2 Articles & a Statement on the "Respect for Marriage" Act:

The two articles, one from a respected Evangelical magazine and the other from a widely read online, Evangelical commentator,  agree on the basic facts of what the act does--mainly codifying recent SCOTUS decisions, particularly Obergefell. The CT article puts a positive spin on it, while Dennison takes a darker view.

I think the CT article is only available to subscribers. You may find it elsewhere. It is by Carl Esbeck.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/november-web-only/same-sex-marriage-religious-liberty-respect-marriage-act.html

https://www.denisonforum.org/daily-article/does-the-so-called-respect-for-marriage-act-threaten-our-religious-liberty/

In the Theological sense, I am an Evangelical, the LDS church is not. They have, however, been co-belligerents with us in many of the social battles of our time. The first line of their statement indicates that they still profess to be on our side in regard to a proper definition of marriage. 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/respect-for-marriage-act-statement
I wonder, though, in our age of freedom to worship (in private), but not necessarily freedom to proclaim truth lest it offend, is the Mormon statement a retreat into a sort of modified Benedict Option (HM's brief definition: withdraw, hole up, and hope, wait, and pray for better days).

Not all slopes are slippery, but, clearly, some are. 

Christian leaders need to be wise. All of us need to pray for clear courageous thinking.

Pastoring, in regard to matters of sexuality and marriage is more complicated than it used to be.

 I guess I should be glad that I've entered the emeritus phase of my ministry. Pastoring, especially in regard to matters of sexuality and marriage has certainly gotten more complicated. I'm not, however, comfortable in just ignoring these matters. For one thing, Old guys like me are frequently asked to perform weddings. Given the right circumstances, it is something I'm glad to do. Secondly, I regard my years of experience as a trust. I think I have an obligation to help the next generations of shepherds. For these, and other, reasons I maintain an interest in the increasingly complicated realm of pastoral ministry in the sexual/gender/marriage realm.

In that regard, I recommend two articles that have come my way recently;

1. A blogpost by Gene Vieth, https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2021/11/should-couples-and-their-pastor-reject-marriage-licenses/
   Vieth is a Lutheran, and as such interacts with a report that came from the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. I encourage my pastor-buddies to read the report. As a baptistic, conservative Evangelical, I find it helpful. The report is linked in Veith's post. Veith gives a good summary of the report. Basically, Veith and the longer report ask some post-Obergefell questions and offer some answers and counsel that are worth considering. My oversimplified summary is that the article's position is that the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision didn't really change anything for a faithful pastor's practice. SCOTUS clearly misdefined marriage, but it didn't do so in a way that requires we shepherds of God's flock to do so. (Might that happen? Maybe. Realize, though, that while some slopes are slippery, not all are. I say for now we should be vigilant and try to drive in some stakes on the sloping terrain wherever and whenever we can.)
2. A second article, by Al Mohler, asks a question that I've seen come up several times, lately, though I don't remember exactly where (there are reasons why I'm emeritus). Here is the article. https://albertmohler.com/2021/11/10/briefing-11-10-21?utm_source=Albert+Mohler&utm_campaign=b40e1c087c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_04_08_09_12_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b041ba0d12-b40e1c087c-307975913&mc_cid=b40e1c087c&mc_eid=20aa58364c
   The question posed is a fine-line kind of distinction but one that in my humble opinion needs to be considered. Again, IMHO, I think that way back in the last century those of us who seek to hold to a Biblical view of gender/sexuality lost a significant semantic battle. That loss led to, or contributed to, a significant point of confusion. Is it proper to speak of a "Gay Christian"? Or even more pointedly, a "Gay Celibate Christian"? 

Pastors in the 2020s are faced with questions that weren't out there in the 1970s when I began my ministry. The requirement to be faithful to the Word remains the same.

Deer Hunting and a Book on Marriage, It's About Hitting the Target

I live in an area where real men kill deer.  One of the lessons I learned early on as the pastor of a church full of deer hunters is to not plan anything special during deer season.  If you can't beat 'em . . . I tried hunting for a while.  The problem is I lack patience.  To be a good deer hunter you have to put in time learning to think like a deer, you have to get up early, and you need to be quiet.  I'm not good at any of that, and I wasn't dedicated enough to learn.
Oh, and there is one more thing.  I don't shoot very well, so on those rare occasions when I did see a deer, and let the lead fly, I generally missed.  I figure I didn't miss by much, but as the saying is, "An inch is as good as a mile."

