Return of the Christian Right: The Manhattan Declaration

1. Nov 22, 2009—9:34 am | Permalink Rev. Angela says

Noticeably absent, again, are any signatures from women.
Gee, I wonder why?

2. Nov 22, 2009—10:29 am | Permalink big daddy weave says

I counted 7 women and 145 men. Not too bad for the Christian Right. Although they could have recruited more anti-feminist women from the academy and nonprofit world. I didn’t see Phyllis Schlafly of Concerned Women for America on the list.

3. Nov 22, 2009—5:33 pm | Permalink K Gray says

This seems to stem from church-state clashes like Catholic Charities and D.C. City Council, social services partnerships that may no longer be workable. I see nothing wrong with the religious institutions stating their position, like any other group affected by proposed legislation.

This doesn’t appear in a vacuum. It’s in response to governmental bodies considering the scope of religious exemptions in various laws: same sex marriage and the life-issues most prominently. That’s where the church/state clashes are occurring; the “heirarchy” was created by the laws being considered, and these religious institutions are responding saying “this is how far we can and can’t go.”

So what choices do the religious institutions — e.g. Catholic Charities, hospitals, schools, social services — have? They can silently sit out the debate and respond after the fact or state their position now (so can anyone else, this isn’t about silencing anyone). The laws will be passed or not, the religious exemptions broad or narrow. That’s up to democratic governmental processes. Then, the religious institutions can comply, or close down their services, or dissolve the church-state money partnership that, while efficient and apparently working well until now, sets the stage for these clashes.

As for not caring about the poor, Catholics have been on the front lines for ages, consistently, whether it’s popular or not. It’s the very institutions who work with the poor who must make these tough decisions. And they won’t stop working with the poor, it’s not their nature. They may just do it w/o state money.

4. Nov 22, 2009—5:56 pm | Permalink big daddy weave says

Catholic institutions have indeed been at the forefront in the fight against poverty.

The question is whether many of THESE Catholic signatories (i.e. First Things Catholics) have led the way when it comes to poverty relief. The Neuhausian Catholics have long focused almost exclusively on issues relating to sex, marriage and abortion. Other issues like Poverty have never been made a top priority by many on the Catholic Right.

Regarding religious exemptions, it should be pointed out that this group will not be satisfied with a broad exemption that applies to non-profit work. They want for-profit businesses (Christian Bookstores etc.) to receive exemptions as well.

I do not gather that these signatories would be satisfied with a compromise that exempts social service providers like Catholic Charities while refusing to exempt Lifeway Christian Bookstores.

You know, when Parliament passed the Sexual Orientation Regulations back in 2007, a coalition of Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical leaders also called for civil disobedience. That never happened. And no broad religious exemption was granted.

It may be time to accept the inevitably of increased legal protections for gays and lesbians and work for a solution on church-state issues. That would obviously involve some compromise on both sides. Gay groups are quite militant as well. These conservative leaders could begin this process by taking a step back and consider the moral integrity of gays and lesbians especially in light of their advocacy on behalf of for-profit businesses that would like to continue to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

5. Nov 22, 2009—7:37 pm | Permalink K Gray says

Oh THOSE Catholics.

“Gay groups are quite militant as well”…? So respect their moral integrity? And accept the inevitability of infringement on religious liberty? I’m not following.

If the point is everyone should compromise, do you have any ideas on that? Given that these clashes are over how much the state can require religious institutions (and for profit businesses, as you point out) to change, wouldn’t all the compromise have to come from them, as you also suggest?

6. Nov 22, 2009—7:49 pm | Permalink K Gray says

On second thought areas of compromise exist in for-profit businesses, parachurch organizations which can’t operate w/o gov’t money, and individuals. They won’t get the protections they seek, as you point out. Freedom of conscience for them will probably mean making their own choices: going out of business, limiting the business, moving to another jurisdiction or to another line of work.

Churches and some parachurch organizations are where there is little or no room for compromise on their end.

