Yes, i agree with you regarding the Roman Catholic position on Life and they have always taken the lead. Evangelicals were late to the table on this issue - including myself years ago as i was pro-life but ceded that it was a woman's choice of birth or abortion. In effect i was like Pilate and washing my hands of any culpability for millions of children being sacrificed to the god of Self. The blood of millions are on us and our children. Sadly, the RCA leadership is silent on this issue.

Blessings ><>

The "Third observation" that you raise reveals how great the divide is within the church, in particular within the RCA and CRC communities.

God's Word is clear that the only appropriate sexual relationship (both mind and body) is within the marriage of one man and one woman.

The question you are really asking is, "Did God really say...?" We are in dangerous company if we "read between the lines" and propose other than what God has written by the power of the Spirit on the pages of Scripture.

Blessings ><>

Several cursory observations.

First, it is a LONG document for a "declaration." It seems like it intends to be a manifesto, but it will probably be too long for many people to read. My guess is that a good number of people will read what Kevin quotes and sign from there.

Second, for my own part, I continue to be puzzled at the acceptance of capital punishment by those who argue for the banning of abortion. I get the argument that is presented in the declaration, and to be fair the declaration does not mention the death penalty. But it seems to me, as it always has, that one can not in the same mind decry abortion and support capital punishment. The Roman Catholic church's 'seamless garment' seems to me a far more morally consistent position.

Third, the declaration seems to beg the question in many of its assertions. "Begging the question" is a term of logic that means that one is assuming one's conclusion. For example, when it comes to redefining marriage, the declaration assumes the Bible's unequivocal support of only male-female marriage. I'm not making the argument that the Bible supports anything else here -- don't read that into my comment -- but isn't that exactly what people are arguing about? Thus, to assume that the Bible assumes one position, and by means of that assumption, to argue against another, just isn't cricket in the field of logic.

Fourth, I'm sure these writers have some intellectual heft to them, but when they take a quick course through history, they seem to me to paint a rather one-sided picture of the story. For example, the declaration's assertion that it was evangelical Christians who were primarily responsible for the ending of slavery in Great Britian. True enough, I guess. But were not Christian people responsible, in large part, also for the establishment of the institution in the western hemisphere? I don't really think that is arguable, as a matter of historical fact. Ironically, evangelical (experimental) Christians in the US had a large part to play in slavery's downfall in the US, but these same folks were rather progressive relative to 'mainline' Christianity. Are we positing two sorts of Christianities, then? Certainly I am taking this far beyond what the Declaration says; so I guess that what I'm saying is that it seems presumptuous of the writers of the document to speak as though on behalf of Christianity itself. Maybe I read that into the document.

Finally, as one who has been involved in the writing of documents in the past, I would say that it seems to me like the writing of a very few people (the Georges and Colson), and not by a broad coalition. There are too many specific references in the document, for one thing. (So it sounds like -- "I heard about this one case where such and such happened to so and so") A lot of people will sign it because they agree with its trajectory, but will not have chased down the "facts" on which it relies. I would have liked to see more references (footnotes, if you will) so I could check out several news items about which I've heard two sides of the story.

As for comparisons to the Belhar -- I guess one would stand with the Manhattan Declaration rather than the Belhar because it's not a confession? The Manhattan Declaration certainly doesn't have as comprehensive a vision as the Belhar. (I.e., unity, reconciliation, and justice are pretty broad-ranging biblical themes -- pro-life, marriage, and religious liberty aren't nearly as well attested -- but maybe here I'm begging the question, too. I don't think so, but it's always possible) And as for finding common cause with the Belhar in terms of justice for the weak and civil disobedience, wouldn't it be interesting if RCA folks cited the Belhar to support a pro-life position? I have no idea what that would say, exactly, (maybe it would confirm the Belhar's sense that justice is at the core of the character of God), but it would be interesting.

There it is again........the call for unity. No Joanna, the truth of God's Word does not take 2nd place to unity.

The last two sections of the Belhar Confession seem to echo some of the same themes of the Manhattan Declaration - to wit, that believers should seek justice that protects the weak and that the Christian should be willing to practice civil disobedience in obedience to Christ.

While the Belhar is widely embraced by the more "liberal" end of the spectrum, I would venture a guess that because the Manhattan Declaration deals with the "taboo" themes of the unborn and marriage, it will be dismissed as irrelevant or even divisive by some.

Nonetheless, I found it a compelling call to action and I signed it and would encourage others to do so as well.