2 replies on “The "Manhattan Declaration" — Redundant?”
I thought it was good too, but after some of the controversy I read the document, and then really read Stackhouse’s post closely. Much that Stackhouse claims is simply false (for example, “The document gives no clear direction about what anyone is supposed to do once they have read it–besides sign it, I suppose”), and much of the rest is nonsense (of course Muslims want Shariah law; wanting doesn’t mean that they’re right). It’s bizarre to see Stackhouse claim to be “conservatively pro-life”, and yet not agree that this implies something about law — when is the taking of an innocent human life NOT an appropriate subject for law?
David, you and I have disagreed in the past but found a way to bridge the gap, even as we realized that we didn’t exactly agree. I think that might be more difficult to accomplish here given the fact that what you term “excellent” I find “on the whole lame and annoying.”
Though he is (unlike me) unfailingly polite, Garver’s comments towards the end of the thread I think provide a fair rejoinder to some of Stackhouse’s concerns.
A couple of thoughts in response to Stackhouse:
1. The charge that the document doesn’t provide a specific set of directives has much in common with the pro-choice charge that unless and until pro-lifers have a specific plan outlined for the first 18 years of the life of each “unwanted” child, they cannot legitimately oppose abortion.
2. Stackhouse accuses the document of “imposing” a Christian view through legislation. Again, this echoes the left/secular argument with respect to the issues discussed. It is on this point that I imagine you and I would disagree most. At the same time, part of me finds your adoption of Stackhouse’s point here somewhat surprising.
First of all, each and every one of our laws “imposes” a view based on certain beliefs/assumptions/suppositions. The basic notion of human rights is grounded on and in Christian notions of human dignity/value, even as many of the proponents of such rights reject the Christianity that undergirds them.
That having been said, the issue is whether one can appeal to reason and evidence that is outside one’s particular religious text in support of public arguments. In the case of sharia, that is not the case. In the case of abortion and marriage, that is the case. If it weren’t the case, I personally wouldn’t support legislation on either of these issues. I recognize that here the document employs a mixture of arguments. In spite of Stackhouse’s misgivings, it’s I think a commendable effort to demonstrate the direct relationship between particularly Christian claims and the realities concerning our world that non-Christians can affirm.
To deny that the revelation accesible to all in creation provides grounds for “Christian” positions on these issues is to detach the claims of particular revelation/redemption (Scripture culminating in Christ) from the creation that is the subject of that revelation/redemption. The reality of the humanity of the unborn child and the normativity of the male-female union are plainly accesible to all. Of course, that does not mean people will agree. Obviously they don’t (and strongly so) and the document recognizes that. All of us have our own deep commitments and blind spots that prevent us from acknowledging the truth about ourselves and our world.
3. Stackhouse is troubled by the identities of the signers. This is not a substantive criticism but one that simply has to do with certain affinities and, at the end of the day, is reactionary. It is reactionary in that we would be defining ourselves not by what we think but by simply being against what somebody else approves of. “If so and so (bad right-wing person that he is) is for it then I must be against it.”
That having been said, I do think that Ron Sider’s name is significant. However, I would like to harp on another name: Tim Keller.
Admittedly, I am an officially registered member of the Tim Keller Fan Club (though not a leader or officer). However, such bias does not change the fact that Keller has been engaging in Christ-centered, Kingdom advancing gospel ministry in New York for over 20 years. During those same 20 years he and Redeemer have been very careful to avoid political entanglements and identification with hot-button “culture war” type positions. Part of me finds his signature on this document simply interesting. More importantly, it is reasonable to conclude that Keller didn’t find this document to be in conflict with his life’s work. I think it worth at least a moment to ponder why that might be the case.
A couple of things I’d be interested in is any citation to a particular passage or even sentence that is worthy of impassioned denunciation or where the Declaration at least goes astray. Secondly, how your position concerning this document would be employed with respect to the Civil Rights Movement.
