Reflections on the
Manhattan Declaration
Reflections
on the Manhattan Declaration
By Stephen Bohr
Momentous things happening in the political, natural and religious
world indicate that we are on the verge of what Ellen White called a
‘stupendous crisis’. In my ewsletter article this
time I would like to mention just one of those happenings.
Perhaps some of you have heard of the Manhattan
Declaration. This document was drafted on October 20, 2009 and released on
November 20 by some very influential Roman Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical
and Orthodox religious leaders in the United States and the world. Among those
who have signed the Declaration are bishops and archbishops, university
presidents, theological seminary presidents, seminary teachers, chancellors,
leaders of various family life organizations, senior pastors of influential
mega and giga churches, lawyers and world renowned
Christian authors, editors and religious broadcasters.
To date there are over one half million signatories from
every religious stripe—Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Anglican, Orthodox,
Methodist, United Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Salvation Army, Christian, Reformed
Episcopal, Church of God in Christ, Congregational, Pentecostal, Church of
Christ, Evangelical Free, Assembly of God, Church of the Brethren, Lutheran—a
truly ecumenical group! In fact the drafters of the Declaration have explicitly
stated: “we act together” and we have “united at this hour” to “reaffirm
fundamental truths.” In another place the Declaration states: “We are
Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial
differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our
obligation—to speak and act in defense of these
truths.” As I see it, this ecumenical spirit is one of the most problematic
aspects of the Manhattan Declaration. But why should unity among Christians in
a common cause be so problematic? After all, didn’t Jesus pray that we all
might be one?
One wonders how such a diverse group of religious leaders
can join together in a common cause. After all, their religious beliefs and
practices are diverse and often contradictory. John MacArthur, Evangelical
minister of the Grace Community Church, President of The Master’s Seminary,
author of numerous books and radio talk show host, abstained from signing the
document. He explained that it ignores “the one true and ultimate remedy for
all humanity’s ills: the gospel.” MacArthur is correct when he stated that the
Declaration nowhere explains the content of the true gospel “because of the
contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the
gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.”
Another troubling
characteristic of the Manhattan Declaration is its overtly political tone. In
some respects it seems to be a political statement addressed to the political
leaders of the United States government. Though the drafters of the Declaration
claim that they make this commitment not “as partisans of any political group
but as followers of Jesus Christ,” the issues brought forth in the Declaration
are the very ones that have divided liberals and conservatives on the political
spectrum in the past few years—the viability of abortion, the definition of
marriage and the nature of religious liberty. In fact, Chuck Colson, one of the
drafters of the Manhattan Declaration stated that the purpose of the document
was to send a "crystal-clear message to civil authorities that we will
not, under any circumstances, stand idly by as our religious freedom comes
under assault."
The political tone comes through clearly when the
Declaration discusses the sanctity of life:
“Although the protection of the weak and vulnerable is
the first obligation of government, the power of government is today often
enlisted in the cause of promoting what Pope John Paul II called “the culture
of death.”
The institution of marriage is another area where the
Declaration indicts the civil power for attempting to subvert how marriage is
defined:
“The institution of marriage, already wounded by
promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is at risk of being redefined *by the
government+ and thus subverted.”
“Marriage is not a ‘social construction,’ but is rather
an objective reality—the covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the
duty of the law to recognize, honor, and protect.”
The document even indirectly seems to pit the present
administration versus the previous one. The Document frowns upon embryonic stem
cell research:
“The President and many in Congress favor the expansion
of embryo-research to include the taxpayer funding of so-called ‘therapeutic
cloning.’”
On the issue of abortion, the Declaration directly refers
to the ‘present administration’ as wanting to make abortions legal, refers to
the ‘infamous 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade which stripped the unborn of legal
protection’ and accuses the President of wanting to ‘make abortion more easily
and widely available’.
Further the Document states:
“We will be united and untiring in our efforts to roll
back the license to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to
abortion.”
“A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently
call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first
responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against
violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism,
partiality, or discrimination.”
“We call on all
officials in our country, elected and appointed, to protect and serve every
member of our society, including the most marginalized, voiceless, and
vulnerable among us.”
An issue which must be brought to the forefront is this:
Does the church really have the moral authority to admonish the state to
protect life when it has been the instigator and supporter of, among other
things, numerous wars, the Inquisition, the Crusades and the St. Bartholomew
Massacre. Does the church really have the moral authority to lecture the state
on the issue of the protection of human life when it has such a track record?
