Gotta hand it to Sojourners, they never let a trick go by. Fire destroys the facilites of a charity they support, they start out the announcement by tweaking conservatives. Again.

Look, Claibourne's political writing may be diametrically opposed to mine, but as far as I can tell most of his charitable work is not something I'd be particularly opposed to.

Ask nicely and I might even pitch in. Or I might help out anyways, just to mess with your minds.

Wolverine

Posted by: wolverine | June 21, 2007 6:03 PM

Canucklehead,

C'mon, think this through, who else could they be talking about? Other Sojo supporters?

Wolverine

Posted by: | June 21, 2007 8:03 PM

I don't think I'll send any money or devote any of my time to helping these poor people because Sojourner's has done such a good job of making sure that the government will take care of them in their time of need, and that there really isn't a relevant role for the church other than manipulating the political mechanism towards social justice, right?
(Read Davy Crockett's "Not Yours To Give")

And besides, they probably all had insurance, so they'll probably get paid and be better off than they were to begin with, right?
(Read Bastiat's "Broken Window")

Honestly, I applaud Sojourners for getting behind these people and helping them. It demonstrates how effective the church can be when it stays focussed on the mission it was given and the ethical mandate it has accepted.

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | June 21, 2007 9:51 PM

Rick Nowlin wrote:

Wolverine -- I also don't see what you're talking about. That speaks to your hypersensitivity and, worse, also your idolatry.

Okay, hypersensitivity I can understand. If you squint at the snark at just the right angle, it looks like maybe Jim is talking about evangelicals in general, not conservative evangelicals.

But idolatry? Only if one accepts the broad definition of idolatry as "anything I disagree with". Back in the day that was a Bob Jones specialty. But don't let me stop you from carrying on the judgmental traditions of a bona fide Christian reactionary.

Maybe I'm wrong. Even if I'm right I've been hit with worse insults, but whoever the target, starting a plea for help by implying that some evangelicals are self-centered twits just doesn't seem a good way to start things off. But that's just my opinion.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 21, 2007 11:16 PM

For people to post on here with trivial, snide, or insignificant comments is absolutely despicable. A group of people who have dedicated their lives to Jesus message of helping those in need have lost everything. Now is the time to show some compassion to our Christian brothers and sisters. If you have cutting remarks to make, please go elsewhere.

Posted by: Bert | June 21, 2007 11:38 PM

If Wallis didn't mean the first couple of sentences as a shot at Christians/Evangelicals, then what did he mean? I think it is a subtle insult, but it's an insult all the same.

Posted by: jesse | June 22, 2007 1:03 AM

I don't know that the opening comment was aimed at conservatives, but it was aimed at someone. Why aim at all? Why not begin by talking up all the accomplishments of the organization? Also, it would be reasonable to ask what was not covered by insurance. That is not a glib question at all. Do they need money, or simply prayer?

Posted by: kevin s. | June 22, 2007 2:29 AM

If Wallis didn't mean the first couple of sentences as a shot at Christians/Evangelicals, then what did he mean? I think it is a subtle insult, but it's an insult all the same.

Exactly the kind of comment and attitude I chided Wolverine for. I mean, c'mon -- does EVERYTHING have to be focused on supporting or denigrating one ideology or another? That's why I was complaining about.

Also, it would be reasonable to ask what was not covered by insurance. That is not a glib question at all. Do they need money, or simply prayer?

Perhaps those questions will eventually be answered. Stay tuned.

Posted by: | June 22, 2007 6:37 AM

letjusticerolldown,

I appreciated your thoughtful post. If I had it to do over again I might have let the whole thing slide as well.

Rick,

As a general rule I try to avoid making assumptions about the spiritual state of the folks I debate here. I might criticize your reasoning and sometimes even your theology, but in terms of how your actual spritual walk goes, all I really know is what you post here and most of the time that's not even enough to make an educated guess about what your prayer life is like or how in tune you are with the Holy Spirit. I mean, your politics may be all out of whack (IMHO) but politics isn't everything.

Anyway, I saw what I thought was a subtle jab at conservatives, and commented on it. Maybe I'm right, and maybe I'm wrong. I also said I might send them money anyway (whether I will or not I'm not going to say here) which should hint that I wasn't really all that broken up over it.

