Stackhouse Weighs In


Here’s a view of Manhattan from north of the border on a Declaration that seems “strangely useless”:

Given the provenance of the document being the American Religious Right, therefore, it will surprise precisely no one that the document declares that such people are (still) prolife, (still) pro-traditional marriage, and (still) desirous that their way of seeing things is put into American law. It’s not evident to me that anyone needed a big declaration that such people still feel this way.

The document gives no clear direction about what anyone is supposed to do once they have read it–besides sign it, I suppose. Is anyone now going to campaign for prolife positions any differently than he or she did before? Is anyone going to change his or her mind about homosexual marriage? Is anyone going to seek new legislation or, if the law swings against conservative Christians, engage in civil disobedience of some unspecified sort? Who knows?

Finally, the document seems philosophically and politically incoherent. It argues for religious liberty for Christians to dissent from views they don’t like (and this point, alas, needs increasing emphasis in America as well as here in Canada). But it also argues that these particular Christian views of abortion, euthanasia, marriage, and more should be enshrined in American law. It says nothing about the liberty of those who would dissent from those views except to assert that because these Christian views are right, they should be the law of the land. What, then, happened to religious liberty on these important matters? The document doesn’t say.

This entry was posted in Constantinianism, Culture War, Transformationism, Two-kingdoms. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Stackhouse Weighs In

  1. John Yeazel says:

    Some great comments by the different thinking Stackhouse. Different in the respect that he is challenging how the majority of conservative Christians think. Sounds similar to what Hart has been saying for the past 10 or so years.

  2. GAS says:

    Reading only this small section of his blog post made me wonder if this man was confused. Then I read the post in its entirety and at least he qualified what was said above.

    Indeed, it requires fundamental and detailed consideration of a variety of related subjects, including the nature and intentions of divine providence over nations, what God expects of human beings individually and corporately short of the return of Christ, what is politically feasible in a given situation, and more.

    There, that’s better!

  3. John Yeazel says:


    Confusion can sometimes be a good thing when it shakes us out of our views of reality which may be wrongheaded. Paul thought he had a very well thought out and clear view of reality until he was knocked off of his high horse one day by Someone who knew reality better than he did. We always have to face the fact that we may be carrying some baggage in our minds that needs to be adjusted from time to time by the Almighty and those who know reality better then ourselves. That is why our search for a more clear reality is communal rather than an individual thing. Do you dig it? That little phrase and “that may be a fig newton of your imagination” are my favorite Sproulisms.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s