One of the things about the way I’ve been reading blogs lately is that I often get summaries after-the-fact and reactions from others on various topics and happenings, which offers me a shortcut to catching the drift of some notable posts. And sometimes in this exchange I feel perhaps I’ve missed something important. Often I let it just slip by, but then there are times when I find my feet just instinctively digging into the sand adjacent to home plate as my eye fixes itself on the ball. This time it’s internal bickering among some who insist that any bickering on these points could not be classified as internal, because It’s fun to exclude others.
Now, According to Ron Cole, who posts on terrorism on another front…IHOP rallies troops against an emerging enemy, one of the places that people in my CLB (including yours truly) used to like to go for conferences or purchase books and tapes is actually a no-emerging zone. Mike Bickle, who knows what it’s like to be on the receiving end of criticism and other controversies, has made a pretty specific statement against the emerging church: “Sincere young people whose hearts were once ablaze for Jesus are being allured into compromise on foundational biblical truths and practices, while at the same time they are increasing in works of compassion and justice. No amount of increased ministry activity can ‘balance out’ their profound spiritual compromises.” Apparently intellectual assent to dogma trumps action, so be careful about “increasing in works of compassion and justice.” You don’t want to get caught up in that stuff. Or something like that. Ron gives it a good response, but me, I’m thinking that even those folks who are steeped in the whole prophetic “thing” can be pretty myopic. Which is odd, considering how it reminds me of a certain verse in John chapter 9.
And speaking of hypocrisy — well, the concept makes a poor segue considering I won’t get back onto it for another paragraph or two. But hang in there, I’m still warming up.
So apparently there’s something called the Manhattan Declaration, which is not like the Manhattan Project (well, maybe just a little…). It basically says that the three main things that Christians should be concerned with are (1) abortion, (2) opposing gay marriage, and (3) continuing the co-mingling of the faith with American politics. Of course I’m paraphrasing somewhat here, but if my summary is correct, it would reveal the wisdom in Andrew Jones’ reason not to sign it.
My idea was that for a document subtitled “A Call of Christian Conscience,” I would have thought it might mention, oh, poverty, and, um, genocide or peacemaking, and, er, maybe… I don’t know… basic human rights, or loving God and others, or some of those sorts of ideas. But I gather these are lesser items in the Christian conscience because they’re so much more controversial and things upon which Christians will have a harder time agreeing upon than the fact that they should be picketing abortion clinics, opressing opposing homosexuality in every way they can, and voting Republican. Because clearly, those are things everyone can agree upon. You see, it’s so clear that homosexuality must be so abhorrent that to hang with people who aren’t completely sure that it’s abhorrent and would pass up the opportunity to say that it is just because their co-worker’s husband’s niece’s friend is a lesbian might tarnish our Christian witness. On the other hand, poverty, well, Jesus said we’d never solve that, so why bother trying? After all, if the poor would just have more faith, they wouldn’t be in that predicament. It’s just those liberal compassion and justice-type Christians who think they’re doing anyone any favours here. After all, dogma is the most important thing to consider.
As for this Manhattan Declaration, Al Mohler signed it while dissing John Franke over pluralism while the latter was busy affirming that “in the midst of our diversity, we must remain unified on this point–Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” which reminded me that the Manhattan Declaration signatories say that they “make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” (C’mon guys, that’s John 10, just skip back a bit and read the last verse of chapter 9.)
I guess we should deduce that pro-life anti-gay Republicans are not a political group, but is somehow a faith-based group affirming that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Or maybe in this case, “Way” is code for “Republican,” while “Truth” is code for “heterosexual-only,” and “Life” is a code-word for “anti-abortion.” Perhaps I go too far. But hey, if you can’t dish out some kind of scathing attack on another Christian while signing an ecumenical statement of faith about what you agree upon, what’s Christianity coming to? I mean, really?
Maybe if our behaviour would line up a little better with our rhetoric, people wouldn’t continually lose so much respect for us in our hypocrisy.
Sorry, just felt the need to oppose something for a minute there. My apologies if I inadvertently spilled any cynicism on your keyboard.
That [insert scatological phrase here] Manhattan Declaration has been eating at me since I first heard about it and read it. It is the worst that Western Christianity has to offer … manipulative passive-aggressive double-speak wrapped in glitzy pious tissue paper.
Are those issues something Christians ought to be concerned about? Yes. And no. There is a lot of room for disagreement within them. I think there are many Christians who would find those issues to be a gray area. Certainly, they are not issues over which we should be fighting and causing our body to fracture.
