There has been a lot of debate lately, including Southern Baptists, on whether or not Christians should sign this declaration.
For instance:
Dr. Albert Mohler has signed and said why.
Frank Turk has not signed and said why.
What are your thoughts? Would you feel comfortable signing this declaration? Why or why not?
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
I signed it. I recognize that the law in the United States is not the power of God unto salvation but that only the Gospel saves. I further recognize that the Catholic church is a false church that teaches a false doctriine. Also, I am perfectly aware that outlawing abortion would not end abortion nor would it solve any issues that lead people to consider abortion.
Knowing all that, however, I signed it because I want to see abortion made illegal in my lifetime. I don’t want to see gay people being given “civil rights” as if they deserve them (the right to marry, the right to be a specially protected class, etc.). I do want people to have the legal right to practice their religion without the interferance of the government as long as their religion doesn’t involve killing people or to practice no religion at all.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Ancient Word, Changing Worlds: A Book Review =-.
I have presented my case for not signing it at To sign or not to sign.
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..To Sign Or Not To Sign =-.
I do not think I will sign it for a couple of reasons.
1) Who cares about my signature? (Besides, someone else named Dave Miller will likely sign it and people who know me will think that is me).
2) I am a “bigger tent” Baptist, but my desire to fellowship has its limits. The fact that the statement seems to indicate that all the groups involved are part of one faith seems to me to be an “unequal yoke” problem. I believe that Catholicism is a false iteration of Christianity. I believe there are saved Catholics, but it is in spite of their church. So, I would not publicly join in an agreement that gives the idea that we share a common faith, no matter how noble the goal.
On another note, Matt – this might be a really good “Voices Debate.”
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Significant Servants, October 25, 2009 "Christian Insanity" =-.
Youre right…
Any takers?
I agree with Dave. Though I’m sure no one would mistake me for Dave Miller.
While I do not have disagreement with most of the content covered, I too have issue with the “one faith” flavor of this document. Therefore, I too cannot join publicly in agreement because we do not share a common faith.
You should be so lucky.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Significant Servants, October 25, 2009 "Christian Insanity" =-.
If folks like Benny Hinn, Todd Bently, and Rick Joyner had been signitories I wonder if people would be so quick to sign on.
.-= Scott´s last blog ..An Unrepentant Dedication =-.
I understand the point several folks have made that basically this document is in many ways “Second verse, same as the first”. That folks will see this and say “See, Christians are just hate mongers who want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. We know what they’re against more than what they’re for.” Some view it as just another step in the culture war.
I’m not saying I’m right in signing it or that anyone is wrong for not signing it.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Ancient Word, Changing Worlds: A Book Review =-.
I would agree with it. Sure, Baptists, Catholics and others disagree on some basic things. But it is good to get together every now and then and say we do agree on the sanctity of human life, marriage being only between one man and one woman, and religious liberty.
David R. Brumbelow
.-= David R. Brumbelow´s last blog ..Squanto, an American Joseph: A Thankgiving Story =-.
While I may not sign it, I certainly do honor the spirit of courage behind it and the timing of it, particularly in light of the progress made regarding extending hate speech. Those of us who have come out of the same-sex struggle know the great destruction and deception being perpetrated upon our country by those who believe that marriage should be extended to same-gender couples. It would be a disaster of proportion even greater than the damage being done in our country by the embracing of divorce and the winking at adultery. Some of the ideals in the Manhattan Declaration are very important and if it lends courage to Christians as individuals to stand up for morality and purity . . . . as well as forgiveness and restoration . . . it will have achieved merit. At least it provides a record that we will not all simply lay down and let culture drive this world without resistance.
.-= Thom Hunter´s last blog ..Thankful Even for the Pit =-.
To me, the only “new” thing that this declaration actually seems to be pushing is the argument for religious liberty as it relates to these particular issues (which is important as “hate speech” laws, etc. could and would be used against religious organizations). As such, I wonder if it would not have been better to strip it of the theological language entirely and invite concerned Jews, Muslims, Mormons, etc. to make a statement concentrated on that aspect, rather than this attempt.
.-= Josh C´s last blog ..Helpful Reminder from Uncle Screwtape… =-.