7. Nov 22, 2009—8:38 pm | Permalink big daddy weave says

When it comes to any sort of compromise, most gay rights groups and most conservative religious lobbies/organizations are downright inflexible. That just makes matters worse.

I have some ideas. For-profit businesses need to accept the fact (where the law applies) that they can no longer discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation similar to how it is also currently illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, etc.

Gay rights groups should offer an exemption to groups such as Catholic Charities that have a long history of providing social services in this country in a way that does not violate the separation of church and state.

The gay rights group need to do a better job of respecting the conscience of conservative believers. Meanwhile, religious conservatives need to start acknowledging that some of their proposals (specifically their request to have for-profit businesses exempted) could possibly cause great harm to the moral integrity of gays and lesbians.

There are also some unresolved issues when it comes to nondiscrimination and federal money. Catholic Charities have followed federal guidelines for many many years. They do not discriminate in the hiring process. They do not use federal money for sectarian purposes (religious services, proselytizing, etc.). Many Evangelical groups that do receive federal money use that money in discriminatory ways. They discriminate in the hiring process, etc. That’s my issue with the Faith-Based Initiative. It’s hard to know how that money is being spent especially since it’s unclear what the law actually is.

Groups like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services were meeting the needs of the poor in an effective, nondiscriminatory way long before so-called Charitable Choice under Clinton/Gore and its successor under Bush, the Faith-Based Initiative.

In light of that history, we should exempt those groups (and other similar groups) from nondiscrimination laws regarding sexual orientation. But I’m not in favor of exempting religious institutions that receive government monies which also discriminate, likely in violation of the First Amendment. Though Obama has done a lousy job of attempting to clear up that matter with his case-by-case approach.

8. Nov 22, 2009—9:06 pm | Permalink K Gray says

It’s certainly a tricky area. These two portions of BGCT’s resolution (from your earlier post) seem at uneasy, unresolved tension:

“Be it further resolved that if churches participate in Faith-Based Initiatives, they be encouraged to do so through the creation of separation of separate 501(c)(3) organizations to receive government funding; and

Be it finally resolved that in all of our church ministries, we affirm constitutional protections for religious liberty and the autonomy of religious organizations.

9. Nov 22, 2009—9:47 pm | Permalink big daddy weave says

Yep, there is definitely tension in that resolution.

I assume that the authors of the resolution feel that creating a separate 501c3 makes matters simpler, less messy and protects the autonomy of the church. Although, forming a separate 501c3 certainly does not solve all of the issues associated with a religious group receiving government funds.

The BGCT has taken a consistent no-aid separationist approach to church-state relations over the years. However, there are more than a few state-wide and local ministries that Texas Baptists (as congregations and as the Convention) support which receive Faith-Based funds. Buckner!

And some prominent leaders in Texas Baptist life are huge advocates of the Faith-Based Initiative. See Ken Hall of Buckner and some folks at Baylor’s School of Social Work.

10. Nov 23, 2009—9:03 am | Permalink r. grannemann says

“It may be time to accept the inevitably of increased legal protections for gays and lesbians ….”

Granted, everyone needs access to employment, and certainly businesses and institutions receiving government funds should be non-discriminatory in their hiring of anyone who pays taxes.

But one person’s legal “protection” is another person’s government tyranny.

Consider this scenario: LifeWay hires a gay store clerk who discovers gay’s aren’t proportionally represented in management. The person sues and walks away with hundreds of thousands. LifeWay recruits gay and lesbians for management (including management of their inventory selection). Ask Walmart or McDonald’s it this isn’t basically the way legal protection works.

Are we going to say just because you make money you aren’t entitled to maintain religiously held values within your business?

11. Nov 23, 2009—10:15 am | Permalink BDW says

Last I checked, there is no law that says a business or corporation has hire X number of racial minorities or X number of women or X number of gays and lesbians. That sounds like a quota to me.

Nobody is asking that business owners give up their religious values. You know, this is the same argument that was made in the 1960s when government enacted legislation which prohibited against religiously-motivated racial discrimination in the for-profit sector.