In my view, the Manhattan Declaration has problems from
the get-go. The very first paragraph of the Preamble denotes an incredible and
almost unforgivable ignorance of history. It states:
“Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word, seeking justice in our societies,
resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and
suffering.”
Is this an accurate description of the church in its two
thousand year history? The Bible states that at least for 1260 years
(Revelation 12:6, 14) of the two thousand, the faithful of God had to flee to
the desolate place of the earth to escape the wrath of the apostate
church.
The second societal issue that the Declaration brings to
view is marriage. It deplores the “widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation
and a devastatingly high rate of divorce,” as well as the high out of wedlock
birth rate especially in the poorer classes of society. And what is one of the
proposed solutions to the alarming divorce rate?
“We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to
the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of
unilateral divorce.”
And regarding the idea of civil unions the Declaration
unambiguously states: “No one has a civil right to have a non-marital
relationship treated as a marriage. Marriage is an objective reality—a
covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to
recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good.”
“And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent
concern for the common good (not “prejudice”), that we pledge to labor
ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one
man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture.”
In one of the few places where the Declaration inculpates
Christians for the disintegration of marriage, it candidly states:
“We confess with sadness that Christians and our
institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of
marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage. Insofar as we
have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about
social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call
upon all Christians to do the same.”
One wonders what
authority the church has to rebuke the civil power for the deplorable condition
of the marriage institution in our society when Christians divorce at a rate as
high (and in some cases even higher) as society in general. Without intending
to be judgmental or question the sincerity of the signatories, I wonder how
many of them have been divorced and remarried. How can the church admonish the
state to safeguard the sanctity of marriage when the problem of pornography
among parishioners and clergy runs rampant? How can Christians struggle for a
moral society when they go to the theater and watch
lewd movies that glorify illicit sex and color the air blue with filthy
language? Does not the church need to get its glass house in order before it
throws stones?
One also wonders how the Roman Catholic clergy who signed
the Declaration can have the moral authority to admonish the state to safeguard
the sanctity of marriage when their church in recent years has been the subject
of numerous child sexual abuse cases in several world countries. Further, would
it not be part of the restoration of the Biblical view of marriage for the
Roman Catholic Church to allow and even encourage its clergy to get married as
Simon Peter (whom they believe to have been the first pope) was and as the
bishops, deacons and elders were in the New Testament church? Would not
following God’s plan for marriage greatly diminish the number of gay priests
and priests who sexually abuse children?
The third and final issue that is brought to view in the
Declaration is the need for the state to safeguard religious liberty. In a
splendid definition of the essence of religious liberty, the Declaration
states:
“Christians
confess that God alone is Lord of the conscience. Immunity from religious
coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience. 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. What is
true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.”
This definition of religious liberty would be applauded
by any knowledgeable Seventh-day Adventist. But the question begs to be asked:
what is the motivation that led to this inspiring definition? The context of
this sterling definition leaves no doubt about what is meant by religious
liberty:
“The threat to these fundamental principles of justice is
evident in efforts to weaken or eliminate conscience protections for healthcare
institutions and professionals, and in antidiscrimination statutes that are
used as weapons to force religious institutions, charities, businesses, and
service providers either to accept (and even facilitate) activities and
relationships they judge to be immoral, or go out of business.”
The motivation for the religious liberty definition in
the Declaration is to seek to compel the civil power of government to permit
religious institutions such as hospitals and clinics to refuse to perform
abortions, to employ same-sex partners, to place adopted children in the homes
of same-sex couples and to do human embryonic stem cell research.
Should the federal government have the right to compel
religious institutions to perform abortions, to employ persons who are openly
gay and to place adopted children with same-sex couples? Of course not! This
would an encroachment of the civil power upon religion which is clearly
unconstitutional. Yet as far as I know, the government presently allows
religious institutions to function according to their own moral standards as
long as the institution does not receive federal funding. If this is true, then
the solution to this problem would be for religious institutions to disentangle
themselves from the civil power and refuse federal funding for their
institutions and in this way they could abide by their own moral standards
without the interference of government. After all, religious institutions
cannot expect to receive Caesar’s dollars while refusing to obey Caesar’s laws
be they unjust or not.
