English
Korean
Spanish
Evangelicals have teamed up with Catholic and Orthodox churches to declare the parameters of their relationship with an increasingly anti-Christian culture. The Manhattan Declaration states what the over 250,000 signers (between Nov. 20 and Dec. 4) consider to be a biblical interpretation of the sanctity of human life, the primacy of traditional marriage, and the inherency of religious liberty in our relationship with God. Most media outlets, including our own Dallas Morning News, totally ignored it. Some who did notice, the Los Angeles Times to name one, freaked out a bit, calling the declaration “dangerous.”
It is dangerous and the declaration’s critics are smart to notice; they are also tipping their hand. The most provocative aspect of the statement is the acknowledgement that our obligation to honor human government ends where it clashes with our obligation to obey God. Although the statement clearly and repeatedly asserts that such civil disobedience would be peaceful, with the disobedient ready to bear the legal consequences for their actions, this “threat” of forcing the state to arrest those whose consciences might be violated by our nation’s laws should be very frightening to those who believe they can pass any law they wish because they won an election. Imagine the picture of arresting 20,000 people, who’ve never before broken a law, for refusal to pay taxes that will be used for publicly funded abortions. Imagine arresting 5,000 preachers for teaching the clear message of Romans 1:26-27. Even MSNBC would have to notice that spectacle.
I say that some tip their hands when they call the declaration dangerous because this charge belies other claims that nothing that truly violates a Christian conscience would ever be forced on any American. If that is so, what is dangerous about a few paranoids saying that if such a thing ever happens, they’ll peacefully disobey? We live in a state where some parents have been handcuffed for homeschooling their children; a nation where some principals have forbidden high schoolers permission to stand around flag poles and pray before classes begin. Some Christian pharmacists, nurses, teachers, landlords, and employers, those who have already been fired, sued, or compelled, will laugh their heads off at the suggestion that it couldn’t happen here.
Those of us who have signed it have taken an intimidating step because we can easily imagine circumstances where we would have to disobey an unjust law. Such a commitment in this day is a foolish bluff. Our current congressional and executive leadership is the most extremely anti-life in the history of our country. That fact makes the clash of law and conviction likely if not also imminent.
Florida Baptist Witness Editor Jim Smith rightly notes the importance of prioritizing our convictions while we have the time to think it through. Referring to the public and theological issues that occasioned the declaration, he wrote, “These are matters eventually that no true Christian will be able to avoid. Therefore, we ought to resolve now how we will live and witness.”
On the other hand, a liberal Christian writer characterized the declaration as just another blast from the Religious Right, one that threatens civil discourse and freedom for those who hold differing opinions. I wonder if he read it or if he noticed that public discourse was never as considered and temperate as the status quo would suggest. The genuinely respectful and careful language of the statement threatens nothing but peaceful disobedience by those who can be physically confined but not spiritually compelled. No worries for those for whom only the New York Times is inerrant. They are at no risk whatever, for their gospel is rarely a stumbling block.
Saying: “Christians confess that God alone is the Lord of the conscience. Immunity from religious coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience. 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,” it is hard to seriously accuse the declaration’s signers of trying to curb the freedom of others. This appeal to religious liberty is the high point of the document.
The threat is that we might not go along quietly. When did unthinking compliance become a virtue in America? It must have happened since the civil rights movement. I’d guess it must have happened since the anti-war protests of the Bush era. Some of those protesters went to jail for what they said were their beliefs and neither the religious left nor the less religious left called them dangerous. And yet the paddy wagons of next year could be filled with church ladies, portly balding pastors in business suits, bespectacled academics, and homeschool moms in blue denim jumpers. These are people who don’t go to jail professionally. If I were a political leader, I’m not sure I’d want that on my resume.
And it’s fair to ask what alternative we who disagree might have. A half-million people, and the declaration will garner that many signatures, can’t elect a president or get the attention of the media, but it’s quite a large number of straight-laced, very solid citizens to say “We’ll go to jail if you accomplish what you’re attempting.” If 10 percent of us actually do keep the commitment we’ve made, it will be an amazing event. I first heard the prophecy of such a day while a