I was reminded about my ability to propel a 30/30 bullet right by a deer, without damaging so much as a hair, right after I read a book by John Piper, This Momentary Marriage.  We Evangelicals have talked a lot about marriage in the last few years.  Though we have thrown a lot of words at the issue, I fear that our aim is like mine on those cold November mornings.  We have focused a lot of attention on making clear what marriage isn't--it's not a relationship between two people of the same sex.  We haven't paid enough attention to what marriage is.  I'm concerned that in our zeal to protect marriage we, by our failure to hit the mark--truth be told we haven't even aimed at it--have actually weakened our culture's commitment to what marriage really is.  I found Pastor John Piper's little book to be a much needed lesson on straight shooting.
For a long time I've had this feeling in my bones that we Evangelicals were really giving the same-sex-marriage crowd some excellent arguments to support their cause.  The average man or woman in the pew, especially among the younger set within the church, describes heterosexual marriage about the same way as our dominant culture does.  It is roses, and candlelight, and wine, and soul-mate, and earth-moving sex.  I'm not saying that Evangelicals are selfish, some are, but we have done a pretty good job emphasizing that marriage is not about me using someone else for my own pleasure.  It is about me giving myself for and pleasing my mate.  I'll leave aside for the moment the difficult reality that we must wrestle with, that one gains the greatest satisfaction when one gives the most.  Screwtape, and even Wormwood, can play you with that one like a yo-yo in a windstorm, but, as I say, I'll save that one for another day.  The problem is when we make marriage all about pleasing our spouse--putting her or him in first place--we almost hit the target.  Almost.
In his introduction Piper admits the strangeness of beginning a book on marriage with the tragic stories of three martyrs--four really.  When Dietrich Bonhoeffer was hung by the Nazis he was engaged to Maria von Wedemeyer.  John and Betty Stam were young missionaries with a baby to raise when they were beheaded by the Chinese Communists.  Strange though it may be to use martyrs to introduce a book on marriage it is effective.

The aim of this book is to enlarge your vision of what marriage is. As Bonhoeffer says, it is more than your love for each other. Vastly more. Its meaning is infinitely great. I say that with care. The meaning of marriage is the display of the covenant-keeping love between Christ and his people.  (15)

If the pastor from Minnesota begins his book in an unorthodox manner, he proceeds to what is regarded in our culture as madness.  It's right there in the title of the first chapter, "Staying Married is not about Staying in Love."

I pray that this book might be used by God to help set you free from small, worldly, culturally contaminated, self-centered, Christ-ignoring, God-neglecting, romance-intoxicated, unbiblical views of marriage.
The most foundational thing to see from the Bible about marriage is that it is God’s doing. And the ultimate thing to see from the Bible about marriage is that it is for God’s glory.  (21)

Marriage is God's doing, and it is for His glory.   "Marriage was designed from the beginning to display the new covenant between Christ and the church."  (33)  Marriage is the doing of God, and the display of God--in particular the marvelous covenant love between Christ and His bride, the church.  That is why we should do marriage well.  Displaying such a grand theme is a high and holy calling.  We ought to do it well.
In the middle section of the book Piper helps us explore how to do it well.  He deals with issues like forgiveness and forbearance, the role of husband and wife, and the unique calling of singleness.  I particularly appreciated his framing of childbearing.

[T]he meaning of marriage normally includes giving birth to children, this is not absolute. . . . The decision about whether to conceive children is not ultimately a decision about what is natural, but about what will magnify the Redeemer, Jesus Christ. . . . Marriage is not absolutely for making children; but it is absolutely for making children followers of Jesus.  (140-141)

Piper's last two chapters give his view of divorce and remarriage.  While I disagree with his position that remarriage after divorce is always wrong, I do appreciate the fact that he continues with his theme of what marriage is really about.  "Keep your marriage vows in such a way as to tell the truth about the unbreakable covenant love of Christ."  (164)

Because of the brevity of the book, 192 pages, Piper is selective in choosing the particular aspects of marriage that support his theme.  In the broadest sense, this is a book about what marriage is, and why we should pursue the lofty goal of doing marriage well.  While there are ideas that husbands, wives, and singles will find helpful, this is not primarily a how-to book.