It’s interesting how the issues change but the arguments remain the same. Religious conservatives ultimately adapted their theology to accommodate cultural norms. Because of that accommodation and the stigma associated with religiously-motivate racist attitudes, today’s conservatives are unwilling to acknowledge the validity of this comparison.

Nonetheless, it’s a valid comparison. Clearly, today’s conservatives are not going to accommodate culture by softening their stance against homosexuality. That’s fine. But religious conservatives are going to have to come to terms with the notion that the prevailing attitudes of American society as reflected in our legislation is against all forms of discrimination including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation especially on the for-profit sector.

12. Nov 23, 2009—11:21 am | Permalink Bart Barber says

BDW said: “I love it how Southern Baptists like Timothy George attempt to present themselves as the pro-life heirs of the Abolition Movement and the Civil Rights Movement. It is certainly convenient to portray one’s tradition as progressive and on the right-side of history by claiming Wilberforce while conveniently ignoring the ugly roots/history of his own particular corner of the evangelical world.”

BDW also said: “It’s interesting how the issues change but the arguments remain the same. Religious conservatives ultimately adapted their theology to accommodate cultural norms. Because of that accommodation and the stigma associated with religiously-motivate racist attitudes, today’s conservatives are unwilling to acknowledge the validity of this comparison.”

I’d like to take up my jousting pole and spur my horse a bit at this point, if you have the time and inclination.

We’re determining how the precedent of abolition and civil rights figures into all that has resulted in the Manhattan Declaration. It seems to me that, for these purposes, the abortion issue and the homosexual issue must be treated separately.

Regarding abortion, both the pro-life movement and the abolition/civil rights movement were in the position of arguing for the personhood of those considered as non-persons by the other side, and consequently seeking to extend to those people the legal protections accompanying personhood. Doesn’t your argument at this point amount to a suggestion that George et al cannot be right (apart from the propositional content of his argument) simply because George’s predecessors were not right about something generations ago? Aren’t there formally named logical fallacies along those lines?

So, I’d be interested in hearing, apart from who was on what side in 1863, the substantial reasons why members of the pro-life movement are in error when they invoke the abolition and civil-rights movements today.

With regard to workplace discrimination and homosexuals, first allow me to clarify what has been an implied error in fact in some of the comment stream—Lifeway Christian Resources is, actually, a non-profit corporation. A corporation can sell things and make money while still remaining a non-profit corporation. It just can’t distribute profits to owners or investors.

I support the right of Christian organizations to discriminate with regard to sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, I support the right of Christian organizations to discriminate with regard to homosexuality.

I’m thankful that Christian theology with regard to race has changed in the South in the past 40 years. My gratitude for this arises not out of my embrace of some Progressive vision, but out of the fact that the New Testament offers no good basis for racism, but indeed gives us a profound model of the dissolving of racial identities into something greater. The move away from racism was a move toward the Bible.

A move toward homosexuality, however, would be a move away from the Bible, which offers nary a kind word about homosexuality and explicitly depicts it as an abomination in both testaments. The loss of discrimination on the matter of sexual orientation will be the loss of a biblical Christian witness, in my opinion.

So, as my second challenge/request for you, I ask you whether you, in striking this equivalency, are suggesting that you see no difference in the nature of the biblical witness between racism and homosexuality.

13. Nov 23, 2009—11:57 am | Permalink BDW says

“Doesn’t your argument at this point amount to a suggestion that George et al cannot be right (apart from the propositional content of his argument) simply because George’s predecessors were not right about something generations ago? Aren’t there formally named logical fallacies along those lines?”

I just find it interesting that George and others conveniently ignore the ugly side of their own tradition (a tradition that I share with George) while claiming all the good efforts of those evangelicals outside of South (generally) and abroad. By doing so, I think the Declaration presents a whitewashed view of history to readers. Claim the good but acknowledge the ugly side too. That approach seems to present a stronger argument in my opinion.

“So, as my second challenge/request for you, I ask you whether you, in striking this equivalency, are suggesting that you see no difference in the nature of the biblical witness between racism and homosexuality.”