Some would say that this is naïve and totally unrealistic
because these hospitals, clinics and charities could not function without
federal funding. If this is true then the institutions are no longer merely
church institutions because they are accountable, at least partially, to the
federal government. There was a time
when religious educational, medical and publishing institutions operated solely
on the basis of funds that were contributed by the members of the church organization.
This is no longer the case. Such is the price that church institutions must pay
for becoming entangled with the money of the state!
Though not addressed by the Declaration, one wonders how
the signatories would feel about religious displays on government property. In
the past few years Christian activists have cried out that the government has
denied them religious liberty because it has forbidden them from putting these
displays on federal, state or municipal property. Some have even claimed
religious persecution for not being allowed to put nativity scenes on public
property. But is this really religious persecution? Do religious displays
really have any place on Caesar’s property? Must we render Caesar that which is
God’s? If Christians simply stuck to preaching and exemplifying the gospel and
the state stuck to the preservation of a civil society, both church and state
would be much better off.
Now an even more foundational question must be brought to
the forefront and it is this: What is at the very heart of a moral society?
The religious leaders who signed the Declaration are to
be commended for their desire to uphold high moral standards in society. I
believe that their intentions are sincere. In many ways the document has
laudable aspirations. For example, it calls “upon believers and unbelievers to
defend the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage and the rights of
conscience and religious liberty.” The document affirms that these truths are
“inviolable and non-negotiable.”
What genuine Christian could argue with such a statement?
Most Seventh-day Adventists would heartily agree that the life of the unborn
and the old and the sick should be zealously protected by the state. They would
agree that marriage should be between a man and a woman and that religious
liberty should be protected. Yet, the critical question that needs to be
answered it this: How can these worthy objectives be reached? Is it by
appealing to the arm of civil power or does true and lasting success lie
elsewhere?
How is a moral society created and perpetuated? A moral society can only exist when it is
composed of truly moral persons. And what lies at the very core of truly moral
persons? The answer is that in the new birth God gives people a new heart and
then writes His moral law upon it (Ezekiel 36:26, 27; Jeremiah 31:31-34). As a
result it will be a delight for the converted child of God to obey the moral
law (Psalm 40:7, 8). In fact, the Christian will cry out with David:
“How I love your law”. It is impossible for a Christian
to speak about morality without reference to the Ten Commandments because they
are at the very foundation of a truly moral society!
Yet many religious leaders in the United States have
taught that the law of God was nailed to the cross, that it is impossible for
Christians to keep it this side of heaven, that Jesus kept if for us, (which is
true in justification!) that we are not under law but under grace, that we are
not under the letter but under the Spirit (true if understood correctly) and
that observing the law is legalism and has nothing to do with our salvation.
How can we expect a moral society when church members are taught on a regular
basis in church that keeping God’s law is not required by God at worst and is
optional at best?
In recent years there has been a growing desire on the
part of some religious leaders in the United States to have the civil power
forsake its neutrality toward religion. Many of them have blamed the Federal
and State governments for the disgraceful decline of morals in the United
States. They have hinted that if the government displayed the Ten Commandments
in our courts, gave vouchers for church charitable work, allowed Christian
displays on government property, passed constitutional amendments against
abortion and in favor of heterosexual marriage, inserted prayer in public
schools, kept “In God we Trust” on our currency and “one nation under God” in
the Pledge of Allegiance, the morals of the nation would improve. In other
words the ills of society are blamed on the legislative failures of the state
and therefore the church looks to the state to correct them.
There certainly is an incongruity between preaching that
the Ten Commandments were nailed to the cross or that keeping them is legalism
and then turning right around and preaching that they should be posted in our
courts of justice and upheld and enforced by the civil government.
I believe that the deplorable morals of society reflect much
more the failure of the church in modern society rather than the failure of the
state. The church is the leaven of society, the salt of the earth, the light of
the world and the church has failed to be leaven, salt and light. People who go
to church today hear very little about obedience, holiness and victory over
sin. Very little is said about the need
for repentance, confession, conversion, the new birth and a life of obedience
that flows from a heart of love. The message in churches today (including some
Adventist churches, sad to say!) seems to major on signs and wonders, political
involvement, psychological self-help, material prosperity and feeling good
about oneself. And rather than hearing the word preached, the service
oftentimes revolves around praise music, fellowship and entertainment—having a
good time and feeling comfortable! Anything that ruffles feathers, afflicts the
comfortable is deemed judgmental and unkind. The apostle Paul certainly described
our time when he stated that in the last days many Christians would have
itching ears to hear smooth things and as a result would turn away their ears
from the truth to fables.
