Manhattan Regrets

I was handed a very nice invitation a few days ago.

Someone wanted my autograph on a statement that was also signed by big Christian names in the Evangelical and Catholic worlds, and this time, the promoters sought out Orthodox signatories, even hierarchs.

That is a new thing for the impresarios – the DeMoss group – who brought us the Evangelical Manifesto and the Mitt Romney campaign.

I went through my checklist of "nice things manifestos/declarations/statements/charters/resolutions/affirmations ought to say." The Manhattan Declaration ( with its own .org, no less) carries a lot of good stuff:

• Bipartisan abortion is wrong
• So is the killing of human embryos for "therapeutic cloning"
• So is the promotion of assisted suicide and "voluntary" euthanasia
• It is wrong to dress these things up in the language of "liberty," "autonomy" and "choice"
• Of course, these things are just as bad as labor exploitation, sex trafficking, abandonment of the aged, racial oppression/discrimination, religious persecution "of all faiths," and "failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS"
• Christians and Christian institutions have been complicit in culture of divorce
• The redefinition of marriage to accommodate "same-sex and multiple partner relationships" is bad
• Non-marital relationships should not be treated as marriage
• Conscience clauses should be protected: no one should ever be forced to perform infanticide or geriatricide or socially-therapeutic homicide
• No one should be punished for preaching against homosexuality

Huzzah! Hooray! I agree with all of these.

Of course, there are some things missing in this Declaration – especially the things we might do that promote these activities. There is nothing about the redefinition of sexuality (i.e., "Everything and anything is okay, just as long as they're married") which has probably contributed to unwanted pregnancies. There is nothing about the dual-career frenzy that has "necessitated" abortion, sterilization, day-care centers, and the closing of the door of the home to the very aged whom the Declaration rightly says have been abandoned. Nothing was said about the roles of industrial, contractual society and scientism in the redefinition of human nature, and all nature for that matter.

Of course, there were the usual verbal constructions of what I call "Declaration-speak." There must be seminars in strategically chosen academic and neo-Christian hotspots in the writing of important statements, and in the wordsmithing of phrases like:

• "While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings …" Note the half-hearted stipulation that prefaces the immediately following counter-claim –
• "We claim the heritage …" Is it even possible to not claim a heritage? One can be untrue to it, which is far more likely.
• "Christians today are called …" Who is doing the calling? Is this the famous "divine passive"?
• "We … make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities …" See below on whether it is possible to do this.
• "We set forth this declaration …" How about "We declare" or "Chuck and I say" or dispense with the declarative preface phrase altogether: it is only an abstract separation from the meat of the statement.
• "… we note with sadness .." How can one be sad and just "note"?
• "We call on all officials …" What is the instrument of calling all officials? This statement?
• "We will be united and untiring …" We'll see. Institutions always get tired out or bored.
• "Our message is …" Is everything else non-message?
• "A truly prophetic Christian witness …" One thing the real prophets never did was to use this line.
• "Our concern is not confined …" Oh for the good old days when concern was confined.
• "Vast human experience confirms …" The snarky possibilities raised by this line are vast and confirming.
• "We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed …" You can always tell when homosexuality or sexuality is being talked about, because the best abstractions and ambiguities are used.
• "We further acknowledge …" So much acknowledgement. By the way, just what is "acknowledgement" anymore? A tip of the hat? An "oh, you're here"? What happens to you when you are acknowledged?
• "We understand …" Am I wrong, or are we running out of preface phrases by now?
• "As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition …" Biblical admonitions, all of them, are meant for seriousness. Are there any that Christians don't take seriously?

These non-concrete, first-person plural and "greatest-common-factor" statements will insure that this Declaration will go the way of all Declarations. And there have been many. There is the already mentioned Evangelical Manifesto. There is the Evangelicals and Catholics Together statement. There are many others (check out the Ochlophobist for a recent history).

This sad history (and rather full dustbin) raises a question. Of what use is Declaration-making?

Don't get me wrong. I am not against the declarations of the Declaration. I am not even against the making of Declarations. The making of this one is surely not detrimental or injurious.

But I wonder if it is all that productive.

When such statements and temporary coalitions are made "across historic ecclesiastical boundaries," the signers always take the unsettling risk of "homogenization." That is, they take the real risk that others – who are not as well-read in the labyrinthine histories and dictionaries of the Christian world – will assume that all the signers (and the organizations that they represent) are pretty much the same, practically speaking.

