Last Friday, a robust and incredibly influential group of Evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox leaders released a 4,700 word document titled "The Manhattan Declaration." The declaration argued for a hierarchy of issues in America with abortion, gay marriage, and religious liberty as the crown jewels. These are the issues we should be supremely concerned about. It may sound a little 1980s at first, smacking of Roe v. Wade protests and debates over the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University, however, a closer look shows that this document is written with a fresh eloquence. The principal drafters were Chuck Colson, evangelical icon and former advisor to Richard Nixon, Timothy George, Harvard graduate and founding dean of Beeson Divinity School, and Robert P. George, esteemed professor at Princeton University.
The interesting thing about this document is that one of its targets was young evangelicals. As Chuck Colson, told The New York Times, "A lot of younger evangelicals say [political issues] are all alike. We're hoping to educate them that these are the three most important issues."
That raises an important question: Can a heafty, heady document like this inspire rising Christians who support a broader agenda? (You can probably already anticipate my answer.) I explored this question in an article published today on Newsweek/Washington Post's "On Faith" entitled, "Manhattan Declaration Unlikely to Inspire Young Christians."
I think there are much better ways for various generations of Christians to dialogue. I conclude the article with this thought:
George Orwell once said, "Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it." Perhaps both sides could use a dose of humility. There is much to learn from an older, wiser generation just as new ideas from fresh voices can be invigorating. Younger Christians often make the mistake of parading around in our enlightened intelligence while older evangelicals only stoop from their platforms and lecterns when it necessary to educate us younglings. Maybe it is time we stop penning declarations that speak at each other and begin sitting down at a table where we can talk to each other about the many issues our faith speaks to.
Read the article, think about the issues, and leave your comments here.
**Interesting note: John MacArthur doesn't like the Manhattan Declaration. Brian McLaren kind of does.**
EXTRA - I always think long and hard about which picture I will attach to each blog post. This week it was so close that I wanted to give you the runner-up:
(He would have made it if he hadn't been so grainy.)
Bill Beahan said:
While I support the Manhatten Declaration wholeheartedly and have signed it, I question targeting it to young people. It is a document representing a very deep, thoughtful, and Biblical position. I hope the authors have a program in mind to present it to younger Christians. I do question the wisdom of Christians being so critical of other Christians in secular left-wing anti-Christian publications such as the Washington Post. I think the faith would have been better served if the article has appeared in a Christian publication.
Posted: November 24, 2009
Jonathan Merritt said:
Bill,
A platform is a platform. I am happy to provide commentary in respected national news outlets, even if they are perceived as left-leaning. The Washington Times and Wall Street Journal have never knocked. If they ever do, I would be happy to write for them.
The Washington Post "On Faith" column has also published articles by Franklin Graham, Timothy George, Albert Mohler, Richard Mouw, Cal Thomas, Chuck Colson, Leith Anderson, Mark Driscoll, Mark Hall, NT Wright, Richard Land, and Rick Warren.
Thanks for your thoughts and comments.
Posted: November 24, 2009
Tyler said:
Well-written and irenic, Jonathan. Nicely done.
Posted: November 24, 2009
Travis Mamone said:
Great article! My favorite line: "Younger generations believe being pro-life doesn't simply mean opposing a culture of death, but promoting a culture of life."
Posted: November 24, 2009
Travis Mamone said:
Also, I like what you said at the end about the older and younger generations learning from each other. I confess that sometimes I like to think that our generation is doing Church right, and all the old fuddy duddy conservative traditionalists of the past got it all wrong. But the truth is I think we can both learn from each other.
Posted: November 24, 2009
CJ said:
I'm a little confused about your reasons for not signing the doc. Is it b/c you just didn't think it would appeal to "younger evangelicals" or something more? Is there something about the doc with which you do not agree or just the manner in which the contents of the doc are put forth?