Idolatry? I suppose it's conceivable. But why stop there? Why not throw in Grand Theft Auto and Sarbanes-Oxley while you're at it? You have about as much proof.

I've already spent about half again as much time on this as it's worth. You have the last word. Knock yourself out.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 22, 2007 9:32 AM

I am bothered and deeply disturbed by the way my evangelical brothers and sisters are speaking about immigration reform. I noted the blurb on the sojourners email that conervative evangelicals are generally against humane comprehensive immigration reform. considering the amount of scripture that speaks about doing justice to the stranger and alien and remembering that we are also strangers and aliens, i don't get that.

FT

Posted by: FT | June 22, 2007 10:51 AM

How do I contribute by check?

Posted by: Jim Dette | June 22, 2007 11:21 AM

The following is from the The Simple Way's website. It should answer the earlier question about donating by check:

Donate:

We have established an emergency relief fund, not just for the simple way, but for those in the neighborhood who lost their homes. You can contribute by either sending checks to the simple way at PO Box 14751 Philadelphia, PA 19134 or through the links below. (At this point we are not receiving donations of any other relief supplies but we'll need those things later, so stay posted by coming back here.)

Rebuilding Fund

For the simple way community, we are setting up a fund that helps community members recover their losses and begin to decide what to do next. This will also support the projects of the simple way community like the community gardens, Cottage Printworks, Yes! And..., and other things in and around Potter Street. To donate to the Rebuilding Fund, please put "TSW-Rebuilding Fund" in the memo of your check or in the box on the on-line form.

Kensington Families Fund

For the families on Potter Street, H Street, and Westmoreland whose lives have been disrupted by this fire, a fund to support these families has been established. This money will go directly to families in our neighborhood. To donate to the Kensington Families Fund, please put "TSW-Kensington Families Fund" in the memo of your check or in the box on the on-line form.

Posted by: js | June 22, 2007 11:42 AM

Shane and The Simple Way--Your mission, books, websites, etc. meet my spiritual needs in a very practical, motivational way. I have send my donation and will be staying tuned to find other ways my community can help. Peace, HR

Posted by: Heather | June 22, 2007 12:44 PM

Anyway, I saw what I thought was a subtle jab at conservatives, and commented on it.

And that's precisely what I called you on, Wolverine, because it was frankly uncalled for. Now, I may have sounded harsh in the way I reacted, but when you're focused on ideology (and most hard-core conservatives are, in my experience), every little thing can be taken as a slight and that does absolutely nothing to increase understanding. They have to understand that they are not the center of the world and that non-conservatives, not even critics such as me, are out to get them. I used to say the same thing to fellow African-Americans, many of whom took offense so easily I actually didn't want to be bothered with them.

Posted by: | June 22, 2007 1:12 PM

"Shane Claiborne and The Simple Way community are a good example of the old adage, "Be careful what you pray for." Evangelicals like to pray that Christian young people will learn to love Jesus and follow in his steps."

I read the headline of this article and my heart sank. Learning that the Simple Way’s building had burned is painful. When I jumped to read more and began to read the comments there came a rush of negative emotions.

First an honest question - why do those of you so oppositional to the Sojo position and message spend so very much time and energy on this site? The comment quoted above, I guess could be taken as a stab if you were looking for one.

I am about ¾ through Shane’s book. It is a challenge for anyone who can read it with an open heart. It is a story about the possibilities and realities of living “The Simple Way.” I am a progressive or liberal Christian, however you would classify me is fine. My feeling is that regardless of where along the Christian spectrum you fall, this book will challenge you. What would Jesus do? is a question that should wrench open our hearts, expand our minds and call us to question all of our actions. If you find that all the questions are settled in your mind – check your pulse.

Peace

Posted by: EPStew | June 22, 2007 1:32 PM

I believe that the greatest gift that a parent could receive, is for their children to take their service to God to a new level, above and beyond all that we could have ever hoped for. The Simple Way is putting itself completely in the hands of God, AND its fellow Christians---a scary prospect for the security loving generation that came before. THAT is how I read Jim Wallis' comment at the beginning of his article. We have become so dependent on Mammon in this culture, and that is not "The Way." I applaud Shane and his community, and I pray that they will be overjoyed with overflowing contributions from their Christian brethren.