I believe that in order for morals to truly and lastingly
improve in our society, the religious leaders of the United States will have to
begin preaching the Ten Commandments (and I mean not nine but all ten!!) in two
legitimate contexts.
First of all by example and preaching they must have the
courage to rebuke sin in their churches and call it by its right name. The
Bible defines sin as the transgression of the law (I John 3:4) so it is
impossible to preach about sin without preaching about the law. As parishioners
look into the mirror of God’s law they will feel bad about themselves. They
will understand that sin is a hideous monster that led Jesus to the cross.
Satan makes sin appear desirable. The cross reveals that sin is so terrible
that it nailed Jesus to the cross!
Ministers must help their parishioners understand that
their adultery, lying, cheating, covetousness, and idolatry is what nailed
Jesus to the cross. Ministers must clearly and without apology show their
members that the worldly music they listen to, the immoral movies they watch,
the intemperate habits they indulge in and the questionable entertainment they
participate in are what nailed their beloved Savior to the Cross.
Secondly, when hearts are broken by a realization of what
sin did to Jesus, then religious leaders must teach their members that God is
not only willing to forgive them for breaking His law if they repent and
confess, but that God is willing to give them a new heart where He can write
His holy law so that they can reflect the beautiful character of Jesus in their
words and actions.
Thus ministers must teach their parishioners that there
is a pre-conversion function of God’s law and a post-conversion function of the
law. This work is not done on Capitol Hill but rather in church!
Ellen White, in the literary masterpiece, The Desire of
Ages made a profound statement about the mission of Jesus and the attitude he
manifested toward the civil power of His day:
“The government under which Jesus lived was corrupt and
oppressive; on every hand were crying abuses,--extortion, intolerance, and
grinding cruelty. Yet the Savior attempted no civil reforms.”
Rome was notorious
for its licentious immorality. Ritual prostitution, murders, abortion, the
abandonment of the newborn to a certain death, pedophilia, homosexuality,
slavery, political assassinations and other social evils ran rampant. Yet
nowhere in the gospels do we find Jesus railing against the civil power of Rome
and encouraging his disciples to put pressure on it to conform to the law of
God. Ellen White continues:
“He attacked no national abuses, nor condemned the national
enemies. He did not interfere with the authority or administration of those in
power. He who was our example kept aloof from earthly governments.”
Was Jesus so callous that He did not care about these
social evils? Wasn’t Jesus aware of the abuses that were being practiced under
the auspices of the Roman government? Ellen White answers:
“Not because He was indifferent to the woes of men, but
because the remedy did not lie in merely human and external measures. To be
efficient, the cure must reach men individually, and must regenerate the
heart.”
And then Ellen White concludes the statement with the
following profound words:
“Not by the decisions of courts or councils or
legislative assemblies, not by the patronage of worldly great men, is the kingdom
of Christ established, but by the implanting of Christ's nature in humanity
through the work of the Holy Spirit. ‘As many as received Him, to them gave He
power to become the sons of God, even to them that
believe on His name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.' John 1:12, 13. Here is the only
power that can work the uplifting of mankind. And the human agency for the
accomplishment of this work is the teaching and practicing of the word of
God.” The Desire of Ages, pp. 509, 510
To try to correct the disease of society by civil laws
would be like sprinkling leaven on top of a lump of dough. In order for leaven
to raise the dough it must be put inside, not sprinkled outside. In the parable
of the leaven Jesus taught that this is the way the kingdom of Jesus is to
grow. When the heart is right then the behavior will be right!
After the Day of Pentecost, the apostles followed the
example of Jesus. Not once in the book of Acts do we find the apostles
appealing to the civil power of Rome to correct the evils of society. They
stuck to what the church had been called to do, preaching the Word of God under
the powerful ministration of the Holy Spirit. The book of Acts reveals that the
apostate Jewish institution of the day constantly appealed to the civil power
of the magistrates of Rome to persecute the Christians! Sadly, later on in the
fourth century when church and state were joined together in unholy matrimony,
then the church began to persecute through the use of the sword of the state.
There is one more thing that religious leaders of the
United States need to do. They need to instruct their parishioners to keep the
whole law out of love for Jesus! If I asked any believer whether it is alright
in the sight of God for a genuine Christian to have other gods, to practice
idolatry, to take the name of the Lord in vain, to dishonor
parents, to kill, to commit adultery, to steal, to bear false witness, or to
covet, they would undoubtedly say ‘no’.
