Kevin s., Wolverine, HVAC, in deference to Stephen Colbert, you are on notice.>

DEFINITELY a verse “officers of the Court” should read and heed.>

Matt, Anticipate a diversion to the subject of abortion. Conservative Christians tend to deflect to that subject when cornered, the presumption being that all liberals are baby killers. Good verse. I’ve added it to my “bush verses” list.>

Matt, so true. Actually, I think we’ve been berrated and annoyed by a few more than that but who’s counting. They come from the recalcitrant 20-30% crowd. The same folks who who called me “crazy, irrational” etc., etc., etc. for projecting a 70% vote going towards the Dems in 2008. I made this prediction nearly two months ago as I recall. Great verse, but can they really be avoided?>

Anticipate a diversion to the subject of abortion. Conservative Christians tend to deflect to that subject when cornered, the presumption being that all liberals are baby killers. As a Christian, I think it would be better to talk about charity and hospitality, and how Matt and Neuro Nurse reflect neither. So much for trying to get beyond the us versus them mentality….>

In case you missed it, the verse itself gives the “us and them” mentality. At some point charity and hospitality are returned void in the face of hostility such as supplied by those mentioned. Certainly this is reflected similarly in Paul’s sentiments. What will you do with these kinds of verses? Shall we also condemn Jesus for accusing Pharisees of making converts that are “twice the sons of hell” that they were? If only he had been more hospitable and charitable. And Paul’s suggestion that he wished Judaizers would “cut themselves off”? My god, I don’t think you grasp the seriousness and emotion of what he is saying. He’s wishing they would slip with their circumcision knives and cut their own penises off. He may have even used a common swear word to that period; we can’t be sure, it’s ambiguous. Don’t gloss over. It’s more nuanced, Timbo.>

Matt, I understand the necessity of the us versus them mentality, and, unlike Wallis and McLaren, I have never claimed to be beyond the use of such a distinction when necessary. To claim, however, that those who register their disagreement with Sojourners on certain issues are “on notice” is a far cry from the charity and hospitality that, oh, who was it?…Jesus said we should welcome the stranger with. Where is the dialogue Wallis and his friends call for? It doesn’t seem to be here.>

Timbo, Th dialogue is alive and well–you simply haven’t joined it yet. Now that we know you are so concerned about “charity and hospitality,” we’ll be watching for it in your future responses to McLaren, Wallis, and other bloggers who dare to place Jesus at the center of their world view.>

Timbo, Point taken. Now please point to where I suggested that mere “disagreement with Sojourner’s on certain issues” was my beef. Not my words but yours. Those that I mentioned, to my knowledge, have NEVER engaged in a charitable or hospitable conversation but instead engage in polemics, derogation, hostility and dissention. In my view, these are all things addressed by the scripture passage in question. And, by the way… “…unlike Wallis and McLaren, I have never claimed to be beyond the use of such a distinction when necessary.” Please elaborate. From the context I suspect that you are suggesting Wallis and McLaren fail to use an “us vs. them mentality,” when appropriate. If that is the case you are not very observant. Especially since the posters I mentioned seem to take Wallis and McLaren to the woodshed whenever they do exercise such distinctions (which are usually made by Wallis/McLaren surrounding issues of justice/injustice).>

One more thing… Those engaged in the behavior I find questionable are a far cry from strangers. They are religious insiders, bent on conserving their influence, power, and hegemonic, self-serving interests. In other words, precisely the people Jesus considered “whitewashed tombs.”>

Now that we know you are so concerned about “charity and hospitality,” we’ll be watching for it in your future responses to McLaren, Wallis, and other bloggers who dare to place Jesus at the center of their world view. Tenoch, can you clarify this? You may not mean to say this, but when you use phrases like “dare to place Jesus at the center of their world view,” it implies that those of us who disagree with Wallis and McLaren do not place Jesus at the center of our worldviews (this is something I always try to do, though I often fall short). Those that I mentioned, to my knowledge, have NEVER engaged in a charitable or hospitable conversation but instead engage in polemics, derogation, hostility and dissention. I have seen Kevin, Wolverine, and HAC make valid points which were summarily dismissed. As for the “us versus them” mentality, Wallis has claimed this for himself when he says that he is “beyond left and right.” And McLaren’s book, A Generous Orthodoxy, claims to eschew the “us versus them” mentality, only McLaren in other places seems to forget that this is a problem.>