Posted by: Kristi | June 22, 2007 2:50 PM

I lived in West Phillie while I was in Seminary, from 1969 to 1973. From 1971-1973 I lived in an apartment on Spring Garden Street in W. Phillie. I know fires in W. Phillie, including the one that took out a sect living there, MOVE I think they were called. The e-mails you've received so far, some of them at least, are from folks who know not what they are saying. I do. If you respond to this in a timely manner about what happened, I'd be pleased to respond, but I'm strapped for funds right now, so it will have to be in a few months or so. Know what I mean?

Posted by: Edward Schreiber | June 22, 2007 6:11 PM

anybody who actually knows anything about the simple way would realize they likely don't have insurance, that they rely on other Christians for support (huh, kinda like the early church)

personally I am a huge fan of Shane Claiborne and Sojo, but I'm pretty annoyed that sojo spent an entire newsletter calling people to help out. Shane is a Christian superstar, I doubt they'll have any trouble raising the money (the dude gets checks for $10,000 and dumps them on wall street for crying out loud) it's like saying "Chris Tomlin's house burned down, he didn't have insurance, can anybody help?" DUH!!

I find it a bit hypocritical for an organization that's supposed to call attention to the "voiceless" to call so much attention to one of the biggest voices of the social justice movement. I doubt it's what Shane would want.

Posted by: Miccy | June 23, 2007 1:00 PM

"Good job of "trolling", Wolverine! You took a rather inocuous statement and tried to turn it into an insult aimed at the right and completely distracted the discussion to this imaginery slight."

The definition of trolling is not simply making a statement with which you disagree.

Posted by: kevin s. | June 24, 2007 1:14 AM

Earlier posts notwithstanding, it was and remains my sincere hope that Simple Way will recover from this setback.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 24, 2007 1:51 AM

Actually, I'm not convinced that The Simple Way is socialist, at least not doctrinaire. From what I've read of their approach, their main thing is taking over abandoned property and restoring it to a useful condition. There's nothing particularly anti-market in this (if you abandon something it's not yours any more) and my only question is why, after describing the bureaucratic runaround involved Claiborne and co. haven't done a rethink of the downside to activist government.

Maybe there's more info out there, but if the only evidence out there that someone is a socialist is he has a Che Guevera poster, odds are he isn't a serious socialist.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 24, 2007 3:12 PM

Wolverine

Well I didn’t see any Che Guevera posters on their site however, below are a few things that raised red flags (no pun intended) for me.

Projects -- The community may find projects to do as a Body and family, which all persons commit themselves to (in different capacities) [sounds a bit like from each according to his ability; to each according to his need], and individuals initiate personal projects with the community involvement in mind

Weapons -- No implements of death allowed, regardless of race, creed, religion, or perceived level of power or authority (including police officers).

House meetings -- Mandatory, once a week..."points" meetings designed to connect with information, dates, ideas, struggles.

Prayer -- Sometimes scheduled, sometimes not... highly suggested, not mandatory even when scheduled.

Family Dinners -- Mandatory, bi-weekly... scheduled dinner time for the family to check-in with one another and be together. Community members often share meals together outside this scheduled time.

Sabbath -- Time of rest and/or reflection and/or playing... done sporadically during the week as individuals and as a family. One day is also set aside as a Sabbath, typically Sunday. The community rests (as well as routine activities).

There is more but the above gives you the basic flavor. Then add to the above the fact that they are so closely affiliated with Sojourners and it comes up Socialism to me. I am not suggesting that their projects do not benefit some folks it is their methods I question. Like Sojourners they purport to be a religious based organization. However, Sojourners is without doubt socialistic in its ideology.