Yet there is one commandment that the religious world
refuses to keep and that is the Sabbath. When this subject is brought up the
excuses begin to flow. ‘The Sabbath was for the Jews’, ‘keeping the Sabbath is
legalism’, ‘if you keep the Sabbath you have fallen from grace’, so go the
arguments. One suspects that the Commandment that presents a problem for the
religious leaders of America is the fourth. They would have the civil power
uphold all the Ten Commandments except the fourth!
One disturbing element of the Declaration is the repeated
reference to the need for the civil power to enforce the sixth and seventh
commandments and to guarantee religious liberty for ‘the common good.’ Here is one example:
“The biblical purpose of law is to preserve order and
serve justice and the common good; yet laws that are unjust—and especially laws
that purport to compel citizens to do what is unjust— undermine the common
good, rather than serve it.”
Obviously in the minds of the framers of the Manhattan Declaration,
abortion, same-sex marriage, divorce, pornography, and other social ills
undermine the ‘common good.’ I would agree with them heartily that the
violation of these commandments disturbs the ‘common good.’ Yet the question
is: What will be the next commandment that needs to be emphasized for the
betterment of the morals of a secular society that has lost its spiritual
bearings? What other commandment will the religious leaders eventually get
Caesar to enforce for the ‘common good’?
As Seventh-day Adventists we have always believed that
the Sabbath will be the great bone of contention at the end of time. In a society that has become increasingly
secular, would not church attendance be the most logical step to get people
spiritually in tune again and to enhance the morals of society? Would it not be
the natural step to return the United States to what it once was in the good
old days when everyone went to church on Sunday? Would it not be ideal for the
civil power to impose a national Sunday law so that people will have this day free
for family and spiritual enrichment? Would this not be for the ‘common good’?
The concerns of the framers of the Manhattan Declaration are only the tip of
the iceberg. Hidden underneath is the massive iceberg itself, stealthy,
invisible, imperceptible, probably even for many of the signatories of the
Declaration.
These religious leaders are probably oblivious to where
all of this is leading or what the capstone of their movement will be but Ellen
G. White saw it clearly. Speaking about the agitation for a national Sunday law
in the late 1880’s she states:
“The Sunday
movement is now making its way in darkness. The leaders are concealing the true
issue, and many who unite in the movement do not themselves see whither the
undercurrent is tending. Its professions are mild and apparently Christian, but
when it shall speak it will reveal the spirit of the dragon.” Testimonies for
the Church, p. 452
Ellen White has already predicted how the churches in the
United States will unite upon points of doctrine that they have in common and
cooperate to have the civil power enforce their decrees and sustain their
institutions. I believe that the Manhattan Declaration is a clear vindication
of the accuracy of the following statement made by Ellen White in the late 1880’s:
“When the leading churches of the United States, uniting
upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the
state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then
Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the
infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result.” The
Great Controversy, p.
445
This scenario portrayed by Ellen White is no longer a
mere possibility or probability. It is a reality unfolding before our very
eyes.
Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have called upon the
civil authorities to write civil legislation that will guarantee the observance
of Sunday as a basic human right. Especially in Europe there is a groundswell
movement led by the Roman Catholic Church to strong arm the European Parliament
to enact a Sunday law that will cover the entire countries that belong to the
European Union. The North American Religious Liberty Association informs us
that recently “a conference was organized by a number of trade unions,
political parties, Roman Catholic Bishops, and Protestant Churches including
the Baptist, Methodist, Church of England, and Evangelical Lutherans” to put
pressure on the European Union Parliament to enact a Sunday Law. Notably, the central argument of these
cooperative groups is that a Sunday law would be for the ‘common good’ of all
in that it would provide time for family enrichment and religious activities.
How long will it be until the religious leaders of the
churches in the United States say that the secularization and materialization
of society is due to a disrespect of the sanctity of Sunday? It cannot be too
far away. Several Protestant ministers have recently expressed the same desire
for the United States of America.
To the careful reader of the Manhattan Declaration, the
Roman Catholic influence is patently clear.
First of all, the causes which the Declaration stands for (opposition to
abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, the culture of death, euthanasia
and the struggle for human dignity and religious liberty), have all been
spearheaded in recent years by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI as a
rallying cry to unite Catholics and Protestants in a common social cause.
