Quick Analysis Of 'The Manhattan Declaration'
By John Lofton The Covenant News ~ December 04, 2009
That "Manhattan Declaration":
A Quick, Off-the-Top-Of-The-Head Analysis...
MD: In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings and successfully fought to establish the rule of law and balance of governmental powers, which made modern democracy possible.
COMMENT: "Modern democracy?" Yikes! If we as Christians, in any way, made any kind of "democracy" possible, we should definitely repent of this sin.
MD: And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement.
COMMENT: Really? These were "Christian women?" Quoting what part of Scripture to support "the suffrage movement?" I think not that they were "Christian" women. If they were, then they sinned and were without Biblical understanding.
MD: The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class.
COMMENT: Ditto, this stuff, too. No Biblical/Constitutional authority for civil government to be involved in this.
MD: We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person.?
COMMENT: Why not just stop at "grounded in Holy Scripture?" Don't need confusing language re: God-given "natural" human reason, the "natural man" being, of course, one who reasons only naturally, not according --- see where this leads -- confusion.
MD: We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.
COMMENT: Can unbelievers (the wicked, children of Satan) be "people of goodwill" when our Lord tells us there is none good but God? No. And I'm not sure about the St. Paul/appeal to conscience bit; can't from memory think of any Scripture here where St. Paul "appeals" to "conscience."
MD: Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense.
COMMENT: No, God's Word is the foundation of "justice", not these things. "Freedom of conscience and religion" also make me -- well, think of nothing specific; too abstract; too general; need to be shackled to and defined by God's Word.
MD: "2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and..."
COMMENT: Scripture defines -- does It not? -- marriage as between a Godly/Christian man and a Godly/Christian woman, not just man-woman. Also, believers and non-believers understand nothing "alike," including this assertion re: "marriage."
MD: We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.
COMMENT: Amen! Good.
MD: Although public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction, we note with sadness that pro-abortion ideology prevails today in our government. The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense.
COMMENT: Excellent opportunity missed here and later on to spell out what God's Word says is the role of civil government, where true law comes from. This is a hugely important flaw in this document which, alas, reflects no Biblical systematic theology. But, then how could it? Too many different kinds of "Christians" involved in this document. They say a camel is a horse designed by a committee. And why pick only on "the present administration?" In principle, Republican Administrations no different.
MD: The President says that he wants to reduce the "need" for abortion - a commendable goal.
COMMENT: NOT commendable because he's lying and I know he's lying because he's not trying to do even this. After all, our President is a man who said it was above his pay grade to know when a baby gets rights -- another lie; he knows.
MD: But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available by eliminating laws prohibiting government funding, requiring waiting periods for women seeking abortions, and parental notification for abortions performed on minors. The elimination of these important and effective pro-life laws cannot reasonably be expected to do other than significantly increase the number of elective abortions by which the lives of countless children are snuffed out prior to birth.
COMMENT: The "laws"mentioned here are neither important nor effective because they say, loud and clear, in effect: "Comply with these 'laws' AND THEN YOU CAN MURDER YOUR BABY BY ABORTION."
MD: Our commitment to the sanctity of life is not a matter of partisan loyalty, for we recognize that in the thirty-six years since Roe v. Wade, elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to what Pope John Paul II described as "the culture of death."
COMMENT: Pope John Paul II? Why not quote what the Bible says about the taking of innocent human life? In fact, nowhere in the document is abortion called what it is -- MURDER! Nowhere in this document, is it pointed out that abortion now is not legal but instead MURDER, that courts don't make law and that laws that contradict God's Law are not law. Why the silence on these absolutely key points?
MD: We will be united and untiring in our efforts to roll back the license to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion.
COMMENT: Poor writing -- rolling back a license. Even poorer thought. Another place to mention abortion being, always, murder. But this not mentioned.
MD: as we stand resolutely against the corrupt and degrading notion that it can somehow be in the best interests of women to submit to the deliberate killing of their unborn children.
COMMENT: "Deliberate killing" would seem to obviously suggest the word "murder" here, no?Not used. Would be interesting to know if there was debate about using the word "murder."
MD: the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination.