This from Wallis’s book, “And since when did promoting and pursuing a progressive social agenda with a concern for economic security, health care, and educational opportunity mean you had to put faith in God aside?” and this, “God's Politics offers a clarion call to make both our religious communities and our government more accountable to key values of the prophetic religious tradition - that is, make them pro-justice, pro-peace, pro-environment, pro-equality, pro-consistent ethic of life (beyond single issue voting), and pro-family (without making scapegoats of single mothers or gays and lesbians). These are the values of love and justice…”

And from Wallis’ column in the September-October 2006 Sojourners Magazine: “The life of the Sojourners community has changed in many ways over the decades, but it has always been defined by the mission of articulating a biblical vision of social justice—writing, speaking, and mobilizing; challenging the church, the media, and the government with a progressive Christian message.”

They attempt to graft a socialistic vine on to Christianity as a means to their end; Social Justice indeed. I am sorry but the above does not sound like the religious traditions I was raised with.

I have no problem with folks doing good for their fellow man. While Good works are often an outward manifestation of the born again Christian it does not follow that all good works are derived from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost; even Mussolini made the trains run on time.

Let me say also that I have no problem with folks of Wallis’ ideological bent raising their voice in the political arena, which is their Constitutional right. Their problem is that their Progressive message doesn’t sell well in the heartland so they do so under the guise of Christianity which makes them a fraud and deceivers; I have a major problem with that.

NOTE To All: I apologize for the double post last time. The first time I clicked it did not appear to take so I clicked it again. Sorry.

Posted by: John 1:1 | June 24, 2007 6:49 PM

All of this "socialist" talk made me wonder.. do those against this Simple Way group as being socialists masquerading as a religious group feel the same way about the Franciscians? Carmelites? Benedictines?(Insert the name of your favorite religious order here) Would you have been this way about the Beguines?

Is St Benedict's Rule now a Socialist document?

Posted by: Gale | June 24, 2007 8:16 PM

Rick,

To be fair, to the extent that Claiborne has written on politics he has focused more on pacifism than on economic policy. He is a sharp critic of materialism as well, but what he's written on that score is more about personal decision-making than policy.

Anyway, his community has some material up about the hassle involved in getting title to abandoned property, which you can look at here:

http://www.thesimpleway.org/housing/myths/index.html

I'm sure there were purposes behind a lot of these rules, but the local policymakers and petty officials appear (to me at least) to be more invested in the process than they are in improving conditions in their city, all of which illustrates the point of public choice: government is full of jerks too.

As for John 1:1 and his argument that Simple Way is socialist: umm, no. Granted the rules are a bit more confining than a lot of us would be comfortable with, but as long as it's all voluntary -- folks join because they want to and leave if they get fed up with it -- there's nothing major to object to and quite possibly a lot to admire.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 24, 2007 9:00 PM

canucklehead

“And are we to assume that whatever religious traditions you were raised with should be viewed as the definitive standard of orthodoxy? Just imagine if we all insisted on such...”

As an Evangelical Christian, yes: I do and I have.

Am I to assume that you believe that all religions are equally valid?

Posted by: John 1:1 | June 24, 2007 10:03 PM

Rick, individualism is very much entwined with Christianity. Our Lord Jesus is a ‘Personal’ Savior, the RCC and others notwithstanding. The Israelites of the OT and ancient Israel were very much socialistic. The Laws given Moses regarding ceremonial and societal living were designed for that time and that place. At the time of Christ you had the ruling elite and everyone conformed to their order. Jesus didn’t say “Woe unto the Romans” He said “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” They were the Socialists of His day and it is they He was rebelling against.

Sorry, but your premise is just plain false, in numerous ways.

For openers, Jesus is not a "personal savior" in the way we think of that; rather, while He does save personally He does so into His "body," the church universal. As such, we who belong to the Church by definition belong; there are far too many Scripture references, especially in Paul's letters, to suggest otherwise. The early Christians, because of persecution, understood that in ways we don't today. Besides, God saves us through Christ to bring about a whole new order, to show the world how He wants things to go. This group, while you may have problems with its "ideology," is trying to do that.

The Pharisees were hardly socialists; in fact, it was a lay group that had a lot of religious "authority" in that day, and they exercised it to prop up themselves -- about as far away from socialism as you can get. They actually were analagous to today's "religious right," which brooked no dissent and prided themselves on religious ritual without the proper relationship with God. That is why Jesus consistently jumped down their collective throat.