Also, in promoting unity, why not be the SECOND younger gen evangelical to sign, unless there is something about the doc to which you do not adhere? David Platt, Church at Brook Hills, would be considered "younger gen," would he not? He's certainly under 40.
In your Newsweek article, you state: "While younger Christians believe that these are important issues (abortion, gay marriage, religious liberties), our broader agenda demands that we include the many other anti-life atrocities like the 3 million people in this world who will die this year from easily preventable water-related diseases, the 143 million orphans crying out from filthy beds in musty orphanages and the 1 million Africans who will unnecessarily die of malaria in the next 12 months." Yet, you had no problem signing the Thirdway doc--Come, Let us Reason Together--which doesn't include these "broader issues," either. Why sign that one but not the MD?
Additionally, you also state in your Newsweek article that "it will take more than a heady declaration from even such an august body of Christians to sway a new generation of Christian leaders who take a broader view of cultural issues facing us today." But how does the Thirdway doc do this? B/c it includes another item or two in addition to the MD? Or, has your view of CLURT evolved in its value?
I agree that the MD, and any doc for that matter, is not sufficient to mobilize anyone. How that doc is used will determine much of its impact. Maybe the MD will influence the younger gen, and maybe not. Unless you have something against the proclamations within the MD, why not include it in your efforts to impact the younger gen and younger evangelicals as part your focus on the broader issues?
CJ
Posted: November 24, 2009
Jonathan Merritt said:
CJ,
Great questions.
About the Manhattan Manifesto, I may still sign. I haven't made up my mind about that, yet. I do not believe the document is incorrect in its assertions, but I do believe it is incomplete insofar as the 21st Century Christian witness is concerned. But to answer your question, I may still sign it, though I don't think anyone is holding their breath and waiting to see what I do. :)
Also, David Platt is a good point. You will remember that my statement was that no significant younger evangelical leaders were listed. Platt is a fine leader (and an exemplary expositor), but his following is not specifically among younger evangelicals and does not reach far outside informed Southern Baptist circles. Even still, his inclusion does not undermine my assertion that the scarcity of young leaders will likely be seen by many as notable and damaging. The question is not whether or not there is one leader under 40, but whether or not there was an effort to reach out to the movement of younger evangelicals who think in terms of a broader agenda.
Your reference to CLURT is well-taken. CLURT was similar to Manhattan in this way: they were both documents with signatories. Other than that, they were very different. For example, CLURT was not intended to educate or inspire a generation of Christians. It was a statement of conviction by Christians (of many generations) to provide new information for how our faith might forge new common ground. It was timely because it provdided areas where a new democratic president and legislature might partner with us to achieve common goals. If the intent had been to "educate" an older evangelical audience, it would have opened itself up to similar criticism regarding hubris, effectiveness and utility.
That said, I am growing increasingly convinced that declarations make very little difference. Conversations may be more productive. I might welcome a document that could combine some of the broader concerns found in CLURT and some of the much needed reminders of the MD with signatories from all generations and theological persuasions. I am not convinced that a project of that undertaking is realistic at our current moment. Are you?
Jm
Posted: November 24, 2009
Michael Dyson said:
I appreciate your diplomatic approach to the issue, but upon reading your article all I can think about is how trying to unite every Christian under one 'Declaration' seems to be more apt to chain me as a believer to issues that I am not passionate about, things that I am not convicted to act on. As a younger believer, I do align with many of the ideas stated in the Manhattan Declaration, but the actions i take based on these beliefs would differ greatly from those who will most staunchly support the document. This leads me to want to separate myself from something that puts labels on what my Christian values and therefore actions should be.
Posted: November 24, 2009
Jonathan Merritt said:
Michael,
I think your sentiments are EXACTLY what many, if not most, younger Christians feel when evaluating this.
Jm
Posted: November 24, 2009
Mike Waggoner said:
Jonathan,
Great article! I totally agree that there are other issues that should be addressed with equal emphasis.
