A fortnight or so ago, a group of conservative evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian leaders issued the Manhattan Declaration. The Declaration begins:
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
3.the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
The document is a pointed attempt by the religious right to fend off the growing consensus among many Christians, particularly younger evangelicals and Catholics, that the relentless focus on “pelvic morality” (the obsession with sexual purity) was a warped one. While many younger Christians may remain opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage, a great many (this was clearly reflected in the 2008 election) insist that fighting poverty, war, and environmental degradation deserve equal if not greater attention. A number of commenters have noted that younger evangelicals tend to be less concerned with the “social issues” than their elders — and this has meant that younger evangelicals and Catholics have felt much more comfortable voting for Democratic and pro-choice politicians. The ageing leadership of what might be called the “traditional religious right” is understandably concerned; the Manhattan Declaration is an attempt to lead these straying youngsters back onto the narrow path.
It’s worth noting that many of the leading figures in contemporary American Christianity refused to sign it. My father’s former student, Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary, would not add his name to the list. Neither did celebrated mega-church pastors like Bill Hybels and Rick Warren. None of those three men support same-sex marriage; all have solidly pro-life credentials. But wisely, they — and countless other respected figures in the evangelical mainstream — refused to be taken in by the Declaration’s indefensible attempt to create a “hierarchy” of virtues in which the fight against gay marriage trumps the battle to save the planet and the poor.
Brian McClaren, the best-known young evangelical writer in America and leading figure in the “emerging church” movement, wrote a critical and feisty response to the Declaration in Sojourners last week. As he usually does, Brian gets a lot right, particularly in his assertion that we need to spend far more time combatting a culture of greed than the framers of the Manhattan document suggest.
Here’s the thing: fighting against abortion and gay rights is, in the end, cheap. It requires no particular personal sacrifice or reflection on the part of those who claim these are the top issues. Men who will never get pregnant; heterosexuals who have the privilege to marry those whom they love — they surrender nothing precious to them by fighting tooth and nail against reproductive and glbtq rights. The struggle against global poverty and the struggle to save the planet from environmnetal degradation, on the other hand, make radical claims on all of us — particularly on the affluent in the West, whose unsustainable consumption patterns are directly linked to human and animal suffering. Fighting against climate change and poverty require that the wealthy transform their lifestyles; fighting against gay rights requires nothing more than censorious and self-righteous indignation.
To put it more simply, the Manhattan Declaration is an exquisite example of what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called “cheap grace.” Those who sign it, embrace it, and live out its call can comfort themselves with the thought that when they campaign against same-sex marriage and women’s health, they are doing the most important work in all of God’s kingdom. Changing how they spend, how they travel, how they eat — the really challenging things — are rendered irrelevant by comparison. This is a scandal and a shame to the body of Christ, and deserves bold and prophetic repudiation.
Cheap grace? Funny, I always thought of grace as being free.
The declaration’s creators make the point that fighting for the sanctity of marriage, pro-life values, etc., are things that the culture largely rejects. (Maybe not in Manhattan, KS, but definitely in Manhattan, NY.) If you go out and talk about the need for conservation and poverty relief, nobody argues with you. In fact, the culture embraces it and gives you awards. Everybody loves Bono.
Your liberal causes may or may not be worth fighting for (generally I’d say no but there are exceptions), but they aren’t causes that require the church to stand up against the world. They’re the world’s causes.
If you think it is “challenging” to eat fried okra instead of fried chicken, try standing up in your church’s liberal echo chamber and making the claim that “marriage should be between a man and a woman”.
Which challenge is going to cost you friends?
Hugo, as I read this, I was astounded by the truth and simple logic of your position. I totally agree with your conclusion.
Let’s hope that when they put “the sanctity of human life” at the number 1 position, they’re going to get serious about opposing war (we have two of them, right now) and maybe address this country’s rate of homicide, which is way out of line with other industrialized nations. I mean, this isn’t just another “Let’s not have abortions” propaganda line, is it? There’s a good old liberal joke attributed to Congressman Barney Frank, that conservatives believe “Life begins at conception and ends at birth”. If I were a conservative (deity forbid!) I’d be doing my best to prove that the joke doesn’t have any truth behind it! We’ll see if they take that seriously or not.