Sojourners’ on the other hand is a Socialist organization masquerading as a Christian entity. Everything they say and do is geared toward a Socialist society. Progressive Christianity is an oxymoron. Social Justice is a political movement.

Then what do you say about the Civil Rights Movement, which was either ignored or denounced by most "evangelical Christians" of that day but which Sojourners would have supported? You're going to tell me that Martin Luther King Jr. was operating either in the flesh or through Satan? If so, and you seem be lean that way, you've completely forfeited your argument out of pure silliness. Billy Graham, perhaps because of his Southern background, was King's sole evangelical ally, and yet he was eventally shown to be right. (In fact, black churches had a large role in Graham's last crusade in my city in 1993.)

Besides, what would you consider appropriate politcial/social action? Simply "preaching the Gospel" won't cut it -- it has to be put forward in deeds, otherwise no one will take it seriously. To call folks like Jim Wallis who do prophetic ministry "socialists" makes it sound as if it is a threat to the authority you crave. But I reject your contention as close to blasphemy.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 24, 2007 11:16 PM

Funny that a group of socialists(liberals) would ask that people personally donate their own money to help someone. I thought that was the govts. job. Just food for thought.

Posted by: Doug | June 25, 2007 12:02 PM

Rick

>>> Sorry, but your premise is just plain false, in numerous ways.

Au contraire, sir. It may be your opinion that I am wrong but that does not make the premise false.

>>>For openers, Jesus is not a "personal savior" in the way we think of that; rather, while He does save personally He does so into His "body," the church universal.

Christ does save “into” His body but he does not save by the body; the body being the catholic (universal, not RCC) Church.

>>> As such, we who belong to the Church by definition belong; there are far too many Scripture references, especially in Paul's letters, to suggest otherwise. The early Christians, because of persecution, understood that in ways we don't today

What you say is true however; there are a couple of things to keep in mind. Yes, early Christians were persecuted and banded together for their own protection as well as Spiritual well being. We do not have that type of persecution in America today so the banding together is of a Spiritual nature, not one of self-preservation. Also, Paul preached against taking each other to the ‘Authorities’ in matters of Law, which was to be done internally, within the body.

>>> The Pharisees were hardly socialists; in fact, it was a lay group that had a lot of religious "authority" in that day, and they exercised it to prop up themselves -- about as far away from socialism as you can get. They actually were analagous to today's "religious right," which brooked no dissent and prided themselves on religious ritual without the proper relationship with God. That is why Jesus consistently jumped down their collective throat.

I said they were the socialist of their day, not that they were Socialist. They were the elitists of that time and used what ever they could to perpetuate their power and tell everyone else what was best for them. That is what Socialists today want to do. The only difference is they want to use the government as the authority rather than God.

Your shot at the “religious right” is extraneous to the conservation. Contrary to Liberal rhetoric we (as I include myself under that label) are not attempting to establish a Theocracy in the US. Their main focus in the political arena is elimination of abortion on demand and the sanctity of marriage. This differs dramatically from the focus of Wallis and company in their quest for government control of our lives.

>>> Then what do you say about the Civil Rights Movement, which was either ignored or denounced by most "evangelical Christians" of that day but which Sojourners would have supported?

Again, you bring extraneous issues to the table. The Civil Rights movement had nothing to do with instituting Socialism as our form of Government. And no, MLK was not Satan incarnate and yes, Brother Graham and others were correct in their support.

>>> Besides, what would you consider appropriate politcial/social action? Simply "preaching the Gospel" won't cut it -- it has to be put forward in deeds, otherwise no one will take it seriously.

Appropriate political action is to petition government through our elected representatives to enact laws that have moral and ethical foundations: That as opposed to judicial fiat.

I consider preaching the Gospel to be a great social action. Good works (deeds) stem from acceptance of Christ, not from the coffers of government.

>>> To call folks like Jim Wallis who do prophetic ministry "socialists" makes it sound as if it is a threat to the authority you crave.

Jim Wallis, prophetic? Matt 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Amen. Jim Wallis and his ilk are a grave danger, not to me (I crave no authority), but to Freedom, Liberty and America.