The 3 mentioned in the declaration are important to me, but I do think a lot about the hungry (all over the world!), the thirsty, the naked...wow, this sounds like Matthew 25...the very things that Jesus said were determining factors of those who were/are true followers of His.
I also think about how Paul said that we, as believers, should help our fellow brothers & sisters when they are in need BEFORE we help those outside the Body of Christ. There are fellow believers losing their homes, unable to pay utility bills, etc. due to the economy right here in America.
Self-serving, politically bent, headline grabbing issues seem to be the only ones worth championing by the majority of the framers of this declaration.
Thanks for the article!
Posted: November 24, 2009
Dave said:
I totally agree with Mike Waggoner, and while I respect the views of the Declaration (but don't agree with all of it), such declarations are a divisive tool and a waste of time in my opinion. And what's the point of signing it? To make oneself feel better, than everyone else (or to proclaim righteousness and everyone else is wrong?)? I'm sick of all the divisiveness. Seems to me it would be more worthwhile to post a copy of the bible and everyone sign that as a declaration of ALL biblical teachings.
Everyone needs to humble themselves and get to talking, which is why I like this blog.
Posted: November 24, 2009
CJ said:
JM,
MD is also a declaration of conviction, just as CLURT, but with a different scope. That was why I brought it up. I see MD as an education effort only as secondary, for it's primary goal (I think) is to say "We will go no further, even if it means civil disobedience to hold to our convictions on the sanctity of life, Biblical marriage and religious freedom." In light of pending and recent legislative proposals (i.e. Hate Speech bill), it's easy to see why such a declaration was arrived at (isn't it?). For the first time in perhaps this country's history, followers of Jesus in medicine, the pastorate, and business are confronted with a real possibility of having to choose between their convictions and losing their job or even going to jail--in America!!
Who do you consider "significant younger evangelical leader[s]" with a specific following among younger evangelicals?
I really don't know if such an undertaking uniting all generations and theological persuasions is realistic but that's not what I'm really interested in. You have written much about the dichotomy between younger/older evangelicals, a key difference being the the respective evangelical scope of each. So, rather than an uber declaration that attempts to unite the whole clan, I'm more interested in efforts to achieve unity between the younger/older evangelicals while holding to the Scriptures and fulfilling our ambassadorships and ministries of reconciliation. I welcome your broader scope and issues agenda but I'm a little concerned that it's coming at the expense of unity and reconciliation between younger/older evangelicals.
Posted: November 24, 2009
Doug said:
As a 50 year old "conservative" SBC pastor of 28 years, I read the MD and I have to say that it felt like "deja vu all over again" (as a wise man once said). It really brings nothing new to the table, even in tone - which I guess is the point if the primary goal was to "educate a new generation". I however, feel it is simply an attempt to revive a once-influential, but now dying, movement. I would agree with you and many other commenters here that the effort is probably fruitless. Regardless of the rantings of an older and passing generation, the future does (and must) belong to the "young". Personally, I am thrilled to hear from young evangelical leaders such as yourself, and pray that the voice of your generation will continue to grow. I listen to you and others of your generation so that I can (hopefully) remain relevent in the waning years of my ministry. God bless you!
Posted: November 24, 2009
Chris said:
My question is...what is a generation?
I know - there is a general "rule" that suggests a generation is a group within a certain age range (and I recall it said to be every 40 years or something).
However, according to Jesus, a generation is more often everyone regardless of age alive at any given moment in time....and, I prefer to think of myself in this generation.
The Church as a Body needs to live under the unified Spirit before she can be united on other fronts - otherwise, we're standing on nothing but philosophical debate...which has no solid foundation.
Short answer - I think it's silly ;)
These are not the greatest 'issues' facing our nation (or the word), nor is any other politically charged debate....
As a Christian, we can not have an agenda. Not even to "save souls"....our only 'agenda' is to Love becuase Jesus Loves....
