I saw this story posted on a number of websites today, and to be honest, I don’t understand what this action is suppose to accomplish.
Recognizing two names and organizations associated with this, (Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family) causes me to wonder if its not just a case of public posturing.
Citing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s call to civil disobedience, 145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration saying they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples.
“We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence,” it says.
The manifesto, to be released on Friday at the National Press Club in Washington, is an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the administration of President George W. Bush.
They want to signal to the Obama administration and to Congress that they are still a formidable force that will not compromise on abortion, stem-cell research or gay marriage. They hope to influence current debates over health care reform, the same-sex marriage bill in Washington, D.C., and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
They say they also want to speak to younger Christians who have become engaged in issues like climate change and global poverty..
“We argue that there is a hierarchy of issues,” said Charles Colson, a prominent evangelical who founded Prison Fellowship after serving time in prison for his role in the Watergate scandal. “A lot of the younger evangelicals say they’re all alike. We’re hoping to educate them that these are the three (*abortion, homosexuality and religious freedom) most important issues.”
They convened a meeting of Christian leaders in Manhattan in September to present the document and gather suggestions. The 4,700-word document is called the “Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience.”
The document says, “We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other antilife act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent.”
Sola Dei Gloria 
“these are the three (*abortion, homosexuality and religious freedom) most important issues.”
What makes these the most important issues (over, for example, global poverty)? Right: That other stuff is “not in my backyard”.
PG, i just don’t understand what all this posturing accomplishes for the Kingdom of God. To me it appears to be totally political in nature…
An attempt (by yet another group) to put together a ‘religious’ PAC which seeks power in government.
Frankly, i think they (these groups) chose ‘only” those 3 because they’ve learned it will get them in the news. Standing up for the poor and/or homeless, sadly, won’t necessarily make headlines.
It is entirely political in nature. Not only the politics in the government, but also politics inside the church.
For a couple of reasons, it’s much easier to get people behind you with these three topics than with the poor and homeless:
1. Two of them are related to sexuality. I’d claim that lots of people have some sort of “issue” with that (sin, guilt, shame, ..) which makes this an easy target, as people don’t have to feel as bad about themselves when there are “worse offenders” (those pro-choicers and homos).
2. With the poor and homeless, if you manage to collect money, people expect that it directly benefits the poor and homeless. Who benefits from money raised for pro-life or anti-homo campaigns? (It’s easier to build organizations with lots of employees around these topics)
3. It’s easier to “scare” people into participating. If you say “By helping here, we can reduce the number of starving kids in {poorcountry} from 5 million to 3 million”, people might think “why bother”? Such huge numbers are too abstract, those starving kids are too far away.
Tell them that you’re trying to ensure a homo-free life for your kids (and after all, the only purpose in a homo’s life is to convert your kids!! [yes, that was an attempt at sarcasm]), and people suddenly can relate to your cause.
I think, that it gets them in the news is only a side effect (well, and it furthers the political clout). These chosen topics ensure them paying followers, which is much more essential – how many of these vocal people and talking heads are working on those issues in their spare time?
It’s a pessimistic view on the issue, I know. Thank God he’s greater than my pessimism…
Yes, i tend to agree.
Paying followers, yep im sure you’re right. That seems to be the bottom line for many of these so-called Christian (activist) ministries–power and money.
I see it as a re-write of policies of the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition, The Chicago Inerrancy statement etc., adding in a few Catholic archbishops and the Othodox patriarch of America.
Common political cause, and attempt to make alliance and timed for some of the legislation currently being dealt with in the US.
It is a profoundly American document addressing current fears of it’s signatorories, a PR stunt to say neo-social conservatives are back from 2004, they are as mad as hell and they are not going to take it anymore.
It is about fear, this is fundamentalism which believes religious liberty is taken away by equality.
I see it far more as a demarkation, again (nothing new under the sun) – if you are not us, you are not Christian. The Institute of Religion and Democracy has been working at that erosion for years.
I think a lot of US Christians will sign, they appreciate others they perceive as leaders doing their thinking for them.
I’m curious. Does signing put people on direct mailing lists (Fof, FRC etc) which can be sold off to other groups?
I notice a lot of schismic Anglicans and SBC signing.
Is that just me? (you guys know the players better than I do)
Did the RC archbishops get permission from the Vatican on this?
Another thing I noticed. Apart from one Catholic and a couple of Baptists in the WH over US history, these are paid lobbiests from streams of faith who feel they and their denominations been excluded from higher offices in the US. Again, is that just me, or do you notice that?
Bene, when first reading the story the Moral Majority came to mind.
I believe their exclusion has been behind most if not all of the recent ‘vocal’ activity coming from these groups.
They believed they had political power and “pull” in the WH under Bush. When a democrat won (which from what i read after the election, took them totally by surprise) they were not prepared to lose that power. Its brought out the real “uglies” within some of these groups Bene.
You know i sign up to receive newsletters from a few “Christian” activist groups–one is Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council.
May i be frank? I don’t like that guy at all. There is something ‘there’ which the Spirit of God has checked me on, since the first time i saw him on a cable news program. Perhaps saying i don’t like ‘him’ should be restated to say i don’t like the spirit which i discern operating in him.
I receive at least 5 newsletters aweek, asking for money to “help him” and his work at FRC. Along with a manipulating fear-mongering personal letter.
I have no use for these groups whatsoever. But i do want to stay on top of what they’re doing.
They add nothing to the work of the gospel or the kingdom of God.