>>> But I reject your contention as close to blasphemy.

Blasphemy? Since when does freedom of speech in the political arena constitute blasphemy? When was Jim Wallis promoted to the Godhead?

Posted by: John 1:1 | June 25, 2007 4:12 PM

Actually, the Church should be socialist in its method and organization. The state, on the other hand should not. The church is a group of individuals with a common goal and ethic. The state cannot enforce or adopt such a common purpose or ethic, it has to provide an environment which allows for diversity of goals and ethical positions. The best way for the state to do this is to limit its actions to protection of rights and enforcement of contracts.

Nathanael Snow

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | June 25, 2007 4:50 PM

Appreciating Sojourners concern for brothers and sisters in need. So glad to have the opp to give support and treat someone else the way I would want to be treated.

Peace be with you Simple Way...

Posted by: Anna Miller | June 25, 2007 7:12 PM

"I think perhaps you are confusing Evangelicals with Fundamentalists." John 1:1

No, I'm not. Having taught church history at one time, I'm well aware of the historical distinctions. Be that as it may, I use the term fundagelicals for that component of the church as the similarities between the two are as numerous as the differences.

Posted by: canucklehead | June 25, 2007 8:49 PM

It may be your opinion that I am wrong but that does not make the premise false.

I stand by my statement.

I said they were the socialist of their day, not that they were Socialist. They were the elitists of that time and used what ever they could to perpetuate their power and tell everyone else what was best for them. That is what Socialists today want to do. The only difference is they want to use the government as the authority rather than God.

Again, false, because if anyone fit that definition in that day it would be the Sadducees. Besides, "socialists" as such are hardly elitist; many of them want everyone to have the same opportunities as the elite. And again, the political right represents the true elitists here, and some of them will even be honest about that. That's why they hate true Biblical justice so much, even denying that such a concept exists.

Christ does save “into” His body but he does not save by the body; the body being the catholic (universal, not RC) Church.

But He doesn't save without the Body.

Appropriate political action is to petition government through our elected representatives to enact laws that have moral and ethical foundations: That as opposed to judicial fiat.

You obviously haven't read the Old Testament prophets lately -- there are plenty of references to unjust judges. And even lawmakers can be bought off.

Jim Wallis, prophetic? Matt 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Amen. Jim Wallis and his ilk are a grave danger, not to me (I crave no authority), but to Freedom, Liberty and America.

Physician, heal thyself! Besides, does Wallis "prophesy" a feel-good message for money or power? Certainly not -- he's been doing what he's been doing since the early 1970s, even before Jerry Falwell, James Dobson or James Kennedy came on the scene and before you even heard of him; they're now either gone or going, but Wallis will keep on. False prophets don't do that.

Also, your ideology is far more grave a danger, not just to this country but to the Gospel, than Wallis ever will be, if for no other reason that secular interests have perverted the conservative wing of evangelical Christianity since the late 1970s. Last week I attended a writers' conference at a local Christian college that actively promoted a conservative worldview, and frankly I didn't recognize that brand of Christianity, the kind that changes people's lives by the Holy Spirit.

Blasphemy? Since when does freedom of speech in the political arena constitute blasphemy?

When you put words in God's mouth, which is exactly what you've been doing on this thread. It has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 25, 2007 11:55 PM

Wallis’ call to action here is the first time I have seen him or his fellow travelers reach out to someone other than the government. His whole purpose in life is to get the government involved in every aspect of life. And he is using Christianity as his backdrop.

Wallis does this because his focus always has been on public policy, and there's nothing wrong with addressing laws that need to be changed. I noticed that you never responded to my comments about the Civil Rights Movement, which based on your previous posts you would have deemed "socialist" (and in fact, many people have) precisely because it focused on changing laws. You will note that even William F. Buckley Jr. said that the feds had to come down South to set things straight then.

He does not seem to understand or care that the path he is promoting is a highway to hell. Socialism is at its root atheistic. He is promoting a form of government that has never worked, never will work and in the end would destroy Christianity.