Posted: November 24, 2009
heidi said:
What about the CRU revelation/scandal?
At this point in time, I believe we have to do something in response to the growing skepticism in the political world about christianity. The MD comes out of much thought and prayer by the giants in christianity today. What do you mean it doesn't relate to young christians? Do they have a different belief system than others of the christian world? There is no philosophical debate when it comes to the agenda of the MD. We are to love as Christ loves the church and if we don't have that kind of love, no amount of signatures on a petition will help. I see that love beginning to flow in the christian community everyday. The debate should be whether or not we will be able to worship in the very near future or not, and if the MD helps to safeguard that privilege, then it helps.
I think you are a bit immature, JOnathan, in your christianity and you need to begin to really read the word and let it speak to you!
Posted: November 24, 2009
Bill Wilkie said:
If we are talking about either reaching the emerging generations or a hierarchy of influence, then we must also converse about a third alternative--the emerging SOCIETY.
Over the next ten years, my guess is that the new high school and college grads will be dominated by their frustration of not getting a satisfying job that can support a family. Christians do workshops on the "family," "financial planning," "discipleship," etc., but no one does workshops on the mindsets (skillsets) necessary to become an effective employee of the 21s century in the spirit of Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 2:15. Why not? We don't even talk about the mindsets of the 21st century.
If its about being influencial, then Christians need to deal with the economic realities of America's future. We need to help America move beyond symptoms to a focus on underlying causes. Financial system failures, a mortagage crisis, unemployment, etc., are symptoms. But without a sustainable economy no educational system or healthcare system or artistic infrastructure can exist. So how can Christians engage? Or should they engage in shaping the next society?
By 2030, we will no longer be driven by the KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY but there will be a new adjective to describe the emerging society. What is your choice? The arguement has died down that it will be the GENOME Society for 2030 because of difficulties with the R&D. I assume that Johnathan believes it should be the GREEN SOCIETY. What is your choice? I have a third alternative which I will share later. What are some other alternatives?
Without higher paying jobs and a majority middle class what is the impact on a Green Movement?
1. The constituency or region that helps shape the next society will thrive and be very influential, e.g., Detroit, Boston and San Francisco in the 20th century.
2. The constituency or region that rides the crest of this next wave will benefit.
3. The constituency or region that misses the wave will be ignored and struggle for significance.
Click here to cast you secret vote.
Posted: November 25, 2009
Bill Wilkie said:
The embeded link to cast your vote for the next society did not work.
Here is a link that will work.
http://inventors.wufoo.com/forms/what-is-the
Posted: November 25, 2009
Mike Little said:
Jonathan, another well written and thoughtful article. Honestly, I hadn't heard much about the article... but will definitely read it.
I typically don't like signing documents that pigeon-hole me into a particular category. I may agree with much of what is said, but often the tone and way in which it was written was with the wrong intention.
I do find it ironic, the we (myself included), as Christians try to unify around a few things we believe are being attacked when we have missed HUGE things in our culture that are glaring where you know Jesus would be spending time.
Thanks again for your post. (Enjoyed being able to baptize ChrisAnne this morning at your church too!)
Posted: November 29, 2009
Mike Burnat said:
"Maybe it is time we stop penning declarations that speak at each other . . ."
Would that include the need to stop penning editorials at each other? I guess not. It obviously doesn't include penning declarations about Climate Change . . .
Hard not to miss the tension between the Climate Change Declaration and the Post editorial. The former was careful to note being "proud of our deep and lasting commitments to moral issues like the sanctity of human life and biblical definitions of marriage. We will never compromise our convictions." Matter of fact, the Climate Change Declaration said these two were "the most pressing moral issues of our day." Wow, that sounds a little 1980s at first, smacking of Roe v. Wade protests and debates over the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University . . .
