It’s Thanksgiving, of course. So I would like to give thanks that I was not in Laurie Goodstein’s shoes the other day when she heard about the upcoming “Manhattan Declaration” announcement — click here for details — and then got the news that she could only write 570 words about this very complex ecumenical statement.
Talk about mission impossible.
Here’s the top of that New York Times story, for those of you who missed the initial wave of coverage.
Citing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s call to civil disobedience, 145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration saying they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples.
“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,” it says.
I am still trying to wade through the various commentaries and documents linked to this 4,700-word statement. For those who are interested in the emerging world of conservative ecumenical work, there are some highly symbolic names on the first list of signatories. Of course, it is also significant who is not, at this point, in the list — including a very interesting evangelical absentee in the “W” section. There are crucial Orthodox and Catholic names missing, too.
I do not know what was cut from this report. My only complaint about this short, short story is linked to these two pivotal paragraphs when, once again, the assumption is that the primary purpose of the statement is political.
The manifesto … is an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the administration of President George W. Bush. The signers include nine Roman Catholic archbishops and the primate of the Orthodox Church in America.
They want to signal to the Obama administration and to Congress that they are still a formidable force that will not compromise on abortion, stem-cell research or gay marriage. They hope to influence current debates over health care reform, the same-sex marriage bill in Washington, D.C., and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Now all of that may well be true. However, where are the attributions for these strong statements of opinion? Cut due to lack of length? Probably. However, I still think that this report is quite solid, in view of the short length. The emphasis on religious liberty issues is, of course, a sign of things to come.
Again, I am truly thankful that I didn’t have to deal with this topic in a story of this length in a forum as crucial as the Times. Heck, I may have trouble producing a 700-word column that addresses even one or two issues linked to this complex manifesto.
Cheers.
Photo: Why Cornish Hens? That’s what my family always cooks for Thanksgiving so that each of us can baste the mini-bird in the sauce of our choice. Plus, there are no leftovers to freeze as we return to the Nativity Lent fast observed by the Orthodox. So there.
 | Posted at 7:07 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (9) |
November 26, 2009, at 9:52 am
In other words, the signers don’t really care about whether they are coerced into supporting abortion and same-sex marriage? This is just a triangulation effort, using a wedge issue as a political weapon?
November 26, 2009, at 12:50 pm
Julia,
I fail to understand your objection. Is your response tongue in cheek or have you failed to, at least, read the summary of the Declaration?
November 26, 2009, at 1:39 pm
I think Julia was speaking ironically in scorn of the writer’s effort to see everything Christians pledge to as some kind of political strategy, rather than a simple statement of core belief about things they won’t budge on.
I am one of the almost 150,000 people who have signed the declaration so far.
November 26, 2009, at 2:14 pm
Lori is spot on. I was being ironic. Not too good at it, evidently.
November 26, 2009, at 6:50 pm
It is a great statement. I just signed because I am sick and tired of seeing politicians of my Catholic Faith steamrollering the most basic Catholic-Christian moral values and, because they are elected by the people, consider themselves exempt from that morality in a democratic version of the discredited “Divine Right of Kings.”
Just as royal blood does not exempt kings from the moral law, neither does being chosen by the voters exempt democraticly elected “kings.”
November 26, 2009, at 7:13 pm
I would say the statement is a modern version of the 500-year-old one that began, “Hier stehe ich…” It doesn’t seem to be something that is going to be printed out and dumped on the Capitol steps, but rather one calling faithful Christians of all backgrounds to both recall and recommit themselves to their faith’s basic truths and teachings about life issues and marriage. Indeed, they are one issue, not two, and “marriage” has as many facets as “life issues.” It told the world what Christianity has always taught and believed. In so doing, while it is not intentionally or only this, it can be read as a rebuke to liberal Christians who have stepped away from these teachings. It also calls people to repentence as well as reform, and that call is for traditional churches as well as nontraditional ones. It helps to be reminded that the permanent things are, well, permanent. It is why we say the Creed. (I was signer 109,308.)
November 26, 2009, at 10:55 pm
Cornish game hens! I love it! Very good idea. Thanks.
November 27, 2009, at 1:07 pm
Hey, too bad these people couldn’t be thankful….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LMBDEaNhhE&NR=1
November 28, 2009, at 11:39 pm
Actually anyone in Laurie’s shoes had a lot to be thankful for. What you didn’t know - or notice - is that the declaration was embargoed until noon on Friday. Laurie got an early copy leaked to her. So did I, by the way. The DeMoss folks - which was the PR group handing release of the document - found out that she had it in hand. Incredibly, they made key signers of the document available to her a day ahead of time, thus aiding and abetting her in breaking the embargo. Most PR organizations would have told her to fly down to Washington and get the quotes in person like the rest of us had to.
Am not sure why she was limited to so little space but…who cares - she beat the rest of us by 12 hours. When I found out this duplicity on the part of the DeMoss folks, I demanded an explanation. I got all sorts of excuses from them but they did admit to giving Laurie a leg up. I don’t fault her for getting ahold of the document; I do blame DeMoss for making such an exception. So the New York Times got a pass on this one.