I do recognize a difference. Some of my readers may not. But I do. My purpose was to point out that not too long ago either a majority or healthy minority of religious conservatives here in the South felt that their racial attitudes were indeed grounded in Scripture and their position was in fact a “move toward the Bible.” That particular interpretation is obviously no longer commonly accepted. You point to a change in theology fueled by a better understanding/interpretation of the New Testament. I think that was part of it. The other part was that the largely Baptist South for various reasons chose to accommodate the new norms of society and broke free from its captivity to Southern culture.

The norms have once again changed in society. American culture has come to accept the principle of nondiscrimination as it also applies to homosexuals. Here again, we have religious conservatives unwilling to accommodate that principle in the same way that they accommodated nondiscrimination laws in terms of race. Maybe this has something to do with the fact that the arguments made against homosexuality are much stronger from a theological perspective than the arguments of yesteryear made against racial equality. So, I see the difference. Maybe the stronger arguments against homosexuality help explain why religious conservatives will not bend when it comes to accommodating this new cultural norm. Thus, here’s the clash between gay rights and religious liberty which K Gray mentions above.

Ultimately, however, the larger society has chosen to treat sexual orientation in the same way that it treats race and gender. Sexual orientation and race may indeed be an apples and oranges comparison from a biblical viewpoint. But it is not apples and oranges under new nondiscrimination laws.

And let me critique the Left here, it’s time that those defenders of liberty on the Left start listening to the words of centrist and liberal constitutional scholars who all acknowledge that this clash between religious liberty and gay rights. I’m tired of hearing progressives dismiss religious liberty concerns with the simple assertion that no clergyman or clergywoman will be forced to perform a same-sex marriage. That’s really not the point and that’s not the concern of conservatives. Until the left is willing to listen to these complex concerns, there will be no progress made in terms of a solution.

Lifeway may have been a poor example. I was not aware that it too is a non-profit. However, I am pretty sure that there are some Christian-themed bookstores and businesses that do not hold a non-profit status.

14. Nov 23, 2009—2:14 pm | Permalink Common Loon says

I was surprised that Ron Sider signed this declaration.

But apart from Sider, this declaration is noticeably devoid of any representation from evangelical moderates such as Richard Mouw and David Gushee.

15. Nov 23, 2009—3:31 pm | Permalink Bart Barber says

Aaron,

I agree that there are legitimate for-profit institutions that are nonetheless ministry oriented that could be affected by something along the lines of ENDA, no matter what loopholes exist for non-profits.

I also find helpful your observation that race and homosexuality are equivalent in an upcoming culture, whether they are so biblically or not.

As to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation OUTSIDE of religious institutions, I find nothing in the New Testament requiring or modeling such an approach. I grew up in a family business. We had an openly homosexual employee. We had a better than cordial relationship with him. We never would have considered discriminating against him for his sexual orientation, and I would have considered it wrongful to have fired him on this basis.

If he had started coming to work in drag, that would have been another matter. Our business does not exist for the purpose of our employees expressing themselves; it exists to make money for us. Anything an employee does that is disruptive to the work environment, I doubt we would tolerate it (neither would we permit a straight female employee to come to work topless).

Otherwise, we employ drunkards (so long as they are not drunk at work), adulterers (so long as they are not committing adultery at work), people who cuss like sailors (so long as they are not cussing out their employers at work), etc., as well as the occasional homosexual.

I guess what I’m declaring is that, with regard to non-ministry businesses, I’m comfortable with an ethic that is probably somewhere in-between some sort of a harsh “fire all the gays” approach and anything that would require employers to look the other way while the corporate media spokesperson (a hairy guy) shows up at the press conference in a ball gown or that requires the business to finance medical insurance providing for an employee’s sex-change surgery. I guess that demonstrates an opinion that GL&B interfere less with business than do T&Q.

Finally, I want to press you a bit more on the first question. I think that George and many other Southern Baptists actually have acknowledged and decried the Southern Baptist past with regard to race. It does not strike me as fair to pretend that Southern Baptists have remained silent on this question. Also, it does not seem to me that a transdenominational statement like the Manhattan Declaration is obligated to deal with the past sins of each and every denomination represented among its signatories.

