The following was taken from the blog of Randy Alcorn of Eternal Perspective Ministries. After reading his thoughts, I proceeded to thoroughly read The Manhattan Declaration and signed my support of its stance on Life, Marriage, and Religious Liberty. I encourage all fellow Christians, as well as my non-Christian readers, to take a look and give it some thought.
P.S. — I decided to show here Randy’s post in its entirety because I couldn’t agree with him more.)
The Manhattan Declaration, Christians, and Politics
In light of the Fourth of July celebration of the founding of our country, I wanted to again bring attention to The Manhattan Declaration and encourage you to check out their website, manhattandeclaration.org. As I wrote in the blog I posted last year about the Declaration, I do not participate in many things like this, but both the content and the tone of this statement is something I wish to affirm. It expresses truth, but I believe it does so with grace. I especially appreciate the section of the Declaration that affirms the sanctity of human life, at any age.
I’m aware there are many Christian leaders—who I deeply respect—who have declined signing the Declaration, several of them among my Reformed brothers. However, there are many others who I respect who have chosen to sign, such as Tim Keller, Ravi Zacharias, Dr. Wayne Grudem, and Dr. Al Mohler, who gives this explanation:
“I signed The Manhattan Declaration because it is a limited statement of Christian conviction on these three crucial issues, and not a wide-ranging theological document that subverts confessional integrity. I cannot and do not sign documents such as Evangelicals and Catholics Together that attempt to establish common ground on vast theological terrain. I could not sign a statement that purports, for example, to bridge the divide between Roman Catholics and evangelicals on the doctrine of justification. The Manhattan Declaration is not a manifesto for united action. It is a statement of urgent concern and common conscience on these three issues—the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and the defense of religious liberty.”
Some believers might wonder how involved they should be in trying to influence moral change in our culture, or how much attention Christians should give to politics. I’ve attempted to answer that question in the video below.
How much attention should Christians give to politics? from Randy Alcorn on Vimeo.
www.epm.org/blog
www.facebook.com/randyalcorn
www.twitter.com/randyalcorn
I like books, gadgets, spicy food, and art. I dislike shopping, hot weather, and the laws of entropy. Although I am a self-proclaimed computer nerd, I still have a love for handbags and makeup... and I am always teetering on high heels. To learn more about me, visit the 
I’ve been following your blog on a regular basis, after carefully reading the Manhattan Declaration you signed, I will no longer do so.
@Gabs — Thanks for your honesty. I have made more than enough references on this blog that I am Christian, and what is stated on the Manhattan Declaration are my beliefs as a Christian. I am glad that I at least gave you something to think about, even if it was only for the duration of the time that you read the Manhattan Declaration.
I hadn’t heard of this. I may not agree with all of it, but you’re right, it’s thought provoking. Thanks for posting.
Thank you for posting. The Manhattan Declaration is an excellent document for bringing together people from many different Christian faiths. Of course as an Evangelical and a Catholic, I feel that Mr. Mohler is wrong about the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document. Why shouldn’t we sign documents that "establish common ground on vast theological terrain?" Where there is commonality, there should be unity, whether it’s over the doctrine of justification or the sanctity of human life.
Wow. So I’ve read this, in response to your link, and yes, I knew you were a Christian. But I greatly disagree with your stance on gay marriage, and can’t for the life of me understood how you would sign and support a document that is basically calling being gay a ‘social pathology’ and a ‘fashionable ideology?’ You concur with this?
Not to mention the continual comparison between homosexuality and incest and polygamy.
If you believe this, and are proud of it, you should discuss this on your blog. And yes, you will lose readers. But if you’re proud of this, like you say you are, then tell the world. Because your readers deserve to know who you are before they continue to keep reading or not. Because what you believe defines you, and who you are.
Sad. It’s just sad.
@Kate — I am proud of it, and I just announced it by announcing it here! I don’t particularly like to blog in-depth about political issues so I choose not to often, but I have done so sporadically and I certainly don’t hide it. I honestly don’t think my readers "deserve" to know who I am….there are plenty of bloggers, authors, etc whose stuff I read, watch, listen and enjoy without my knowing much about them. Even if I severely disagree with their ideals and stance on certain issues, I still enjoy reading their stuff because it challenges me to think.
Also, I think you took "social pathology" out of context, because in the MD I could only find:
Where they indicate examples of social pathology to be high out-of-wedlock birth rates and divorce.
I know I’ve lost some readers by choosing to post this, but this doesn’t bother me. In fact, it makes me proud that I stood up for my convictions. The funny thing is, from looking at my stats, my readership INCREASED a bit since posting this entry and even got a tweet from someone who told me he became a new reader after reading this.