The spirit of arrogance and isolationism demonstrated by some of those posting comment here as to why they will not sign this document is quite frankly “Disturbing!”
If the document is not worth signing, then don’t sign the thing. But to hear a fellow Christian say “I won’t sign it because a Catholic signed it” is appalling. That is akin to saying “I would given to the fund to help this poor orphan child have the heart surgery that she needs in order to live, but Catholics are giving to this cause and I don’t want to be associated with the Catholics”.
You guys need to go take a very hard look in the mirror.
Grace Always,
Greg
Greg is right. We need to be the good samaritan & not the pharisee. We need to have charity even to those who we believe to be evil, in the hope they will allow Christ to work in their hearts. To refuse to do something good because we see evil working in an individual is wrong. Did not the pharisees accuse Jesus of casting out devils by the hand of beelzebub? They saw Him to be evil even though He was charitable. Is this a call to gather in charity? “He that not gathereth not with me, scattereth”.
I believe this to be a uniting of forces to rid our country of the evil that has penetrated deeply into our country, community, & family. If you won’t do it for the Catholics, then will you do it for the innocent that are being deceived today? Will you do it for your children or mine? You are either in the good fight or not, but God gave you free-will to decide. Please make the right choice. I am a woman who is looking for warriors & heroes to protect me & my 7 children; not excuses.
God Bless You & Yours,
Sandy
Besides the paramount issue of keeping the gospel pure, I think the position that getting together and signing a co-belligerent document is going to have the desired political effect is more than a little bit naive, especially since on a host of conservative issues that have even broader support than just the “religious right”, the current crop of politicians and “representatives” really doesn’t care what you think. Conservative ideology has to win at the ballot box consistently in order for this to be fixed by ordinary means which means that all these political organizations with tunnel vision on single issues are actually counterproductive if not part of a broader organized effort, but if this were to happen, people might find themselves becoming more aware of current events of significant importance and less aware of the draft picks of their favorite football team. It also doesn’t help that even those who would sign this document probably would not be willing to tell someone that whether or not they can vote for the Republican candidate running in their district, no Christian has any business voting for a Democrat no matter what he or she says as the party platform supports everything we oppose and if those politicians were really serious when articulating positions that would garner support, they could not be associated with the Democratic Party. This leads me to another question. When did the Church become a 501.C3? Do you think the Puritans would have agreed to this? I am no big supporter of the political activism of the Christian Coalition, but someone there had an interesting question about those who would sign this document:
“When those Americans sign the Manhattan Declaration, they declare that they will not comply with any edict that compels them or the institutions they lead to participate in or facilitate abortions, etc. Nor will signers ‘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.’ The question now is, will the signers of the Manhattan Declaration emulate the actions of the pro-life ‘rescuers’ in the 1980’s and Dr. Martin Luther King and his followers in the 1960’s and really accept jail-time by refusing to bend to the unjust laws which seem to be coming out of the United States Congress and some state legislatures with ever-increasing frequency? The world will be watching.”
I suspect that those most willing to suffer this kind of persecution are probably included among those articulating positions against signing the document. Remember, “THE WORLD WILL BE WATCHING!”
When you read the NT their concern is proclaiming the gospel and not changing local or national politics. The political and social situation during that time was arguably worse than that of our current situation and still we do not see any NT writings arguing for political change. That is why I think such declarations are a waste of our time. An individual’s fundamental problem is not what their government permits or forbids; their fundamental problem is sin and alienation from God. The gospel changes that Politics does not.
I honestly think that the reason most evangelicals oppose same-sex marrage, on a political level, is because homosexuality makes them angry or uncomfortable. If they really cared about homosexuals they would be dilligently building relationships with and sharing the gospel with homosexuals. At any rate politics cannot change the heart of man, but the gospel can. Because of that I am convinced that my time is better spent sharing the gospel than signing declarations.
I agree. The Puritans were involved in political issues, but never at the expense of the purity of the gospel, which is why they were, in the end, political losers, but unrivaled in history as pastors and theologians. If those who are so eager for political reform got what they wished, the end result would be nothing more than outward conformity to rules, exactly what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for.