And it seems to me that you have not argued very forcefully against my suggestion that the pro-life movement and the abolition & civil rights movements actually do have a great deal in common. In other words, it seems to me that your problem is not with the argument itself, but just with the people making it.

In fact, knowing some of your hopes for the Obama administration, I wonder whether, in some other forum, you might not make the same argument yourself? I’m not claiming to know you well enough to put words in your mouth. I’m just wondering.

16. Nov 23, 2009—4:11 pm | Permalink big daddy weave says

I’m not definitely denying that Southern Baptists have acknowledged and decried their history regarding race relations, etc. My comment was aimed at George who is by no means your typical Southern Baptist and based on other things I’ve read from him along the way.

I have not argued forcefully against your suggestion that the pro-life movement, abolition, civil rights movement, etc. have much in common because I do not disagree with that argument.

I’ll admit that I have a problem with many of the people making that argument especially in light of their positions on so many different issues which I strongly disagree with. Of course it frustrates me that many progressives who stand alongside the poor and oppressed care so little for life in the womb.

The absolute worse thing about the Democratic Party is its unwavering support for abortion rights. No denying that. Many years ago when explaining why he was a Democrat, my dad made that same point to me. I am troubled by the influence that special interest groups wield in Washington. The Abortion Rights groups own the Party leadership. Thankfully, there are more pro-life Dems than every these days. But as long as special interest groups can influence politics as they do now, nothing is going to change on this issue or any other issue.

17. Nov 23, 2009—4:18 pm | Permalink Bart Barber says

I remember well my days as a pro-life Democrat. Sometimes it amazes me that I have become such an utter Republican, especially since the journey didn’t seem that far.

18. Nov 23, 2009—4:19 pm | Permalink Bart Barber says

I thank you for a good discussion. You’ve never hosted any other, in my experience.

19. Nov 23, 2009—5:34 pm | Permalink r. grannemann says

BDW

It’s true no law says a business has to hire X number of this and X number of that. It is nevertheless the case that a statistical analysis of workforce composition is commonly used in discrimination lawsuits.

I work for a large corporation and go through computer based anti-discrimination training every year (every employee up through the CEO is required to take it). The training includes instructions on proper behavior toward other employees who may be women, minorities, gays — and this year’s training even resolved a conflict between a gay man and a religious conservative (actors in the training video). I’m pretty sure the human resources department of virtually every large corporation is America has similar training.

All this is happening without any laws (well, happening because companies want to avoid lawsuits based on other discrimination laws, but the gays benefit gratis, so to speak).

I suspect most large corporations already have gay-friendly policies (in spite of AFA boycotts).

20. Nov 24, 2009—8:43 am | Permalink Mike says

When it comes to any sort of compromise, most gay rights groups and most conservative religious lobbies/organizations are downright inflexible. That just makes matters worse.

Are you suggesting a compromise? What would that be? That we ignore the passages about homosexuality in the Bible and let the gay agenda push right through? I think that would be much worse than neither side budging. In addition you seem to adhere to some sort of “Social Gospel” that appears to be more important to you than standing firm on the Truth. In the process, as you generalize, I you are overlooking a lot of things that Southern Baptists do day in and day out to help the impoverished, the hungry, the sick and, more importantly, the lost. After all, sin is mankind’s real problem and the answer is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To elevate poverty and hunger over man’s sin problem is to miss the entire point of the Gospel.

21. Nov 24, 2009—9:15 am | Permalink big daddy weave says

Mike,

I guess you did not read my previous comments and the comments from K Gray? If you do, I think you will notice that I was quite explicit that the compromise is in the political arena. I am calling for a legal compromise.

That legal compromise does not involve whether politicians and lobbies support religious exemptions; they do. The question is - how narrowly or broadly defined should these religious exemptions be? Many of my comments above suggested that both groups will have to meet in the middle in order to reach a solution that most people can live with.

Before commenting next time, please take the time to at least READ a few of the comments in this thread. Thus far, we’ve had a nice, fruitful discussion here.

