to the following piercing realities.
Let’s begin with the author of equality–God–whether your tradition is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Deist or Nature’s God. All major religions (except secularism) and their subsequent moral codes believe that God designed marriage and that only a man and a woman can marry, i.e. “join together” and become one. The Judeo-Christian model was confirmed by none other than Jesus Christ himself who said in Mark 10:6-9:
“From the beginning of creation God made them male and female. This is why a man must leave father and mother, and the two become one body. They are no longer two, therefore, but one body. So then, what God has united, man must not divide.”
God made them male and female. Sounds like wise, specific, intelligent design. Marriage is not about equal rights or equality. It’s about God’s design for human relationships, their nurture and their multiplication. God made men with a certain physical/emotional construct. He made women with a complimentary make-up (including plumbing). According to divine design and purpose, he wants them to join together in love and matrimony, produce and nurture children, and raise them up to perpetuate the human race.
That doesn’t sound narrow or complicated does it? It’s common sense. Noah Webster’s original 1828 Dictionary, written during a time of far greater intellectual achievement and moral sanity than today gives the following logical definition of God’s design for marriage:
“The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God Himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.”
There it is. That’s the entire definition–God joining a man and woman together by design, for life, to curb immoral behavior, to promote family happiness, and produce and take care of the kids.
For thousands of years we accepted that common sense explanation. In light of the truth about marriage’s design and social contract, we believed that:
- Fornication (sex before wedlock) was hurtful. It’s sex without life commitment.
- Adultery was scandalous. It’s sex without faithfulness.
- Homosexuality was perverted. It’s unnatural sex outside of God’s natural design.
- Pedophilia was destructive. It doesn’t protect children.
- Bestiality was vile. It’s demeans man who is “made in God’s image.”
We believed those truths until a powerful and vocal minority of homosexual activists formed a plan to change the accepted definition of holy matrimony. They said “We want equal rights!”
But marriage was never about equality or equal rights. It’s exclusively concerned with God’s concept of social order and human happiness. God designed men to marry women–for many obvious reasons. Yet, even in the wonderful enterprise of marriage, which I’ve personally enjoyed for thirty-three years, there are some qualifications that limit equal access:
1. We are not to marry close relatives. (E.g. Leviticus 20:17-21). Even a man or woman can’t demand to marry anyone. God is smart enough to know that marrying close relatives and having children by them weakens rather than strengthens the gene pool. Every nation on earth has smart laws against incest and marrying close-of-kin.
2. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Polygamy was tolerated in ancient civilizations as an accommodation to the harsh realities of life. Due to extensive warfare when men died and there were more women than men, coupled with the inability of a woman to provide for themselves, polygamy was sometimes permitted. But it was never the ideal. Mark 10:6-9 is the pattern.
So marriage can never be argued from the standpoint of equality. If Referendum 71 is approved by the voters of the state of Washington on the basis of a false demand for “equality” from homosexuals, then here’s what will happen. If homosexuals have equal access to marriage, then so do adults and children, adults and animals, relatives with relatives, and any number of partners (two or three people saying they love each other and want to “marry”–or why not eight or ten?).
If this is a matter of equal access by all human beings, then lawsuits and alternative arrangements will fly in every direction–and true marriage and family life will eventually collapse. If we allow that to happen, we will have been stupid enough to throw away five thousand years of wisdom and social order to bow to sexual perversion and experimentation.
So when you hear that equality argument made by someone promoting homosexual liaison or any other living arrangement demanding a right to the marriage table, take a moment to peer deeply into the smoke and darkness to the true reality lurking in the background.
It’s really the hideous form of sexual confusion that you’re really looking at.
It’s looking for moral approval.
It wants to destroy you and your children.
Don’t be deceived.
Commit your own marriage plans to God’s wonderful design and vote to REJECT Referendum 71 and every other scheme to alter the God-given institution of marriage.