I received a group email last night that referred to a document of which I was unaware: ‘The Canberra Declaration’.
A quick search gave one reason why, the document had only been released on Friday, July 23, 2010. Still, it seemed a bit odd. I like to think that I keep up with what’s going on through online means and if a significant Christian statement was being drafted and released, I wouldn’t be expecting a call to tell me it was happening and a request for my permission, but I’d like to think that the process would be public enough to know it was occuring.
Anyway, the document has a nice website and claims to “follow from the 2009 Manhattan Declaration and the 2010 Westminster Declaration.”
I had written on the Manhattan Declaration when it was released (see links below), but was not aware of the Westminster Declaration.
These documents all share the aim to be ecumenically Christian documents expressing a position on three concerns: religious freedom of expression; dilution of the historic understanding of marriage and family; and the sanctity of life.
The Manhattan Declaration and Westminster Declaration have not been without their supporters, having gained the online assent of over 450,000 and 65,000 people respectively.
The Manhattan Declaration was criticised, not so much for its content but for its claim that:

Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person.

The claim that these traditions share a common faith does not stand up to intense scrutiny. The document provides a framework in which pursuit of these ethical concerns can either be understood as outworkings of the Gospel derived from Scripture, or essential parts of the Gospel determined by appeal to Scripture and religious authority.
The Westminster Declaration seems to avoid this problem by using this statement in its preamble:

As Christians we reaffirm historic belief in God the Father (who created us and gave us the blueprint for our lives together); in God the Son Jesus Christ our Saviour (accepting his incarnation, teaching, claims, miracles, death, resurrection and return in judgment); and in God the Holy Spirit (who lives within us, guides us and gives us strength). We commit ourselves to worship, honour and obey God.
As UK citizens we affirm our Christian commitment both to exercise social responsibility in working for the common good and also to be subject to all governing authorities and obey them except when they require us to act unjustly.

Absent is the reference to specific groups, replaced by the statement of belief. The Westminster Declaration is much more concise than its US counterpart.
The Canberra Declarion, by contrast offers us:

The Preamble to the Australian Constitution contains the words, “Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God”. As Australian citizens we continue to declare that we too put our trust in Almighty God.
For centuries, to speak of Western civilisation was to speak of Christian civilisation. The two were in many ways synonymous. The values that we have cherished and sought to strengthen are in large measure founded on the Judeo-Christian belief system. The many freedoms, advantages, opportunities, values and liberties which characterise the West owe much to the growth of Christianity with its inherent belief in the dignity of the human person as created in the image of God and the code of behaviour that flows from this belief.

The Canberra Declaration mentions Christianity, but makes no specific reference to Christ or his words. The usage of the phrase “Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God” does come from the Constitution, but was deliberately chosen for its non-Christian form. It is a poor choice to reference without further qualification or explanation in what is supposedly a Christian document. The theological acumen of the framers and their un-named consultants is questionable.
Its content from that point on mirrors the more concise form of expression used by the Westminster Declaration.
Personally I’m mystified by the lack of reference to any definition of Christian belief.
It is well-meaning in its intent, but gives the impression that if a certain form of social organisation is maintained then Australia could consider itself a ‘Christian Country’. This is not just unhelpful, from an evangelical Christian perspective it is un-Christian.
This document could be signed by a deist or unitarian. I think it could be signed by a Jehovah’s Witness or Mormon. Any non-supernaturalist who simply believes the teachings of Gospels are a sound ethical framework for modern times could sign this. Given the reference to the “Judeo-Christian belief system” I wouldn’t particularly be surprised if Jewish folk supported its general contentions, though they’d certainly have problems with the notion of benefits having come to them through Christian dominance of Western Culture.
The document is styled “A Call To Christian Conscience”.
Well, it’s half right. It’s a call to conscience, but there’s nothing uniquely Christian about it that I can perceive, and, due to the imprecision of its drafting, the impression that it cultivates is one that undermines Gospel outreach.

My ‘Manhattan Declaration’ posts.
The Manhattan Declaration
The Manhattan Declaration And The Next Morning Principle
Some Final (maybe) Thoughts On The Manhattan Declaration