Just a few more comments about The Manhattan Declaration. I was asked to respond to John Stackhouse’s dismissal of the whole thing as just one more iteration of “been there, done that” Religious Rightism. There are two things to say about his reasoning.
The first is that he maintains that he is on the side of the angels, at least as far as his opinions go. “I’m conservatively prolife and have traditional Christian views of marriage also. But just because I think those views are right doesn’t entail that I believe they should be law.”
At first blush, this looks like the distinction I have made in this space repeatedly — the distinction between sins and crimes. There are things that we all believe are wicked and sinful, but we don’t believe they ought to be against the law — coveteousness, for instance.
But why is abortion not “right?” If it is not the unlawful taking of an innocent human life, then Stackhouse is simply saying that a particular form of birth control is not “right.” And the question then comes — how come? Why are condoms okay and this not? And if it is the unlawful taking of a human life, then it occupies a place right at the center of what it means to be a crime. If this need not be a crime, for the sake of our idolatrous pluralism, then nothing need ever be a crime. The whims of demos rule.
And speaking of pluralism, that leads to the second point. Stackhouse defends his reasoning by appealing to the pluralistic nature of our society. “Deciding what ought to be law in a pluralistic, democratic society that welcomes immigrants from, and seeks to influence helpfully, countries all over the world, requires careful political theory.” What it actually requires is repentance, for this is our central idol. This is the bronze statue of modern Man in the public square that needs to have some tackle gear attached to its head and neck, and pulled clean over. This could be done by some outlaw group — let us call them sons of Gideon. I would prefer broad daylight, but if midnight gets the job done, let us not complain unduly.
“There is none of that sort of thinking evident in this declaration, but rather a strong sense—common enough among conservative evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox around the world—that particular Christian convictions are simply right and therefore ought to be law.”
Well, yeah. We are Christians, and we believe the Christian faith is right. We are Christians and we believe that this right perspective on crimes (not sins) ought to be reflected in the law. Of course. The only way for a professing Christian to differ with this is by appealing to a higher right — the prerogatives of pluralism. But if Jesus is Lord, there is no higher right. Right?
Or did ACLU attorneys storm Heaven? Are the prerogatives of pluralism standing behind the throne at the right hand of the Father? Whispering directions perhaps?