Editor’s Note: As a matter of clarification, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Web site, the church made no cash contributions to the ProtectMarriage.com coalition, the group that fought to repeal Proposition 8 in California. It did, however, contribute to the coalition in-kind donations totaling about $190,000. The CNN.com article originally cited did not specify the nature of the donations.

By Tina Korbe

Church and state might be separated, but they’re hardly divorced: Just ask Mitt Romney. In last year’s Republican presidential primaries, the Mormon didn’t win a single Southern state.

Of course, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has had its share of political influence, as well: According to CNN.com, the church gave at least $190,000 to the fight to repeal same-sex marriage in California – a fight that proved successful.

Mainline Christians are no strangers to the public sphere, either.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has long lobbied for health care reform, said Catholic campus minister Jay Carney. So, too, has it staunchly opposed abortion.

In the 1970s, fundamentalist Baptist preacher Jerry Falwell led what was arguably the most important social conservative group of the time – the so-called “Moral Majority.” And, during the George W. Bush administration, evangelicals at least occasionally had the president’s ear.

But, 12 days ago, when a group of about 150 Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical leaders released a 4,700-word document to call for a renewed commitment to “the sanctity of life, traditional marriage and religious liberty,” they didn’t address it to President Obama.

No, the Manhattan Declaration issued its clarion call to Christians.

The document urges Christians of all denominations “to adhere to their convictions,” according to Manhattandeclaration.org.

Courtesy Photo

Not that the Declaration doesn’t have a political component at all: It also “informs civil authorities that the signers will not – under any circumstance – abandon their Christian consciences,” according to the Web site.

Still, the document aims to speak to those individual consciences every bit as much as it aims to speak to civil authorities – if not more so.

As UA associate professor of sociology Steven Worden put it, the document’s authors “are attempting to shape culture” – as opposed to just policy.

“My sense of it is that this is an attempt to create culture instead of to just respond negatively to it or consume it,” said Worden, who researches religious social movements.

And Christians have responded to the attempt: The Declaration has already collected about a quarter of a million signatures.

One of those signatures belongs to local Baptist preacher Mike Lumpkin.

Lumpkin, who has a master’s degree in divinity from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, is the senior pastor of University Baptist Church in Fayetteville.

As a Baptist, he doesn’t necessarily laud Orthodox-Catholic-Evangelical coalitions, but he does support the intent of the Declaration.

“This is not a statement about orthodoxy, about where Evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox find common ground fundamentally,” Lumpkin said. “It’s a statement by citizens, who may or may not share beliefs, but who share concerns.”

If it had been about doctrine, Lumpkin said, he wouldn’t have signed it.

“This has to do with civil society, social areas, sanctity of human life, marriage between husband and wife,” he said.

Carney, who, like Lumpkin, has a master’s of divinity – but from Duke, agrees with Lumpkin about the meaning of the multi-denominational nature of the document.

“This is another example of social-political ecumenism,” Carney said. “People who don’t have a lot in common in terms of their ecclesiology or theology still have a lot in common on social issues.”

That commonality could prove to galvanize Christians to political action, as it has in the past. If and when it does, though, they might find that the game has changed.

As the Manhattan Declaration itself points out, “The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development” – a clear contrast to the previous administration, which campaigned on a promise to ban partial-birth abortion. So, too, have there been efforts to eliminate from legislation “conscience clauses” that allow pro-life institutions, like religiously affiliated hospitals and clinics, to refuse to refer for or perform abortions.

But, of course, the church does not believe in divorce – from the state.

“The separation of church and state doesn’t mean religion shouldn’t influence politics,” Lumpkin said. “It means the government should not dictate how a church worships.”

Worden has a similar definition: “(The church-state separation) should be an uneasy relationship such that the church can criticize the state and the state isn’t too closely aligned with religious institutions.”

Ultimately, the intent of the Declaration is not to criticize nor to spark a political movement. It is, as Lumpkin said, to recenter Christian voters on three, essential, watershed issues – issues that, from a Christian perspective, might even need to overshadow the economy and the war.

Sanctity of life. Dignity of marriage. Religious liberty.