You said in an earlier post that you didn't want authority, yet with that statement you just contradicted yourself. Because, truth be told, you want to determine what Christianity is and does but only according to what makes you feel comfortable. Well, guess what? Christianity does not exist to make you superior, smug and secure; it should be just the opposite. And atheistic? Puh-leeze!

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 26, 2007 12:04 AM

canucklehead

>>>No, I'm not. Having taught church history at one time, I'm well aware of the historical distinctions. Be that as it may, I use the term fundagelicals for that component of the church as the similarities between the two are as numerous as the differences.

Your credentials are duly noted. However, since you have the knowledge of the historical distinctions perhaps now you should direct you attention to today’s definition instead of adding absurd words to the lexicon.

“The word evangelicalism often refers to a broad collection of religious beliefs, practices, and traditions which are found among Protestant Christians and some Catholics. Evangelicalism is typified by an emphasis on evangelism, a personal experience of conversion, biblically oriented faith and a belief in the relevance of Christian faith to some cultural issues.” – Wikipedia

You might recall from you teaching notes that the movement began in the early 18th century as a response to Enlightenment thinking. It stressed a more personal relationship with God at the individual level; as well as activism based upon one's biblically based beliefs.

Further you may recall that Fundamentalism originally referred to a movement in North American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism stressing that the Bible is literally inerrant, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record.

And least we forget the owner of this Blog refers to himself as an Evangelical for whatever that’s worth.

Posted by: John 1:1 | June 26, 2007 12:36 AM

John 1:1: My apologies -- I now see that you did indeed respond to my comments on the Civil Rights Movement. However, my overall contention stands because most evangelicals in those days ignored, rejected or denounced it, many on the grounds that it was "socialist" (in fact, Jesse Helms, when he was in the U. S. Senate, voted against the federal holiday in MLK Jr.'s memory on the grounds that he was a communist). That said, when you denounce Sojo as socialist you have to say the same about King because they did many of the same things for the same reasons -- but you said that King wasn't. So, which is it?

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 26, 2007 10:59 AM

Payshun

>>>Too bad Luke 10 disagrees w/ you. When the lawyer said: 25 And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

All three of the Synoptic Gospels attest to this event. Matthew and Mark are almost verbatim and Luke phrases it slightly differently. That being said the basis of the discourse is evident. The Pharisees, in this case one which was a lawyer, were trying to entrap Jesus using Jewish Law. The question and Christ’s response is in relation to the Law and not Salvation.

To interpret Luke’s version as you do you have to disregard John Chapter 3, 1 Peter 1:23, Acts 4:12 and major portions of both the NT and the OT. I am not willing to do that.

Posted by: John 1:1 | June 26, 2007 1:09 PM

I'm just sorry about all those who have lost their homes, properties, and livlihoods in this tragic fire. Almost as much as I'm sorry that so many windbags visit these blogs and just rip on fellow believers that they don't particularly agree with. No wonder this unbelieving world finds us uninteresting and continues to ignore us. At least Claiborne et al were living their faith, not just typing about it.

Posted by: lm | June 26, 2007 2:12 PM

JOhn 1:1
All three of the Synoptic Gospels attest to this event. Matthew and Mark are almost verbatim and Luke phrases it slightly differently. That being said the basis of the discourse is evident. The Pharisees, in this case one which was a lawyer, were trying to entrap Jesus using Jewish Law. The question and Christ’s response is in relation to the Law and not Salvation.

Me:
Actually you are wrong on that. I look at the synoptic gospels in the context for which they are written and the gentiles to which Luke were writing to would have seen this clearly w/o you trying to combine the bible into one unified story (when it's not really that.) There are unifying themes but it was not written w/ a clear beginning middle and end. It's complicated that way. Oh and it was in response to salvation that's why he asked it the way he did. I don't disagree w/ you about the other aspects of what you said. It's a both thing. You can't throw out what you don't like because it doesn't support your argument. The bible is clear only thru Christ can one know God. But it is also clear that to know God one must love God and the people. The bible is also clear that he is the only one fit to judge who goes to heaven and who is condemned. So to be fair we can leave that bit alone and let God do his job.

p

Posted by: Payshun | June 26, 2007 4:27 PM

I fully believe that Christianity is the one true Religion. I believe that Faith in and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is the only way to obtain Salvation and eternal life. I believe that those who are Christian manifest the indwelling of the Holy Ghost by their Christian Walk… that is love of God and love of neighbor. I believe that the above is accomplished by Jesus Christ by His finished work on the Cross.