22. Nov 24, 2009—10:33 am | Permalink Mike says

I did, indeed, read every comment in this thread before posting. You chose to focus on my “compromise” question (which was a legitimate and sincere question). What about the inferences you make that the authors don’t care about the poor or oppressed? Simply because there is a declaration regarding the morality of abortion, homosexuality, et. al. certainly does not necessarily mean that the authors and signers of the document do not care about the poor and oppressed. Sorry if I misrepresented you in any way or misunderstood. It really was a legitimate question, and, what I feel is a legitimate concern when we elevate social issues to the same level of sin in the outworking of the Gospel in our lives. The world’s greatest malady is not poverty or governmental oppression but sin, wouldn’t you agree?

23. Nov 24, 2009—11:17 am | Permalink K Gray says

Mike, my thought is that each institution, business, nonprofit, ministry, group and individual must decide for itself whether or it can or should compromise, well in advance of crunch time. Wedding photographers, pharmacists, retirement homes, faith-based helping ministries, churches that rent out their halls to groups, marriage counselors; medical students, pharmacists, nurses, parents of teens, you name it.

K-Mart probably has room to compromise. But maybe the wedding photographer doesn’t. eHarmony compromised. Boy Scouts did not, meaning they lose money, venues, permits and some supporters, but can operate internally as they wish…for now.

These are watershed issues. They have riven worldwide religious communions and denominations.

Any group (or church) currently fence-sitting or failing to face these issues in advance– or saying “this doesn’t effect us” — is in denial, IMO. The 150+ Manhattan Declaration signers, and the institutions they represent, are not.

24. Nov 24, 2009—11:21 am | Permalink K Gray says

Arghh, “affect us” not “effect.”

25. Nov 24, 2009—11:45 am | Permalink Mike says

K Gray, I agree with you. I actually signed the Manhattan Declaration, not as a vast theological treatise, and not concerning myself with who did or did not sign, but simply what it stands for. I’m tired of the silly political correctness and the pseudo-intellectualism that so often invades from the left side of this discussion. These issues definitely are “watershed issues” and the capacity for compromise on these issues is, in my opinion, largely to blame for the demise of these denominations and institutions you mention. This is definitely not the hour for fence-sitting and compromise!

26. Nov 24, 2009—10:35 pm | Permalink christiane says

I am a practicing Roman Catholic of deep faith, but I would not sign this document.

27. Nov 24, 2009—11:57 pm | Permalink Evangelicals Ron Sider & Jonathan Merritt On The Manhattan Declaration | the big daddy weave says

[...] am sure that a few people were a bit surprised to see Ron Sider listed as a signatory to The Manhattan Declaration especially in light of the fact that Sider has been described as part of an Emerging Evangelical [...]

28. Nov 25, 2009—9:24 am | Permalink More Evangelical Responses To The Manhattan Declaration | the big daddy weave says

[...] am sure that a few people were a bit surprised to see Ron Sider listed as a signatory to The Manhattan Declaration especially in light of the fact that Sider has been described as part of an Emerging Evangelical [...]

29. Nov 27, 2009—6:56 pm | Permalink Richard Pierard says

I don’t see how any thinking moderate evangelical could sign this statement which is really little more than a manifesto by neoconservatives. I certainly refuse to sign it and make no apologies for my position. As much as I respect and genuinely like Ron Sider personally and I have had friendly relations with him since the days we were both involved in the Evangelicals for McGovern Committee, I feel he has bought too heavily into the social agenda of the religious. He accepts two of the three legs of the religious right tripod: public financing of private (e.g. Christian) schools so poor people can attend and a hard-line antiabortion stance. The only one he rejects is school prayer. This document draws a clear line as to what evangelical social action is, and it is not one that I accept.

30. Nov 27, 2009—6:58 pm | Permalink Richard Pierard says

I inadvertently omitted “right” after religious at the end of the second sentence.

31. Dec 9, 2009—5:39 pm | Permalink elnwood says

Richard Mouw is now listed among the signatories.

Join the Discussion