It’s stupid to even entertain the question. But every time I see it posed, it isn’t for getting people to focus on issues instead of remaining blind devotees to political parties. Intentional or not, it often serves as a way to distract people from important issues that do deserve our attention. “How can we come together as a nation instead of remaining so divided?” The unspoken fallacy occurs when it is stated that Jesus was neither a democrat or a republican. Are we really suppose to believe he wouldn’t have had a view on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, or gay marriage? When the highest moral value of a culture is unity at the expense of principle, there is no real unity and we can wonder if principles ever existed in the first place.
So when people in the pews hear their church leaders espouse this same ideal, that we should be cautious about political partisanship (generously stated), I’m not convinced the people are sophisticated enough to know that they aren’t being (or shouldn’t be) told to abandon positions on issues that are thought out and held up against the light of scripture. I know that many in the church are ill-equipped to think theologically about their personal lives, let alone matters that face our entire culture. So I have to wonder if this lack of distinction between public issues and politics in general even matters if the church is unable to think theologically, if its members are just starting to develop a Christian worldview.
Could the above reflections have any relationship to the fact that of the millions of evangelicals in the U.S., less than of us 200,000 have signed on to the Manhattan Declaration? And many of the signers are likely Roman Catholic.
November 29th, 2009 | 9:14 pm | #1
Well, some folks like John MacArthur and James White are not signing. Not because of the theme, I understand, but because of eccumenical character.
November 29th, 2009 | 9:40 pm | #2
Collin –
As the resident dead, cold, rabid anti-catholic, I’m offended that you didn’t include me in the non-signers. However, I can let ot go. I’m pretty forgiving. And modest.
Ne’ertheless, I suspect that the lack of signers has more to do with the lack of actual awareness.
One of the things I think we should do as bloggers is know lots of people who don’t real blogs. It keeps us grounded. And to a man, my non-blogging friends have no idea that there is a Manhattan Declaration — and no idea why they should care.
One group is too busy colllection 100,000 cans of food for the local food pantry. I don’t want to put too fine a point on it, but I suspect that that endeavor — which will be complete by the end of this year (they started Oct 1) — will have a greater impact than if those 200 adults all signed the virtual document.
I’m just sayin’.
November 29th, 2009 | 9:49 pm | #3
Frank – the Declaration came up in conversation today at church. I attend with a robust conservative woman who signed it I think before I did! She’s not a blogger–she barely checks her email. I know she’s rare, but in conversation with her I was stimulated to write this. The Declaration was more of an afterthought…I’m mainly concerned about the first portion of the post, the lack of signatures I was asserting as more symptomatic. Just my thoughts. :)
November 29th, 2009 | 9:56 pm | #4
Once again Frank is right . . . though I hear from Andrew Sullivan that he is really a Roman Catholic.
Really.
November 29th, 2009 | 10:09 pm | #5
Are we really suppose to believe he wouldn’t have had a view on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, or gay marriage? When the highest moral value of a culture is unity at the expense of principle, there is no real unity and we can wonder if principles ever existed in the first place.
This statement is a true gem. Definitely quotable.
I still believe it would be effective to revise this declaration to include other matters such as concern for poverty, world hunger, the end of human trafficking, and the humane treatment of women and children. Just because they aren’t obvious concerns directly observable in the first world (they are, if you know where to look) doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be of great concern also.
November 29th, 2009 | 10:16 pm | #6
Sullivan says I’m really a Roman Catholic?
Oh — you mean he’s really a Roman Catholic. Let me say that he’s proof that all the technical claims of RC catechists and apologists have to stand up to the test of what actual Roman Catholics believe.
I admit openly that “Evangelicals” fall apart under this test, but the gigantically-phony claim of “unity” … oh nevermind. blech.
November 29th, 2009 | 10:18 pm | #7
BTW — didn’t mean to ignore you, Sarah. Your original point is totally sound.
November 29th, 2009 | 11:00 pm | #8
Let me preface this by saying that my support for the Republican Party is based on the fact that, currently, they are less likely to seek to persecute Christians for their beliefs. I am not opposed to persecution, and I think it may be needed to wake us up in America, but Christian ought not help bring about the persecution of other Christians by supporting the Democratic Party. A Party that is so Liberal that it is now seeking to propagate the sin for which Christ died.
The persecution of Christians is ultimately the persecution of Jesus and the Democratic Party, because of it’s Liberalism, rooted in Liberal Theology may bring about the persecution of Christians, and Jesus Himself. I use to be a Liberal Dead Head and know what Democrats believe.
November 29th, 2009 | 11:13 pm | #9
I have seen many folks – myself included – who have consciously decided not to sign the Manhattan Declaration.
It is not that I disagree that abortion, ESCR, gay marriage, etc. are morally wrong. It is that I do not believe that Evangelicalism is handling these issues correctly. It is not the time for more focused political involvement – it is time to be Gospel-centered.
We will have moral impact on people to the degree that we bring them to Christ and let the Holy Spirit alter their behavior.
it will not be cultural or political pressure that changes people. It will be change from the inside out.
So, we did not need another (essentially) political manifesto. We need to reduce our Constantinianism toward the kingdoms of men and raise our efforts at building the Kingdom of God
November 30th, 2009 | 10:27 am | #10
Are we really suppose to believe he wouldn’t have had a view on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, or gay marriage? When the highest moral value of a culture is unity at the expense of principle, there is no real unity and we can wonder if principles ever existed in the first place.
Very true. And what I find interesting is that many of the people who trumpet this “Jesus is no Democrat or Republican” meme often tend to deemphasize some of those particular issues, out of fear of appearing too partisan, but at the same time trumpet things like robust government intervention in health care, education, welfare/rent control/etc.
The whole abortion/stem cell/traditional marriage partisanship is horribly anti-Jesus, but the other kinds of partisanship (of the more “social justice” Great Society bent), that is perfectly fine. Paging Dr. Campolo…
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact