Manhattan Declaration - Answers to Faulty Objections

The Manhattan Declaration continues to make people nervous. As we mentioned before in our discussion should a Christian sign the Manhattan Declaration, it’s not so much if you sign or not, but your attitude towards the concepts it contains. Yet some still don’t like the principles and choose to divide over it — even using faulty analysis in the process.

Abortion remains a dividing topic in the country at large, and this declaration illustrates the division existing in the church as well; consider the following comment for why a person should reject the declaration.

The sanctity of human life is of the utmost importance to me, yet, how many of these religious groups support the death penalty? Or believe that health care reform is evil? Or support abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or etc…?

If the sanctity of human life is important, you have no problem declaring that fact. However, this line of reasoning can come from a pro-abortion person attempting to divert attention from the issue at hand — abortion — to other issues such as the death penalty and health-care. Raising side issues remains a classic tactic of pro-abortion people promoting their position.

If a person doesn’t understand the difference between the innocence of an unborn life and the just and lawful condemnation of a murderer to death we can’t say much except hope at some point the difference becomes clear. Of course, injecting the debate over health-care has nothing to do with abortion at all (other than the fight over paying for it, but we won’t digress into that discussion).

Another group’s focus shines brightly on the promotion of same-sex marriage in the Church — something its writers say Christians should do. But let them explain themselves:

It is, sadly, taken as a foregone conclusion by the drafters of the Declaration that same-sex sexual “conduct and relationships” inherently involve immorality of any kind. In fact, Scripture says no such thing. It is not a matter of what one reads on pages of the Bible, but is, rather, a matter of translating, interpreting, and applying the teachings of Scripture in a manner consistent with the original intent, with—as the apostle Paul calls it—the spirit of the law (Romans 7:6).

On the surface, such a claim certainly appears problematic. It’s not a matter of what you read in the Bible??? But, in point of fact, the majority of the Christian Body applies this approach of biblical intent above biblical letter on multiple issues. Churches that allow women to hold any positions of authority in the local church, or to preach/teach the word of God in the local church are directly contradicting the letter of New Testament teachings. In addition, churches that do not enforce a strict dress code for women, as well as short hair lengths for men are, likewise, contradicting the letter of New Testament teachings.

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. [35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided [braided] hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; [10] But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. [11] Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. [12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” (1 Timothy 2:9-12)

“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” (1 Corinthians 11:14)

… the Church is notorious for picking and choosing which passages to apply in the letter of the text, and which to apply in the spirit/intent of the text. The rule of consistency, however, requires us to apply the spirit-over-the-letter approach across the board, or not at all. I trust that few changes, indeed, would opt for the latter option.

This argument makes several errors. We’ll not go into detail as we’ve covered these topics in our Commentary on 1 Corinthians (specifically chapter 11), but allow us to provide a brief reply to their analysis so the mistake becomes clear — for full notes see the referenced article as it covers this and other objections as well.

…something else you must understand before diving into this section. That second item is the structure of an argument, and its presentation in debate. If you haven’t had training in debate, it’s easy to miss the point this chapter presents, as Paul’s argument contains a few principles, and then some supporting examples; if you confuse examples and principles you’ll be lost.

• V3 — The principle — order in the family.
• V4-7 — Example of head coverings. Additionally, this is a cultural example.
• V8-9 — Example from history.

Paul’s principle concerns the military organization of the family unit. If you get all hung up with hair and head coverings thinking that’s his point you’ll become hopelessly lost in this discussion. His principle applies today, but his supporting arguments come partly from the cultural situation of that day.

In the same notes on 1 Corinthians 11 we also explain the passage in 1 Timothy and why it retains its relevance today. But in brief, Paul immediately supports his premise with an argument from history, and unless history changes, neither does his point.

The problems most people have with 1 Corinthians 11 comes from failing to distinguish between Paul’s argument and his supporting examples. If you wish to study this further start with our notes on 1 Corinthians (section called “The Trouble with Order”).

You don’t have to accept the Bible if you don’t want — many “pastors” and “churches” don’t — but it’s rather bizarre to say God didn’t really say that, or some parts don’t apply today simply because they’re not liked. Either the Bible is the Word of God or it’s not — you choose for yourself.

Many so-called “Christians” claim acceptance of the Bible while ignoring parts making them uncomfortable. They perform their slight of hand by strange arguments saying “this part doesn’t apply today” or “God didn’t really say that” and other nonsense — arguments which careful study of the text destroys. This pseudo-scholarship continues to be popular by those promoting dialectic thought because by it you can make any religion you want — just claim those parts of the Bible you don’t like don’t apply anymore, or weren’t really written by those claiming.

If someone desires to reject the Bible (or parts of it) and God, fine, that’s their option — nobody forces anyone to believe in God or the Bible. But we wish they’d have the honesty to state their rejection openly, instead of twisting words into something the text obviously doesn’t say to justify their designer religion.