I first thought of the Declaration of Independence and various declarations of war. The Declaration of Independence was a resolution of colonial citizens to separate from England by force. It enumerates various injustices of the king of Great Britain against the colonies. It concludes with a pledge "to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." Similarly, the Manhattan Documents lists a series of offenses against Christian values by local and national government in the United States and frames its pledge in a similar way: "We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence." So, it could be that the Manhattan Declaration is a non-martial appeal to refound a Christian culture in America.
At the same time, the Manhattan Declaration bears certain similarities to a church covenant (see this helpful description at Wikipedia: Church covenant). A church covenant is a voluntary dedication of individuals to live with values aligned with the Gospel. In Jonathan Edwards's 1742 church covenant (see midway down the page, beginning with "COPY OF A COVENANT"), the congregation of Northampton confessed their sins and asked for God's grace to live a life in accordance with Christian values: "And because we are sensible that the keeping these solemn vows may hereafter, in many cases, be very contrary to our corrupt inclinations and carnal interests, we do now therefore appear before God to make a surrender of all to him, and to make a sacrifice of every carnal inclination and interest, to the great business of religion and the interest of our souls." While the Manhattan Declaration mainly stresses the evils of 'the culture of death,' it also includes the personal moral language of a church covenant. For example, "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." This passage clearly expresses the need of Christian individuals to call their human institutions (denominational bodies) to reform. The Declaration is also distinct from a church covenant in that church covenants are typically defined by membership in a particular congregation or denomination - whereas the Declaration is explicitly ecumenical in scope.
Below, I asked three questions:
- what is Christianity?
- what is charity?
- how is culture generated?
It seems to me that the Manhattan Declaration conveys certain assumptions about the answers to these questions. A call for Christian unity in the public square ought to be clear on these issues. The Christianity described in the Declaration is that of a group which has promoted a renewed morality, which is persistently reforming human structures. The notion of charity is one which stems mainly from stewardship and duty to those with less. Although the Declaration clearly defines 'the culture of death', it is less clear on how to foster a cultural renewal. Culture is inherited to be sure, and a culture expresses specific values, but beyond that, it leaves open the question of cultural renewal. [my wife tells me that this paragraph is weak but I would really like to see some discussion particularly on these points].
The Manhattan Declaration frames itself as a call to Christian unity on moral issues. However, the unity it proposes is essentially an individualistic, congregationalist one. I praise it for promoting the common good, but believe that the unity and renewal needed must be more radical than a public resolution.
4 comments:
Fred,
I am ruminating on (in the sense of Lectio Divina) your provocative and intriguing post and I hope to compile a worthy response shortly.
One question that popped into my head when I read what you wrote is: Is it possible that the MD is an ecumenical attempt to address the question: What is the mission of the Church towards earthly man? Now, I believe that an authentically Catholic answer to that question is beautifully described in chapter 7 of the third volume of Fr. Giussani’s trilogy: Why the Church? (See a important extract from page 147 below)?
“To begin with, the Church’s function on the world scene is already implicit in its awareness that it is the protraction of Christ: this means that it has the same function as Jesus in history, which is to educate all men and women to the religious sense, precisely in order to be able to “save” them. In this context, the religious sense or religiosity means, as we have already pointed out, man’s exact position towards his own destiny in terms of conscience and his attempt to live it in practical terms.”
Of course, since the MD is an ecumenical statement crafted by people with different understandings and appreciation of Ecclesiology, it doesn’t surprise me that a conscious (or unconscious) congregationalist understanding of the Church would appear in the statement.
More to follow my friend.
Pax,
Henry
Fred,
I never realized the connection between the MD and those documents and so I want to start my post by thanking you for helping me see something new. Moreover, the work your post prompted me to do has helped me esteem the MD even more than I did before.
So, because of your help, I now more clearly see that the MD is a kind of ecumenical version of Howard Beale’s statement in the movie “Network”: “We are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore!”
Now, I believe it is clear that the drafters of the statement feel that Christianity is under attack and needs to be defended. So, my first question is: does their judgment conform to reality?
Now, assuming that the judgment is true, my next question is: Is issuing a statement like the MD the best way to respond to the attack?
Imagining that the MD was written by one person instead of three, I decided to look at how apologists of the early Church - e.g., Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc. - crafted their documents to see if the MD is similar in style and tone, and I think it is.
So then, it seems to me that the real question to reflect on is: “should this kind of document have been issued in TODAY’s environment?”
Well, why not? If, after all, a person feels threatened isn’t it reasonable for him or her to say: “hey I know what you are doing and I am not going to take it anymore!”
Now, should Catholics sign the MD?
If by signing it, it means that the Catholic agrees with and affirms the theological assumptions of Protestants and/or Orthodox Christians, then I say no. In other words, if one believes that the words (after all, a declaration is made of words) in the MD contradict, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition or Magisterial statements, then I strongly assert that a Catholic must not sign it.
If, however, the real question is: “should someone in CL sign it?” As Apolonio said, it doesn’t, in substance, contradict any statements the Movement has issued. The tone of the MD is certainly more defensive than anything we would write, but the three main points are not substantially different than the points in the "what we hold most dear" flier.
Thanks again Fred for your provocative post.
Pax,
Henry
Oh yes, I forgot to say that I agree that the unity and renewal needed must be more radical than a public resolution.
Any ideas of how that would look?
Pax, Henry
ah, then we agree!
If I may be flip in answering... it won't look like the American Revolution; and it won't look like Northampton - which dismissed Jonathan Edwards after he wondered why young men weren't abiding by their covenant; It won't even look like Woodrow Wilson's painful attempt to foster peace through a public covenant.
I think Balthasar used the term 'interstices' ...
Post a Comment