The Post editorial, however, seemed rather bored
with all this abortion stuff, blithely noting that the Manhattan Declaration offered nothing really "new" or exicting for the young folks, save some old talk about those historically "hot-button issues" that fat old white men are obsessed about, Lord knows why. While the Climate Change Declaration affirmed the "primacy" of sanctity of life and marriage, now we hear complaints about how "older generations often speak as though a handful of issues are the only ones that deserve our passionate witness."
The real fault with the Manhattan Declaration? The old white men totally forgot to include a paragraph on malaria and the need for water purification in third world countries. Those heartless bastards.
I'll give you this, though. The Climate Change Declaration did refer to the "poor" three times, so I can't fault you there. Mission accomplished, Jonathan.
Posted: November 30, 2009
Jonathan Merritt said:
Mike,
You will do well to read my comment above about the SBECI. Neither the op-ed nor the SBECI was intended to "educate" or even speak directly to a particular generation. If that had been the case, your points would be well taken and relevant.
Thanks for your comment.
Jm
Posted: November 30, 2009
Jonathan Merritt said:
CJ,
I know that other people might give you a different list, but here is a list of some younger evangelical leaders (in my opinion):
-Shane Claiborne, Author/Activist
-Rob Bell, Mr. Emergent
-Matt Chandler, Pastor
-Gabe Lyons, Author/Speaker
-Tyler Wigg-Stevenson, Head of Two Futures Project
-Chris Seay, Pastor/Author
-Mark Driscoll, Pastor/Author
-Sam Rodriguez (not that young himself, but huge following about younger people, especially young Hispanic-American Christians)
-Any number of young pastors come to mind (eg- Darrin Patrick, Perry Noble, Shane Hipps, etc)
Do you have any that you think should definitely make such a list?
Jonathan
Posted: November 30, 2009
Mike said:
Well, my comments were almost relevant. I'll take what I can get.
So you think the Manhattan Dec. was -intended- to speak to a particular generation. Intended. It's purpose and design. They sat around and said "hey, how can we appeal to old people vice young whipper-snappers." The evidence: because the co-signers just happen to be older than you. Well, maybe older people tend to be the head of Christian organizations, I dunno. Better yet, what is the racial make up of the co-signers? Maybe there is another slant to this Manhattan Declaration we are missing . . .
Or, you think its -intended- to speak to an older crowd because it emphasizes the sanctity of life and marriage. If so, didn't your SBECI do essentially the same by stating that these two issues were "the most pressing moral issues of our day"? That's old 1980's talk, remember?
Your final takeway to the Manhattan Declaration, the coup de grace, was on the need for people to stop penning Declarations that speak "at each other." Wow. That is one hell of a cheap shot, especially considering that the SBECI expressly stated that "Baptist churches, associations and general bodies have often found it necessary to make declarations in order to define, express and defend beliefs." Declarations for me, but not for thee.
Posted: November 30, 2009
Jonathan Merritt said:
Mike,
I can't speak definitively on the intentions of the signatories. I can only interact with how Chuck Colson, one of the three drafters, explained their intention.
Again, I think you should go back and read my comments on the SBECI and also re-read the conclusion to my op-ed. My point is not that declarations are unnecessary or unimportant. Christian history has utilized creeds, confessions and statements for some time. However, I don't think that a declaration is going to be effective in generating dialogue or "teachable moments" inter-generationally.
There is no doubt that various generations of evangelicals need to be in conversations. I just think there is a more effective way of doing that.
Jm
Posted: November 30, 2009
Peadar Ban said:
I am an "older Christian" who wonders if whether or not some of the attitudes and opinions shown and espoused in your article and the comments I read (I confess to not reading all of them) have been colored (contaminated?) by the prevailing cultural relativism you have been steeped in since your arrival (most fortunate since such an even has become fraught with the danger of elective termination as never since the fall of Rome) on the planet.
