Evangelicals Get Involved
This week saw Christians speaking out on a number of political issues mostly the moral ones.
- The biggest Evangelical splash this week was made by the Manhattan Declaration, a group composed of Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical Christians. The Manhattan Declaration speaks out for the issues of life, marriage, and religious liberty. It includes a petition which has been signed by the likes of Albert Mohler and Charles Colson and a hundred thousand other concerned Christians. Reactions to the document vary. The NY Times and U.S. News report somewhat sparsely. The comments on each article are revealing, though. Others are even more furious. What impact do you think this will have on the debate?
- The Roman Catholics made headlines when it was reported that Rep. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island was banned from taking Communion by the bishop. Depending on how you look at it the situation is either an example of the advantages of central authority in the Roman Catholic Church or a gross intrusion of the Church onto politics. I, for one, am glad someone is standing up against abortion. Evangelicals and Roman Catholics certainly have theological differences but on the moral issues we agree.
- What impact might Evangelicals have on the increasingly dangerous situation in Iran? Mark Tooley looks at some of the ways Christians are doing so. Short summary is Southern Baptist leaders are joining with Jewish groups to call for greater sanctions. The article itself isn’t a great read but the conclusion is worth the wait. Tooley hopes this foreshadows a “possible new era of hard-headed Christian realism and interfaith cooperation.” Both are needed as we seek to engage culture.
- On the pop culture front: The Twilight movie “New Moon” made a pile of cash last weekend. At least one writer thinks the vampire series promotes conservative values. I’m unconvinced but read it for yourself and see.
Eric,
I see you posted a link to the Manhattan Declaration; however, I am interested to know your take on the positions stated in the document. I’m guessing you side with Mohler and Colson rather than the folks who are furious over it. Nevertheless, I would appreciate your thoughts concerning its wording and its impact. Have you signed it or are you going to sign it?
Michael – I have a post in the works on the Manhattan Declaration. I wanted to get it mentioned right away so I put it here. If I had to give you an opinion right now, I’d say it is always good to define where we stand and why. Evangelicals need to speak out on these issues. On it’s impact, this is where I am more skeptical. I don’t know that this will have the intended effect. It might just sound like Christians popping off again if anyone in the LWM even bothers to report it. Love the cooperation between Church factions, too.
Ben Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Interesting… I too am in the midst of writing a piece on the Manhattan Declaration, except my perspective is from a confessional perspective that though I agree with the social positions, nonetheless disagrees with some important pieces in it while claiming to be Christian and yet including “factions” that are not Christian.
Rev Nev Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Ben – Who are you calling non-Christian? Perhaps you will elaborate here or in your piece.
Ben Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:35 PM
No “Church” that denies one is saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone can rightly be referred to as Christian by any historically Protestant understanding. That some – if not many – Evangelicals balk at this is evidence of the crisis in evangelicalism. Beyond that, no group that denies the Trinity can be legitimately called Christian by any historic definition. A group isn’t Christian because they declare themselves to be so, nor are they Christian just because they have a cross on their building or say the word “Jesus” from time to time. Christianity is about doctrine.