It really doesn't matter that there is that nice defense clause: "we sign as individuals." Look here: if you're a signer, then the reason why the DeMoss group lobbied your signature was precisely because of your association with a judicatory or a "ministry" or a council/thinktank/lobby/PAC/university or wannabe university.

Thus, the many "cultured despisers of Christianity" (Schleiermacher's single decent phrase) are going to lump Orthodoxy together with Roman Catholicism, and with a whole dizzy array of denominations and "parachurch ministries" and even strange things called the "Alliance Defense Fund." The Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh is listed six entries down from something called "Performance Matters Associates." Metropolitan Jonah is sandwiched between Dr. J. I. Packer and Tony Perkins.

I prefer (please notice that I did not begin with "We acknowledge the desirability that") a simple response from my bishop to a specific disorder of the times, just in case Vladyka's faithful are not discerning enough. If they need told that homosexual sex is wrong, then he should say so, preferably in one sentence with good Anglo-Saxon diction. If they need told that hyper-capitalism causes pride, gluttony, lust and despondency, then yes, by all means make a statement (and he has) to the faithful.

Just please don't put out one-hundred-page statements written in mind-colloidizing committee-speak (multi-syllabic latinate constructions, passive voice, first-person-plural in the non-royal sense) with "study guides" (the bane of all Sunday Schools) and "companion DVDs" and bulletin inserts.

There is one possible good use of the Manhattan Declaration: I would like it employed as a shibboleth for the National Council of Churches. If someone (you know who you are) would stand up and wave this document at the next plenary or plenipotentiary conference or consultation of the NCC and say, "Sign this or we leave," then I will cheer. I might even sign.

Okay, that was a daydream. Now I'm awake: Will Congress read the Manhattan Declaration and repent? Some may use it – as long as the focus groups and the consultants think so – for expediency's sake, but not for long. But even them, the usual friends and fellow-travelers of the Manhattan crowd: will they repent?

Will anyone repent because of the Declaration?

Repentance, and baptism, are the only reasons why we preach, or declare, or say anything out loud.

So to the nice people that sent me the invitation, I tender my regrets. To the nice organizations on the signatory list at the end of the Declaration – especially to the six or seven with whom I am (or used to be) associated – I bid you godspeed in your latest attempt in the public square.

But this is not the way to not bow down to the iron crown.

Comments

[Fr. Jonathan Tobias]

Oh dear, oh dear. Caught by the dratted ABC's.

I plum forgot about the alphabet. It didn't occur to me that alphabetical order would trump lesser things, say, like ecclesial order.

An Orthodox hierarch is registered by his last name, inserted between Packer and Perkins. That's the way of it. I understand. We live in the West now. Last names, even for our hierarchs, put you in line. How could I forget.

You're right. This critique is shallow.

I should have taken on other issues, such as the morality of association with extra-ecclesial bodies for select political and moral agenda, especially an association coordinated by a demonstrably political PR firm. 

I should have delved more deeply into the implicit association of Manhattan with the truly noble Barmen Confession, when there were real Nazis sending 700 real confessional pastors to jail, as opposed to our present age when we worry about losing our tax exempt status. I should have corrected some of the ill-founded notions of some of the organizers who claimed that Barmen was their inspiration, despite the embarrassing rift between Barmen's depth and the shallowness of our ilk. Karl Barth wrote Barmen in hard speech: this one was written by a committee and it shows (I don't think Esolen would like the idiom).

I should have taken on our au courant penchant for making external declarations at a time when the Church should be making declarations for internal use, like, say, more dogma, less conferences; more ascesis, less gnomic churchmanship.

I should have, but I didn't. I kept it shallow like a Philistine and too entertaining and snarky. 

You're right. I didn't bite, mainly out of my concern for Orthodox signers who do valuable work in writing and speaking and need to be kept online.

[P H Reardon]

There is a single sentence, I believe, that sums up my disappointment with Father Jonathan's shallow critique of the Manhattan Declaration:

"The Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh is listed six entries down from something called "Performance Matters Associates." Metropolitan Jonah is sandwiched between Dr. J. I. Packer and Tony Perkins."

It's called alphabetical order, Father Jonathan.

[Fr. Gregory]

Well said once again, Fr. Jonathan. All I could think of with respect to this document was that my "inner Hauerwassian" was stirring. There are ways to live out the assertions of this document, and yet the "thing to do" is make a public pronouncement. There are other, more concrete things that can (and should) be done.

Fr G.