COMMENT: Don't think this IS the first responsibility of government, is it? First responsibility is to OBEY GOD AND HIS WORD, is it not? Here another place where brief explanation of what God-defined government means. Not here.
MD: Marriage then, is the first institution of human society - indeed it is the institution on which all other human institutions have their foundation.
COMMENT: No! Is not Christ, His Church, the first institution of society on which all other institutions (should) have their foundations -- on the rock -- or they will be on sand, sinking sand?
MD: We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity;
COMMENT: "Respect?" And they have "equal dignity?" No. This is what my theological mentor Dr. RJ Rushdoony called "pious gush."
MD: Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts.
COMMENT: The separation of the sinner from his sin here is more "pious gush," modern psychobable. And God does NOT love everyone! Psalm 5:5 -- He hates all WORKERS of iniquity/evil. And though used, "our" is not a word that can be used so loosely to refer to God's children and Satan's children.
MD: As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it.
COMMENT: A faint odor of Arminianism here -- and it stinks!
MD: Some who enter into same-sex and polyamorous relationships no doubt regard their unions as truly marital. They fail to understand, however, that marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and that the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit.
COMMENT: No, they fail to understand that God has defined marriage, that GOD has made marriage possible -- not all this other stuff.
MD: Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as "marriages" sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non-marital and immoral.
COMMENT: Another missed opportunity here to rebuke those parents who abuse their own children by putting them into the God-hating government-run schools that teach this vile stuff. But, no mention of this.
MD: Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends. Sadly, we are today far from having a thriving marriage culture.
COMMENT: And, sadly, we are far from having a group of big-name Christians being able to sign a statement saying unambiguously that true Law comes from God and must be obeyed by all in a society.
MD: we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture.
COMMENT: Better wording -- God's definition. And what we must rebuild is a Christian/Biblical culture! Think big because we serve a BIG GOD!
MD: Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. Matthew 22:21?
COMMENT: Amen! So, what is Caesar's? What is God's? Who says so? Another place to preach -- yes, preach! -- on God's definition and purposes for civil government. But, again, nothing.
MD: No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.
COMMENT: Civil government is about using force, compulsion. Is it "religious" to "compell" someone against his will to not murder, steal, lie in court, etc? Of course it is. And I despise with every fiber of what's left of my being the phrase "people of faith." What mush! The above phraseology is so rhetorically reckless it would, if followed, anyone to believe and do anything according to "conscience" and depth of "religious convictions." No, I take it back! "Mush" has a solidity the above wording lacks!
MD: In recent decades a growing body of case law has paralleled the decline in respect for religious values....
COMMENT: One more time, "law" is mentioned but nothing said about the supremacy of God's Law.
MD: on which our system of republican government is founded.
COMMENT: Whoopeeeeeeeee! We are (or were originally given) a Republic! -- not a democracy. Excellent!
MD: the essential buffer against the overweening authority of the state,
COMMENT: So, what is the proper authority of the State? God says ---- what? More silence on this key topic.
MD: We believe in law and in the rule of law.
COMMENT: Which means -- what? -- "law" according to Who? A three letter word beginning with a capital "G", rhymes with "sod."
MD: We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral.
COMMENT: "Unjust" by what standard? C'mon.....
MD: The biblical purpose of law is to preserve order and serve justice and the common good; yet laws that are unjust - and especially laws that purport to compel citizens to do what is unjust - undermine the common good, rather than serve it.
COMMENT: Better formulation (less confusing) would have been "The purpose of Biblical law is...". Otherwise, what said here gives impression that "biblical" law just another kind of law -- which it is not; it is the ultimate law that judges all other "laws."
MD: Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required.
COMMENT: No, what Christians must engage in is "obedience to God", not "civil disobedience"which makes it sound like we are just another kind of revolutionary, another species of moral idiot like Gandhi, Thoreau, 1960s hippies.
MD: the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself.
COMMENT: This deserved major treatment, application to civil government, law, etc. This not done.
MD: 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.
COMMENT: This is at very end of the document when, arguably, it should have been at the start, followed by hundreds of words developing this enormously important Biblical theme.
John Lofton, a “recovering Republican,” is, Editor of TheAmericanView.com website and co-host of “The American View” radio show.
You can e-amil Mr. Lofton here: JLof@aol.com