Timbo, You are not being very intellectually rigorous in your analysis. I have seen Kevin, Wolverine, and HAC make valid points which were summarily dismissed. Ends are not the same as means, now are they? When the ends and means agree in their arguments will be when we will have productive dialogue. I, personally, have trouble sifting through the hate and condescension to find any supposed kernal of legitimate argument. As for the “us versus them” mentality, Wallis has claimed this for himself when he says that he is “beyond left and right.” And McLaren’s book, A Generous Orthodoxy, claims to eschew the “us versus them” mentality, only McLaren in other places seems to forget that this is a problem. Yes, my point was exactly this. Wallis uses it regularly in the same tradition of the prophets. You can’t be prophetic without calling things as they are and he would readily admit this, I assure you (I’m knee deep in writing a paper on him as we speak). McLaren eschews an us vs. them mentality when the us mentality is non-permeable. In other words, when the defined boundaries of the in-group are impermeable, he objects to this. His approach is a well defined center with semi-permeable boundaries (the “generous” in Generous Orthodoxy as I read it). You do this by a) focusing on “practices” vs. “beliefs” and b) by first defining yourself by what you are for rather than those you are against. There is room for a “them” mentality if you refuse those that practice injustice (whose boundaries are impermeable and have an appetite for dominance and hegemony). I assure you that McLaren also knows the prophetic tradition well.>

I, personally, have trouble sifting through the hate and condescension to find any supposed kernal of legitimate argument. I have the same trouble, although I suppose we will have to disagree as to where the majority of hate and condescension resides. What I’ve seen on this blog, especially in the comments, is that conservatives despise Jesus and hate gays until we can prove otherwise. I also disagree that Wallis and McLaren qualify as prophetic, although I have seen them offer some good analysis on occasion. Yet I have also seen McLaren rely on caricatures of “them” and define himself against “them” without offering much that is in itself remarkable. The dialectic he uses is more ungenerous than generous, in my humble opinion.>

I don’t think I’ve seen much hate and condescention from any side on this channel. Most of the exchanges are civil and respectful.>

“Kevin s., Wolverine, HVAC, in deference to Stephen Colbert, you are on notice.” I have often been rebuked for my smooth talk and flattery on this blog.>

Timbo, “I think it would be better to talk about charity and hospitality, and how Matt and Neuro Nurse reflect neither” FYI, I spent a year volunteering as a public health nurse in Ethiopia. I’m working on a masters in public health in answer to God’s call for me to work in Africa. Neuro nurse is not just my moniker, it’s my vocation. Peace.>

Commendable, but you did write that you expect a diversion to abortion, and for the conservatives on this board to call you a “baby killer”. All of this happens when we are “cornered”… Cornered like animals, yes? Unthinking animals? That’s how you describe those who disagree with you? I think that was more what Timbo was getting at.>

kevin s. Cornered like animals, yes? Unthinking animals? That’s how you describe those who disagree with you? Oh, come on! Webster s: corner: a difficult or embarrassing situation, a position from which escape or retreat is difficult or impossible . Using the word cornered is in no way equating a person to an unthinking animal. Animals don t suffer embarrassment, so the definition must refer to humans. That s pretty low, kevin! I’m speaking from experience. When conservatives are faced with questions about the war, torture, tax cuts for the rich, cutting social programs (id est, charity), many of them, including you on other threads, will counter with the association between liberalism and abortion that s a deflection and avoidance of the subject of the conversation. There really isn’t any logic to making the leap from my saying that conservatives often try to derail liberal s conversation about charity and justice by bringing abortion into the conversation to accusing me of being devoid of charity and hospitality. Off the topic, it is possible to be liberal and pro-life, and many of us are, but we cannot ignore the blatant injustices being committed by our government and big business in this country. Obviously, from my stated educational and career goals, I have a set of values that place God at the center of my life. My only reason for bringing it into the conversation was to demonstrate the lack of logic in Timbo s response to my post.>

Neuro Nurse, I was referring specifically to your statement that “Conservative Christians tend to deflect to that subject [abortion] when cornered,” which broad brushes Conservative Christians in a very uncharitable and unhospitable manner. The fact that I mentioned Matt should have indicated that I was referring to the statements you made in response to his comment about Kevin, et. al., not the charitable and hospitable things you do outside of the blogosphere, of which I could not possibly be aware.>

Timbo, I speak from experience and stand by that statement. ‘Tend to’ is not an absolute like ‘always.’>

Timbo, I’ve also posted several times on this blog that I’m married to a conservative Christian (the daughter of a Baptist pastor whose church I attend), so it doesn’t follow that I “broad brushe[] Conservative Christians in a very uncharitable and unhospitable manner.” Give me a break!>

Even the “tend to” excuse is not very charitable, for you assume that your experience is sufficient to justify making the irrational leap from the fact that some conservative Christians you know have deflected to abortion to telling Matt to anticipate similar deflection from the conservatives who are commenting here. This is neither charitable nor hospitable. As much as I would love to continue this discussion, I’m off to call liberals babykillers.>