Some of the conclusions that Piper draws are not based on interpretation of scripture, but inference from scripture.  His conclusion that having children is not absolute is based on an extrapolation of the Bible's teaching on singleness.  While I agree with his conclusion, I wasn't impressed with how he got there.

I have already made known that I disagree with his perceived prohibition on remarriage, though I give him credit for humility and grace in admitting that others have come to differing conclusions on this.

Piper begins each chapter with a quotation from Bonhoeffer's writings from Tegel Prison.  These are well chosen and give power to the points Piper makes in each chapter.

The great value of the book is the encouragement it gives us to aim better as we address the issue of marriage.  I wonder if Satan is as pleased with Evangelicals defense of marriage as he is with the attacks that elicit the defense.  When the marriage we defend is a marriage that is about human pleasure--mine and/or my spouses--our argument contains the key points needed to refute what we say.  Why should others be denied the privilege of giving and receiving pleasure?  I fear we have wasted too much ammunition shooting at the who-should-marry target, and failed to hit the Who-marriage-is-about bulls-eye.

Like most of Piper's writings, you can read This Momentary Marriage for free.  Click on the link


(Oh, and about the deer hunting,  I gave it up, and worked on looking pitiful.  Apparently I do that much better than I can shoot.  Thanks to skillful and generous hunters, who are impressed with my hungry look, Kathy and I generally have all the venison we want.}

Marrying folk who are living together:

I suppose it is the pastoral equivalent of a lady hearing someone say, "Have you lost weight?  You look great!"  Someone recently commended me for "speaking the truth in love."  The conversation this friend spoke of was one that took place some years ago.  Two adults were living together without being married.  They had plans to be married--some five months in the future--and without thinking about it very much, they thought that made their present cohabitation OK.
I need to make known that I wasn't an outsider sticking my nose into somebody else's business.  On two levels (maybe more) I was being asked to be a part of the live-together now, marry later arrangement.  I remember swallowing hard just before I said, "I have a problem with that."
After I turned on the flashing red light in the room, I gave the couple an opportunity to end the conversation.  I know that the fact that I have a problem does not necessarily mean that I have a right to impose my standard on others.  The couple said little, but their eyes, and more the fact that they stayed seated, said, "Go on."  It's not a time for a complicated, long-winded, hard to follow tirade.  I used a one-verse observation to, as my friend, said, "Speak the truth in love."
There is nothing complex here, but it might be something that will help others who desire to lovingly speak the truth about a difficult problem in our culture.

Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge."  (Hebrews 13:4)

Use the semicolon in the verse above as the dividing line.  Before the semicolon the verse is marked by honor.  God says that what is going on here is to be held in honor.  Whatever is going on after the semicolon is something that makes one subject to God's judgment--hardly honorable.  The mention of the "marriage bed" is a tip-off.  If one were to make a video of what is going on in the marriage bed (something I very much don't recommend), and if a video were made of the activity that is described as fornication and adultery, the content of the videos would be identical.  So here the very same activity that in the front end of the verse is honorable, in the back end of the verse places one in the uncomfortable position of being the subject of God's judgment.
"So," I asked my friends, "what makes the difference between the two ends of the verse?  What has changed?"
The obvious answer is marriage.  At the beginning of the verse a married couple is being contemplated.  At the end a couple who are unwed.

Generally this scriptural observation/exhortation doesn't have the positive result that it had on this day.  I've been told that such matters are none of my business.  Frequently, I'm met with a look of incredulity, that eloquently says something like, "I can't believe that you believe (or "still believe") that."

I do believe it.  Further I don't believe it is just an arbitrary standard that God sent down from on high.  The sexual standard of the Bible is really rather simple.  Sex is to take place only between a man and a woman who are married to one another.  God gave us this standard because it is in line with the way that He made us.  Adhering to this standard leads to the greatest possible human flourishing.  Allowing it to erode does no one any favors, and for those of us who are given the responsibility to speak for the Lord, to fail to uphold this standard is sinful.