Consider that you have never known a time when abortion was a criminal act, and when homosexual behavior was, besides being gravely sinful, also a criminal; and homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Now, such attitudes and behaviors are viewed by many millions of people who call themselves Christian as not only normal, right and proper, some even call them sacred God given rights.
At the same time things which were once viewed as proportionally less evil, less damaging to individuals and cultures, and more properly matters for civil attention, have been raised to the level of moral imperatives; equals, if you will, in every case with the taking of innocent life.
A great agenda of desperate issues has been placed on the table and urged on our attention. Why, indeed, spend time on trying to convert people that the living and the strong have rights that the "not yet here" and the weak and feeble do not when millions are hungry and without medical care, and the Earth, our Mother, must be treated more tenderly?
Unless, Sir, you begin to see that unless we become convinced of the inalienability of everyone's right to life, as a dead white president so marvelously put it, then all of these other things are mere mist, devoid of substance and meaning is why.
Posted: December 3, 2009
Jonathan Merritt said:
Peader,
Thanks for your comment. To say I have been "steeped" in "cultural relativism" is to ignore my upbringing. I was raised in a Southern Baptist household, I spent several days a week at church, and I attended a conservative Christian middle school, high school, college and seminary. I didn't even know what the term "cultural relativism" meant until I was taught it in class. "Steeped in" would be a stretch.
I do, however, think your point about cultural influences are important. This document struck me as a cultural artifact. Many older Christians experienced the "cultural revolution" of the 1960s and 70s and their experiences produced certain political, social, cultural postures. Younger generations, however, never experienced these things and we express different postures. The cultural influences here must be pointed out. Good point.
Jm
P.S.- I don't know where the earth-as-mother language comes from, but it certainly doesn't describe me.
Posted: December 3, 2009
Peadar Ban said:
Dear Johnathan,
Thank you for your irenic reply. You must know that the term/concept "mother earth" is probably as old as thought or language. Lamentably, it seems to have become as much of a reality in the lives and spirits of many folks in the several generations since I could call myself...or be called...young as God in heaven actually is. It is to that unfortunate circumstance I had reference, not your particular beliefs about protecting what is God's gift to us. Beliefs, by the way, which I think are commendable. I remember my own sense of violation and loss when my neighborhood in the Bronx was torn asunder by the construction of the Major Deegan Expressway in the 1950's.
I think I was too inexact with my term "cultural relativism". I should, perhaps have written the "culture of relativism", and added to that "and tolerance"; a kind of leveling of everything in which a hierarchy of values, and weight of truths, dissolves into a kind of moral or ethical pablum; if one is even able to say that there are such things anymore as values or truths; not to put too fine a point on it, a "seamless garment".
What that produces is, it seems to me, a failure to understand that there are certain things which are fundamental, and which if ignored produce a rot, an infection of souls and cultures dangerous to individual and societal life. They were rightly enumerated by Mr. Jefferson in the document to which he and others put their signatures and pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honors, severally and individually.
Both Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II have identified abortion as an evil which will destroy the life of a society, a nation, a civilization. One hasn't to do much thinking to connect the dots in the graph of the steady erosion of our respect for life since we became a country choosing to ignoring that first of inalienable rights.
In comparison to that willful indulgence of our fallen selves, I think, such causes as protecting the environment and the others you mention should take a lesser place in the hierarchy of our attention and care, no matter what age we are.
That is does not is, I think, due directly to a kind of heart hardedness, numbness of the spirit and silfishness ingested with the air of a place and time all to ready to condone, to support and to defend the right of some to destroy the lives of others for essentially selfish reasons. And, to deny to those who object to this their right to do so.
This is the purpose of two of the legs on which the Manhattan Declaration stands. I fail to understand why someone, anyone, who says they believe in the Author of Life and Love would find reasons not to sign and support it, even reasons based on relative differences in age. The truth, Sir, knows no age.
As regards the section on marriage, biology is enough of an answer to defend that.
Declarative Regards,
Peadar Ban
Posted: December 4, 2009