Robert, where do you live and go to church? My experience in central Virginia and Baptist churches is pretty much the polar opposite of yours.
Hugo-
The document is incomplete, but it is not “cheap” by any stretch of the imagination.
I don’t think that “sanctity of life” deals ONLY with abortion. What about our recent problems with torturing people and putting innocent people on death row???
Affirming the dignity of marriage means that some pastor shouldn’t have an affair with the church secretary even though he REALLY, REALLY wants to.
Conscience and religious liberty are part of what makes America great. I don’t think that JW kids should be forced to stand for the pledge and I don’t think that pacifists should be forced to blow people up.
The bothersome thing is hypocrisy. The devout conservative who rails against divorce, but cheats with married people is full of hypocrisy. So is the liberal co-worker who is shrill about the impending disaster of global warming, but drives a big SUV.
Robert, not every unpopular position is courageous.
@John - I agree. If you’re going to make respect for life this big theological foundation, you should be as consistent as possible.
@Rachel - It varies widely. It takes cohones to stand up in All Saints and be in favor of traditional marriage. It takes cohones to stand up at East Backwash Community Baptist Church in rural Virginia and be in favor of gay rights.
@davev - Hypocrisy does indeed greatly undermine the credibility of people taking moral stands. (There’s a reason I’m not a big crusader for sexual morality!) The amusing hypocrites are the ones who think that some other good act makes up for their own embrace of what they’d call evil in someone else.
@Jendi - Really? Well, I guess I can think of some non-courageous motivations that might cause someone to take up an unpopular position, but in general I think to stand against what is locally popular is almost always courageous, even if it’s wrong. Courage is a morally neutral virtue; suicide bombers going into orphanages show courage - just mixed in with some other things without even courage’s dubious moral pedigree.
What I always find interesting is the same people who attack Marriage Equality and attempt to demonize Gays and Lesbians and who attack a Women’s Right to Choose and make decisions regarding her own body, Things that do not personally effect them and wield the Bible based on their interpretation as a weapon to trample on other people rights and privledges in life tend to pick and choose which Biblical verses they want observe.
I always find it hypocritical when I see Christians who have been divorced and now are on their 2nd or 3rd wives/husbands condemn Gays, Lesbian, Bisexuals, Trangenders or Liberated Women but at the same time live lives that based on the New Testement are Adulterous and in Sin.
Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
Mark 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
davev: It wouldn’t be cheap grace if the people involved really stood up and demanded that our government take seriously the serious problems with our use of the death penalty.
I think Hugo was taking it for granted that most of the usual suspects on the politico-religous right in the US don’t spend a minute a week talking about the death penalty, or the hundreds of thousands of deaths we’ve caused in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002. It’s disingenuous of you to pretend that this isn’t common knowledge.
I welcome the Manhattan Declaration–it’s about time the Churches grew a spine.
Actually, Hugo, it isn’t the Manhattan Declaration for Pelvic Morality, but the Manhattan Declaration for Christian Conscience–as a former Anabaptist, you should resonate with the desire to give Caesar what is Caesar’s, but reserve to God what is God’s–that is, Catholic hospitals and adoption agencies, the sanction of Church marriage, and the continuing upholding of life in a network of crisis pregnancy centres paid for by people of conscience.
The Catholic Diocese of Auckland opened one here not long ago. The Bishop rose at Mass and said “I don’t have the money for this. The Pope has asked us to help these pregnant women. I put the first thousand dollars into the offering plate, and I’m asking you to join me”
He got his money, and the Centre is now open.
Cheap?
Nope. Unpopular, brave and utterly correct.
Actually Robert, making hard choices for liberals will cost friends.
Asking people to make real choices is unpopular. Ironically, when we know we can and should change, that’s when it gets rough.
However, you are right about this: you have every right to be wrong. I think both liberals and conservatives might agree about this. But until we begin to argue with a greater sense of humility about our own position we won’t get anywhere.