This past week the “Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience” was released.
As a mediator who advocates spiritually transformative conflict resolution I have mixed feelings regarding the declaration.
While not every declaration must seek peace and while there are times when you must clearly and firmly make your interests known, how you state your interests can make a difference.
Some approaches to addressing and resolving conflict are more effective than others. We might ask if the Manhattan Declaration frames issues in a way that will promote peace and better conditions? Or does the declaration needlessly escalate conflict?
One line in the Preamble clearly sets the declaration’s purpose: “Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good.”
The words that follow, however, fail to adequately explain the concept of grace and fail to sufficiently define human dignity and common good. All too quickly the words turn militant: the image of a knight astride his horse prepared to shed blood comes to mind. I fear the Manhattan Declaration does more to fan the fires of conflict than to invite collaborative dialogue leading to change, peace, and reconciliation.
I am not naïve. I realize managing the balance of power is critical in conflict resolution; on occasion one must “rally the troops” in a show of power. At times an expression of moral outrage is warranted.
Such an expression of heartfelt feelings, while appropriate, may not be effective in changing the culture. The patina of righteousness may induce fear and opposition: they are “fighting words,” proud words, the words of the warrior. Unfortunately, these types of words are sweet music to the ear of one trapped in evil who seeks conflict.
Jesus taught a paradoxical truth: turn the other cheek. In Taming the Wolf I explain why this counter-intuitive concept is not mere platitude but rather practical advice. Jesus was not teaching us how to succumb and become a victim; he did not teach apathy in the face of evil. Rather he taught us to overcome evil with humility, compassion, and love. He understood that when we respond with anger and hostility we lose.
Today we tend to consider that humility, compassion, and love are weak tools, insufficient to the task of overcoming evil. When those consumed with hate attack us we hurt; when we hurt from others’ misguided attempts to lessen their pain we experience the urge to strike back. We can no longer turn the other cheek; we must engage the battle.
The Manhattan Declaration tends to convey such a tone, the tone of one who has been driven to anger by pain suffered. It tends toward the sentiment of “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.”
In the last and most promising section, “Religious Liberty,” the document rebounds with a hint of the Golden Rule:
No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions.”
The Declaration goes on to sound a valid warning: “Disintegration of civil society is a prelude to tyranny.” This warning—that we all have a need to protect our liberty, no matter our position on issues—is the most convincing argument in the document. It is here we find a basis for agreement, a path to the Golden Rule. Perhaps this the argument that should be advanced in the public debate: “If you wish to maintain your liberty, you must insure liberty for others.”
This Golden Rule concept may bring us “to the table” in order that we might launch a productive dialogue. In order for us to attempt to reconcile differences, we must begin with such a principle, a foundational principle on which all may agree.
Francis of Assisi, the Universal Brother, the saint who knew total devotion to the Prince of Peace, warned his Brothers not to seek to dominate and coerce others. Perhaps he would have paraphrased the Golden Rule to capture his admonition in the following manner: If you do not wish to be dominated and coerced, do not seek to dominate and coerce.
Christians who come “to the table” with compassion and love, Christians who seek reconciliation by first seeking agreement on the universal principle of the Golden Rule, will most likely have more success than an army of knights in full battle armor.
Like anything in life, it is the view and mindset of the reader who “interprets” the very thing they are reading. Jesus preached in His message to people in two ways and two ways only. To the proud, whose heart is full of sinful pride, Jesus spoke the truth in an almost “harsh” way by using God’s law to convict their hearts. He referenced the Ten Commandments to “break” their hardened hearts. To the lost who had heavy hearts, He used God’s grace, mercy, compassion, and most of all His Love.
I believe this declaration did a beautiful job conveying God’s word keeping this very thing in mind. To the prideful, it speaks of God’s way as the ONLY way. ” I am the truth, the life and the way. No one comes to the Father but through me.” To the downtrodden who are seeking, it speaks of peace and comfort, grace and compassion, mercy and love. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only son so that whoever shall believe in him shall have everlasting life.” It speaks truth in two very distinct ways. It is the Way of the Master!
Jesus cleared the temple also…Maybe He should have read your post first…Also, If he sought reconciliation as you are so advocating, He would not have went to the cross as our sacrifice…He would have opted out…you can’t put God in a box in any given circumstance, the Holy Spirit should lead us as Christians in our decisions, not physiology 101. …..the scripture is very clear on the issues concerning life and marriage. There should be no compromise, sometimes as at the temple there is righteous anger….
Greg – you make a wonderful argument if appeasement is your goal. However, on many of your points, you just happen to be wrong.
Christ taught “turn the other cheek”, as it relates to those who do wrong to us. This does not mean that followers should not take a firm public stand against immoral public policy. I’m sorry the document doesn’t adequately define “human dignity” and other terms to your satisfaction. It does dawn on me however, that if we have to define such terms and maybe all the other words that would be subsequently used in the definitions of the definitions, that this document is needed now more than ever. It’s time for people to stop pretending that the legitimacy of our words depends on whether we obligate ourselves to define every word to those who are ignorant of their meaning. I can only imagine the word and definition problems you might find with the Gettysburg Address or the Bible.
Please point me to where Christ “came to the table” to negotiate and reconcile with those who demanded that he capitulate and cede to their moral authority. It’s not in my Bible. I don’t recall the place where he sat down with the Pharisees, to hash out differences so they didn’t get mad. He didn’t care if they took offense because he was on the side of righteousness and they weren’t. He said what he though and he publically rebuked those who sought power instead of God’s authority. Do you also have mixed feelings over his words that made them angry?
You might want to do some more looking at the “turn the other cheek” philosophy as stated by Christ. It means to not react instantly to an offense, so maybe the conflict would just end there. It does not mean Christians are to be punching bags, should avoid self-defense or the defense of others, should just shut and sit down, or should not make others angry by declaring the truth. The truth makes a lot of people angry. The truth offends. Refusing to participate in immorality makes people hate you because it shines a light on what they do, so they attack. That’s just life.
[you stated] “Such an expression of heartfelt feelings, while appropriate, may not be effective in changing the culture. The patina of righteousness may induce fear and opposition”. I can’t think of any two sentences that show more confusion and false premise than these.
This isn’t about “heartfelt feelings”. Right and wrong aren’t about “feelings”. They are about the truth. If you think standing against abortion is about feelings, please don’t stand on my side. If you think ‘sit down and shut up’ or coming to the negotiating or talking table will miraculously change the culture, look around you. Righteousness isn’t like negotiating a deal. If we do not speak, nothing changes other than that the next generation rightly believes that we didn’t care enough about it. Righteousness is not a “patina”. You are confusing false, arrogant, or self-righteousness with righteousness. If you don’t understand the difference, please don’t stand on my side. And finally, look around you. They are already in fierce opposition. Sitting at your “table” accomplishes nothing to further morality. It just detracts from it.
This is not a document of “anger and hostility” or militancy – unless by “militant”, you mean drawing a line in the sand. This is a document that firmly states moral principles and states that we the signers will stand by them with our actions. If someone takes offense at that, so be it. It also stands as a movement where two or more are gathered in his name.