2 replies on “The "Manhattan Declaration" — Redundant?”
I thought it was good too, but after some of the controversy I read the document, and then really read Stackhouse’s post closely. Much that Stackhouse claims is simply false (for example, “The document gives no clear direction about what anyone is supposed to do once they have read it–besides sign it, I suppose”), and much of the rest is nonsense (of course Muslims want Shariah law; wanting doesn’t mean that they’re right). It’s bizarre to see Stackhouse claim to be “conservatively pro-life”, and yet not agree that this implies something about law — when is the taking of an innocent human life NOT an appropriate subject for law?
David, you and I have disagreed in the past but found a way to bridge the gap, even as we realized that we didn’t exactly agree. I think that might be more difficult to accomplish here given the fact that what you term “excellent” I find “on the whole lame and annoying.”
Though he is (unlike me) unfailingly polite, Garver’s comments towards the end of the thread I think provide a fair rejoinder to some of Stackhouse’s concerns.
A couple of thoughts in response to Stackhouse:
1. The charge that the document doesn’t provide a specific set of directives has much in common with the pro-choice charge that unless and until pro-lifers have a specific plan outlined for the first 18 years of the life of each “unwanted” child, they cannot legitimately oppose abortion.
2. Stackhouse accuses the document of “imposing” a Christian view through legislation. Again, this echoes the left/secular argument with respect to the issues discussed. It is on this point that I imagine you and I would disagree most. At the same time, part of me finds your adoption of Stackhouse’s point here somewhat surprising.
First of all, each and every one of our laws “imposes” a view based on certain beliefs/assumptions/suppositions. The basic notion of human rights is grounded on and in Christian notions of human dignity/value, even as many of the proponents of such rights reject the Christianity that undergirds them.
That having been said, the issue is whether one can appeal to reason and evidence that is outside one’s particular religious text in support of public arguments. In the case of sharia, that is not the case. In the case of abortion and marriage, that is the case. If it weren’t the case, I personally wouldn’t support legislation on either of these issues. I recognize that here the document employs a mixture of arguments. In spite of Stackhouse’s misgivings, it’s I think a commendable effort to demonstrate the direct relationship between particularly Christian claims and the realities concerning our world that non-Christians can affirm.
To deny that the revelation accesible to all in creation provides grounds for “Christian” positions on these issues is to detach the claims of particular revelation/redemption (Scripture culminating in Christ) from the creation that is the subject of that revelation/redemption. The reality of the humanity of the unborn child and the normativity of the male-female union are plainly accesible to all. Of course, that does not mean people will agree. Obviously they don’t (and strongly so) and the document recognizes that. All of us have our own deep commitments and blind spots that prevent us from acknowledging the truth about ourselves and our world.
3. Stackhouse is troubled by the identities of the signers. This is not a substantive criticism but one that simply has to do with certain affinities and, at the end of the day, is reactionary. It is reactionary in that we would be defining ourselves not by what we think but by simply being against what somebody else approves of. “If so and so (bad right-wing person that he is) is for it then I must be against it.”
That having been said, I do think that Ron Sider’s name is significant. However, I would like to harp on another name: Tim Keller.
Admittedly, I am an officially registered member of the Tim Keller Fan Club (though not a leader or officer). However, such bias does not change the fact that Keller has been engaging in Christ-centered, Kingdom advancing gospel ministry in New York for over 20 years. During those same 20 years he and Redeemer have been very careful to avoid political entanglements and identification with hot-button “culture war” type positions. Part of me finds his signature on this document simply interesting. More importantly, it is reasonable to conclude that Keller didn’t find this document to be in conflict with his life’s work. I think it worth at least a moment to ponder why that might be the case.
A couple of things I’d be interested in is any citation to a particular passage or even sentence that is worthy of impassioned denunciation or where the Declaration at least goes astray. Secondly, how your position concerning this document would be employed with respect to the Civil Rights Movement.