Secondly, Pope John Paul II is referred to by name more
than once in the document as one who was pro-life and therefore opposed ‘the
culture of death’ and numerous Roman Catholic priests, bishops, and archbishops
have signed the document.
Thirdly, the emphasis in the document upon procreation as
the central purpose for marriage reveals a strong Roman Catholic influence.
Expressions such as “the great good of procreation” and man and woman as a
“reproductive unit” makes one suspect that Roman Catholic theology had much to
say when the document was drafted.
Fourth, the appeal to natural human reason in addition to
Scripture reveals clear Roman Catholic thinking and terminology. For example,
we are told that the declaration “is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural
human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and
in the very nature of the human person.”
And let none forget that the Roman Catholic Church has
traditionally claimed to have changed the day of worship from Sabbath to Sunday
without any Biblical support and has strongly advocated that governments
guarantee the observance of Sunday as a basic civil right!
Back in the late 1880’s when
there was a strong religious movement in the United States to enforce Sunday as
the national day of rest by a constitutional amendment, Ellen White stated:
“Yet this very class *religious leaders in America put
forth the claim that the fast-spreading corruption is largely attributable to
the desecration of the so-called "Christian sabbath," and that the
enforcement of Sunday observance would greatly improve the morals of society.
This claim is especially urged in America, where the doctrine of the true Sabbath
has been most widely preached.” The Great Controversy, p. 587
The Sunday movement has been mostly dormant and out of
view since then but we are told that it will awaken with a vengeance just
before the end of time:
“Those who honor the Bible Sabbath will be denounced as
enemies of law and order, as breaking down the moral restraints of society,
causing anarchy and corruption, and calling down the judgments of God upon the
earth. Their conscientious scruples will be pronounced obstinacy, stubbornness,
and contempt of authority. They will be accused of disaffection toward the
government. Ministers who deny the obligation of the divine law will present
from the pulpit the duty of yielding obedience to the civil authorities as
ordained of God. In legislative halls and courts of justice, commandment
keepers will be misrepresented and condemned. A false coloring will be given to
their words; the worst construction will be put upon their motives.” The Great Controversy, p. 592
She continues:
“As the Protestant churches reject the clear, Scriptural
arguments in defense of God's law, they will long to
silence those whose faith they cannot overthrow by the Bible. Though they blind
their own eyes to the fact, they are now adopting a course which will lead to
the persecution of those who conscientiously refuse to do what the rest of the
Christian world are doing, and acknowledge the claims of the papal
sabbath.” The Great Controversy, p.
592
“The dignitaries of church and state will unite to bribe,
persuade, or compel all classes to honor the Sunday. The lack of divine
authority will be supplied by oppressive enactments. Political corruption is
destroying love of justice and regard for truth; and even in free America,
rulers and legislators, in order to secure public favor, will yield to the
popular demand for a law enforcing Sunday observance. Liberty of conscience,
which has cost so great a sacrifice, will no longer be respected.” The Great
Controversy, p. 592
Would it be acceptable or even desirable for Seventh-day
Adventists to sign the Manhattan Declaration? Would it be wrong to cooperate
with these religious leaders in areas that we agree on? The answer is that
Seventh-day Adventists could never sign a document such as this! Why not? Do we
not believe in the sanctity of life? Do we not believe in marriage between a
man and a woman? Do we not believe in religious liberty? The answer to these
questions is a resounding yes! Seventh-day Adventists agree with these
religious leaders on the disease but we disagree on the cure. We believe that
the cure for these social evils is found in the church not in the state. Ellen
White gives the clear reason why we could not sign such a Declaration:
“The leaders of the Sunday movement may advocate reforms
which the people need, principles which are in harmony with the Bible; yet
while there is with these a requirement which is contrary to God's law [Sunday
legislation], His servants cannot unite with them. Nothing can justify them in
setting aside the commandments of God for the precepts of men.” The Great Controversy, pp. 587, 588
Let us continue to preach the Word of God with power and
conviction. Let’s reach out with the saving gospel to a world that is perishing
in sin. Let’s not get distracted from our mission by using methods that produce
no lasting change. God has not called us to criticize every decision that is
made by the federal government. Hearts are changed by the foolishness of
preaching.
These are exciting times to live in. May we be wise as serpents
and harmless as doves as we sail the dangerous waters of end time events.
Article written by Pastor Stephen Bohr – April 2010
Pastor Bohr is Speaker/Director for Secrets Unsealed