Increasingly, and because of the Church’s alignment with the Republican party, we are being seen as a people who say to those who are oppressed … we are opposed. Or … as Colbert put it the other night, the stones that had the Ten Commandments engraved upon them each had a letter at the top. The first had an F and the second had a U.
I agree with both of you. I commented on a number of blogs about the Manhattan Project (yes, I love calling it that!) and honestly it seems like as long as Mohler agrees with it, everyone is happy. Makes me a little ill. This thing is doing nothing but diverting our efforts at the gospel into a political party. But that’s what most of our denominations (especially SBC) have been doing for years anyway. Ugh. This is so sad.
I’ll see your cynicism and raise the ante (as a fellow post-charismatic).
Of course IHOP is coming out against the “emerging” church – it’s not good for business to emerge. Cuts into their market share.
The true end time army, oops, I mean “pure” end time army will be dishing out the big entry fees at those conferences, not to mention all the merchandising at the book table.
I’d be interested to see how many of you who were so deeply offended actually read the declaration:
“While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.”
Nowhere does this say these are the only concerns that the authors and signers share, or even the primary concerns of Christianity (note the ‘option for the poor’ language).
Furthermore, the constant references to Mohler by the author and other commentators are really a scapegoat. I don’t like Mohler any more than the next intelligent person; I’m a Methodist, but if Mohler agrees with me that infanticide is a bad thing, so be it. Look at who else signed this. Timothy George is not a dumb guy; neither is Robert George of Princeton. Look at the many Catholic priests, bishops, and archbishops who signed this.
The attempt to make this a “republican” document is undercut by the ecumenical nature of the document; the document mentions currents in Christianity and culture, no specific legislation or politicians, and moreover, it is made up of far too diverse a group to simply consider this all just another “right-wing conspiracy.”
Pastor Mack,
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, much appreciated. I will take some of the correction as it stands — I can often react strongly to my perceptions of an event or whatnot. (I blame my humanity, though it’s quite likely my own special brand of it that’s the culprit.) That said, I did scan through the document — though not with a careful eye for all of its detail and nuance. Still, while I focused on the threefold summary of the document in my criticism, it was their summary, not mine. You are right, of course, about its ecumenical nature and the fact that we shouldn’t make too much about agreeing on a few details with someone with whom we otherwise disagree on many more points.
I would still point to the language where the poor get a “special concern” which is then trumped with “we are especially troubled” about the three items they choose to raise above all others. I suppose I would or should be more disappointed than offended by this, since in my view it’s a swipe at symptoms rather than causes. Deal with poverty and it will impact the rate of abortion (though not eradicate it, of course). It has already been noted that the outspoken anti-abortionists tend to show less concern for the child once it has been born, even into poverty. I wouldn’t suggest that any of the signatories are dumb, but I might suggest that many are blinded by their concern over three particular issues that Jesus didn’t address directly to the point that they have de-prioritized the ones he did.
My reference to Mohler (if indeed a single one may be construed as “constant”) in my post are actually less to do with this document except to note his support of it, and more directed at his criticism of John Franke, in which I was disappointed. In this case he’s supporting an ecumenical document contra-abortion contra-gay-union pro-religious freedom enshrined in political freedom, while criticizing Franke for pluralism, which by his definition might include signing an ecumenical document. (See Todd Littleton’s post, linked above.)
Perhaps making it a Republican document was a cheap shot… I don’t see a right-wing conspiracy here. It’s just where my brain naturally went when I thought about the association that some people might make when attempting to enshrine their religious (Christian) values in political terms.
And of course, I could be wrong. But I’m somewhat convinced that if Jesus decided to walk the streets of the Western world today and preach on the three most important issues he saw facing us today, I don’t think any of these three would make the cut. I think he’d talk about our use of money and our lack of concern for the poor, our failure in the manner in which we hae intervened — or not — in the face of militarized injustice (war) in other parts of the world, and, generally, our self-centeredness in all these things. But that’s just off the top of my head.
Actually, Pastor Mack, I have read the document. One paragraph devoted to the needs of the poor and the elderly vs. pages devoted to not killing the unborn doesn’t really balance it out. Until Christians in this country can devote themselves truthfully and honestly to a consistent ethic of life these sorts of documents are hollow. What use is it to oppose abortion, when one also opposes Headstart? or Aid to Women with Infants and Children? That just dooms those already tenuous children to a life of poverty … and the statistics on what happens to those children are that they will more likely not achieve good educational outcomes and/or are more likely to become involved in crime when they do not receive aid. So … until there is some devotion to a consistent ethic of life, yes, this sort of document is nothing more than rhetoric which is pushing a particular political agenda … and has nothing to do with religious faith. I don’t care who has been hoodwinked into signing it.