Here is where I have problem with some of my colleagues.  For too many of my fellow-pastors, this is the elephant that fills the room yet is politely ignored.   I'm  asking you to acknowledge the pachyderm.  It is tough, very tough, but I am convinced that if we are going to maintain our integrity we have to deal with it.
I appreciate the position that some pastors I know have taken:

• The pastor of a mega-church in California says to couples who inquire about marriage, "If I am going to work with you in doing this wedding you need to enter into this commitment of purity.  I'm not going to judge you about the past, but I need for your to commit to a standard of purity (chastity) from this point until your marriage."
• When confronted with the usual "problem,"
  "We can't get married now, we have to book a DJ, buy a dress, schedule a venue, etc. etc. etc."  Sometimes all of this is complicated by the claim that "we can't afford to live apart."  Leaving aside for a moment the fact that a family of six could live for a year on all they money they are proposing to spend on the big wedding, my friend offers the couple two alternatives:  Somebody needs to move out, or our church will help you put together a wedding.  It has to take place within two weeks.  (To those who would say that one more night is no different than another year, I would say, There is a difference.  My friend is encouraging the couple toward a commitment to do what is right, rather than what looks fabulous.)
• Another uses a questionnaire to begin a conversation about what the couple really wants.  If what they really, really want is to do as they jolly well please in spite of what the Word of God says, what business do we as "Men of God" have in being involved?

Guys, we can help one another here.  If a couple says, in essence, "We really don't think that what the Bible says about marriage has anything to do with us."  Why should we be involved.  I tell couples, "I'm not in the marrying business.  I am, however, glad to help people build Biblical homes.  If we are going to do that, we need to start right now."

I'd love to hear from you.  I think a discussion--even an argument--could be helpful.

Wading into the swamp of Family-Relations and trying to lead others through . . .

April 7, here at Covington Bible Church, Pastor Doug Williams and I started a series on the family.  Doug's message on Husbands Who Love Like Christ can be found here.  My message on Colossians 3:18 is here.
Last night I decided that it would be good to give a chance for folk to ask questions, and attempt to offer some answers, based on these first two message, not that the concept of husbands being given the
responsibility of loving leadership and wives being instructed to "be subject" is controversial or anything.
I am posting this blog to do a couple of things:

1. I want to clear up a possible misconception from the Q&A time, and maybe even apologize.
2. I want to offer some material that is good for further thought, and continuing in this vein,
3. I hope some further discussion will take place here.

 Part of my answers last night (If I'm able to do some editing I may post some of those answers.) were along the line of a person unfamiliar with a particular type of automobile asking,

"How do I start this thing?"

My answer was akin to giving the person a lecture about the combustibility of gasoline and the construction of an internal combustion engine.

What they really wanted to know is, "Where is the place where you insert the key on this particular model?"

A couple of the questions centered around The Question--The 800 pound gorilla question:

Does the concept of husband-leadership, and wife submission in the home require that a woman endure abuse?

If my answer did not indicate a clear and unequivocal "NO!" I apologize.  I give that simple unequivocal answer here.  No.

I do not believe that the teaching of scripture is such that it condones any kind of abuse--in this case the question has to do with that way too prevalent sin of husbands abusing their wives.  I do not believe that kind of  behavior is right or acceptable (I'm glad to say that I don't any responsible preacher or teacher who maintains that such behavior is right for husbands.) and I believe that where it takes place relief should be sought.  Furthermore, I believe the church should be at the top of the list of those who offer assistance.

I was right, to indicate that this question has a great many complexities to it.  If I didn't clearly state that simple answer, I am sorry.

A couple of morning after thoughts on those complexities:

• The maintenance of ethical/moral/behavioral standards is often difficult in extreme situations.
  The position that Doug and I take--which was reflected with our dealing with husbands first--is that wives submitting to their husbands ought to take place in a context of husbands giving themselves for their wives.  So, what is a wife to do in a situation where the "leadership" in the home is not at all Christ-like?
  These quotations from the book Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, acknowledges  this stress in taking what could be called a "general principle" and applying it homes that are outside the realm of what should be going on. I think the authors point us in the right direction.
  "Submission refers to a wife's divine calling to honor and affirm her husband's leadership . . . it is not an absolute surrender of her will."  (41)  "No submission of one human being to another is absolute." (21)  All of us who struggle with this issue would say "Amen," to "We are not claiming to live without ambiguities." (62)
  Throughout the text, the authors make plain that submission does mean that one should be forced into sin.
  The book gives a helpful word on page 196.  This thought is born-out in other places in the text.  What the authors of the book, what I, and what Scripture writers are talking about is an attitude--"Submission is an inner quality of gentleness that affirms the leadership of the husband."
  (The website of the group that produced this book, The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, is referenced below.)
• I hold to an ethical system known as non-conflicting absolutism.  I believe it is possible to respond to the situations life throws at us without sinning, or without becoming the judge of which ethical standard takes hierarchy over another.  Often these judgments are difficult.  One of the maxims that was shared with me back in college is that hard cases make bad ethics.  It is appropriate to work hard to make sure our ethical system covers the extremities, but in doing so, we should not negate the good that a particular standard does in the vast majority of cases.  In this case, the fact that some husbands distort the concept of leadership, and abuse some wives who, perhaps, have a faulty view of submission, should not prevent us from teaching a Biblical principle that is of benefit to countless homes where proper leadership and submission is being practiced.
• We need to exercise caution in "taking sides" when this gets out of the theoretical and into a real home.  Words like "exercising leadership," or "abuse" are notoriously slippery.  What some consider leadership is harsh and abusive.  What other refer to as abuse may be merely an inability to get their own way in a minor matter.  The culture in which we find ourselves has a great impact on how we see these matters.  Our goal should not be to justify our personal preconceptions and cultural prejudices by the use of the scripture, but to bring our behavior into alignment with the teaching of the Word.
• I'll leave further bullet points for commenters. I hope this will bring about a conversation.

In the question-answer last night I referred to two positions on the view of the relationship of men and women in general, and particular on wives and husbands.  You can find out more about these two positions at the websites below:

(If readers know of other website that reflect the two positions more accurately, or clearly, please let me know.)

     

The Egalitarian Position is the represented by those who, by and large, play down male female differences.  It is an over-simplification, but this position is sometimes described as Christian-Feminism.
You can find out about this position from Christians for Biblical Equality.

The Complimentarian Position--the postion to which Doug and I hold--is represented by the book I quoted above and this website: Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

Working at getting along:

Like many of you, I've been thinking about the increasing polarization of our culture.  The casualties of the culture war, that has been raging cold and hot for some time now, are relationships.  Often on one side are those who won't give an inch, because it may lead to losing a mile.  They face-off against those who demand not only tolerance, but heart acceptance--or at least a publicly acceptable synthetic version thereof.  I've been doing some reading and thinking about alternatives--are there any? what are they?
Some of you may find these articles thought provoking as well.  I welcome your thoughts.

Here is an article recently posted on Patheos.  I appreciate that the author is trying to sort it out.  I fear that in our zeal to maintain Biblical absolutes, we conservative Evangelicals too quickly allow our positions on issues to harden and then we label them as absolutes.  Maybe, maybe not.  I'm saying there aren't absolutes; I absolutely believe there are; I'm just saying that we shouldn't be so eager to label all our conclusions as such.  Let's think and talk a bit.  When you read this article be sure to click on the links at the beginning to previous articles.  Also, if you are familiar with Andrew Marin, or the Marin Foundation, (much of the article is written by Marin) I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts.

Would Jesus Fight a Legal Battle Against Same Sex Marriage?  Timothy Dalrymple

The statement, below, which has been making the rounds on Facebook, etc., by Rick Warren, reminds me of a recent conversation I had with someone struggling to maintain a relationship across the "Gay Divide."  If one side doesn't require that every conversation has to include a condemnation of homosexuality and the other side does not demand a surrender of honestly held sexual prohibitions, and if both sides will attempt to leave hypocrisy at the door, maybe people who love each other can find ways to get along.  Or maybe me and Pastor Warren are just Naive.

“Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”  (Rick Warren)

Steve Cornell is a thinker, a Biblical thinker.  I appreciate his thoughts.  He is not a Johnny-come-lately to this conversation.  His stuff is worth reading.  Here are three recent posts that I have appreciated:

New Pope fails litmus test

Responses to My Sunday Column

The Marriage Debate

Can We All Get Along?

Here is a post I offered on this blog, about a well known preacher's (He is not alone.) public announcement of a change of view on homosexual marriage.
This one reveals that I'm somewhat conflicted on this.  I figure I'm not alone.

Maybe some of this will help generate, or continue, some profitable discussion.

As I say on the other blog, "It's Something To Think About."

Leave their car alone:

Every old black and white movie that had a wedding in it, featured the car leaving the church with a "Just Married" sign and a string of cans tied to the back.  It was a good-natured way of having some fun and wishing the new couple well.  I can remember different times when I saw cars similarly adorned going down the road.  My wife and I would honk and wish them a happy wedding day.
I've been doing weddings since 1975.  Things have gone way beyond a few tin-cans.

• I've seen cars jacked up and put on stands so when the couple gets in the wheels turn but they don't go anywhere.
• When my younger son got married it took me about four hours to clean up his car.  I think it took my daughter-in-law's dad even longer to clean her hers up.  The newly weds had wisely planned to leave in a borrowed vehicle, which arrived at the church at just the right time.
• When that son was just a kid, he was offered an impressive bribe to let the "buzzardly friends" into my garage where the grooms pickup truck was hidden.  It turned out that it was only a decoy anyhow.
• I've heard of paint jobs on cars being ruined.
• Some folk's cars are essentially undriveable for a few weeks, while the stench from whatever wears off.  Sometimes it doesn't.
• I could say more, but I don't want to give the buzzardly crowd any new ideas.

Trust me, I know more about this than the average buzzardly friend.  Wedding days are stressful, especially for brides.  Let's not add to it.

Granted many a groom shows up at a wedding having built up an incredible debt of bad matrimonial Karma.  He has messed up many a car.  He is one of the buzzardly friends that I warn couples about.  To all the other buzzardly friends, figure out some other way to get even with him, leave the young lady out of it.  If she married a guy who did all that to other people, she probably already has enough issues to deal with.
Or, here is a really novel thought.  Show some mercy.

To all of those who do not fall in the buzzardly friend category.  Thanks.  Don't join their ranks.  Dare I say it?  Do what you can to curb their enthusiasm for automotive mayhem.

I figure this has as much of chance of gaining a following as my campaign for President on the Curmudgeon ticket, but I feel better.

If you must do something to the new couple's car, put a $100 in the console.  Believe it or not, it is fun to be nice.

The Manhattan Declaration--and it has nothing to do with an Atomic Bomb:

A number of leaders from the various branches of Christendom gathered in Manhattan to issue a clear statement about a number of cultural/social/ethical issues that threaten the ethical fabric of our world today.
The Manhattan Declaration begins with a summary of the impact of Christianity on nations where the shadow of the cross has fallen. From the rescue of abandoned children in Rome, to the preservation of learning in the middle ages, to the opposition to slavery, to the civil rights movement of the last century, the church has, in spite of its "imperfections and shortcomings," been a blessing in this world.
Continuing this tradition of standing for righteousness, the declaration speaks to issues related to

• Life: The declaration speaks against a "culture of death [that] inevitably cheapens life in all its stages and conditions by promoting the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature or inconvenient are discardable."
• Marriage: The signatories endorse the view that marriage is a unique institution. "Marriage then, is the first institution of human society - indeed it is the institution on which all other human institutions have their foundation. In the Christian tradition we refer to marriage as "holy matrimony" to signal the fact that it is an institution ordained by God, and blessed by Christ."
  With compassionate firmness Christians must resist the various attempts to redefine, or diminish the respect for marriage.
• Religious Liberty: "religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself . . . the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the example of Christ Himself and in the very dignity of the human person created in the image of God. . . . 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. . . .

Perhaps most significant is the commitment to resist the erosion of ethical standards in our culture. Commenting on the dual-citizen-status of God's people the declaration says, ". . . we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. . . . 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. . . ." The declaration goes on to promise noncompliance to government edicts that compel actions that violate these Biblical standards.

"We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."

You can read the Manhattan Declaration in its entirety at http://www.demossnews.com/manhattandeclaration/press_kit/manhattan_declaration_signers

The leaders who put the Manhattan Declaration together didn't ask me to sign it, but I do agree with it, at least enough so that I would. I'll have more to say in days to come. The guys who signed the MD, as well as the rest of you, are welcome to comment.