But "salvation" is not God's only, or even primary, purpose -- His intention is, and always was, to display His holiness among His saints and restore this world to its former state before the Fall. To reduce the Gospel to forgiveness of sins falls woefully short of what Jesus actually preached! In fact, when He told Nicodemus that "you must be born again," He wasn't at all talking about heaven -- it's clear from the context of the conversation that He was telling him that "if you don't have God's viewpoint you're not going to understand what He's doing in the here and now."

My reference to freedom of speech was made in support of Wallis’ right to said speech in the Political Arena. In that area I am free to judge him as the politician he is. I do not question his faith, that is between him and God and I never said Wallis was an atheist. I said his POLITICS would lead to an atheistic government. That is not exactly what the Framers had in mind if I read the First Amendment correctly.

And this is where your argument falls apart. Wallis, though he does speak on political matters and does today have the ear of certain parts of official Washington (and there is nothing wrong with that), is not and never has been a politician trying to get elected or curry favor. You must understand, as I have said before, that he has been doing this kind of work for well over 30 years and when the spotlight is removed from him, as it will be, and if God doesn't take him home first, he will keep on doing it regardless of who supports him. Besides, that faulty argument -- that his politics will lead to atheism -- has been heard before (which is why I specifically brought up MLK Jr., whose positions are analogous to Sojourners').

You say I seek authority. I say I seek moral and ethical standards for our Nation that remain constant and do not fluctuate. You say I want to define Christianity. Well, perhaps so but I define it within the doctrine established in the Bible.

If you really seek moral and ethical standards, read the whole Bible, not just the parts that favor your positions (which, in my experience, most conservatives do). You will then better understand what Wallis is saying and has always said. The truth is that much so-called evangelical Christianity has serious theological flaws that have been addressed only in the last couple of years -- and one of those is the myth that America somehow is God's "favorite."

In summary, my problem with Wallis and the whole Social Justice movement is with its interpretation of scripture as I believe there is some error there; but even more so in its resolution of the problems it identifies with. Government should insure equal opportunity; it should not attempt to nor can it ever insure equal outcome.

Oh, few people believe in "equal outcome"; I certainly don't, and just any "liberal" out there will tell you that people do have to take personal responsibility for the choices they make in life. However, conservatives since the 1950s have been on a campaign to reduce opportunities for the "least, last and lost" in part because they were sore at FDR for attempting to bridge the gap between the haves and the have-nots, with the middle class today quickly moving toward the latter. That's one reason conservative politicians bit the dust in the last general election.

It's also why, even though I myself have been a Christian for nearly 30 years, I have never fought the "culture war." We've gotten so bogged down in fighting "enemies" (and raising and wasting money in the process) that we have in many ways failed to live the Gospel we supposedly believe. That's why I appreciate what Shane Claiborne and The Simple Way are doing -- it's not my thing personally, but it God calls them to it it's fine with me and He apparently is using them to get the work done. God is far, far bigger than any of our pet doctrines, and if the Holy Spirit is enabling them to preach and live the Good News and lives are being turned around in the process, what's the problem?

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 26, 2007 10:20 PM

I Do not wish bad things on any one . Im not always the best with my words ,but ill do my best to share my path in the bible ,path on gods creation , paths are different for everybody. God is love ,im sorry if i have not conntacted all the world but im doing my best .The bible says everybody sins and falls short in the eyes of god.I think thats where Jesus comes into play. I think it says we are saved by faith through Grace.We all put ourselves in our own hells on multiple levels planes and dementions. The bible talks of the universe out in space,and here,The fermamentes and voids .Its in Gen. I encourage people to dig into there bibles and learn what best applys to our own lives.Its on the American Dollar Bill : IN GOD WE TRUST. When it first started in america it had no value.I trust god .God wants people to be Happy.Thank him all the times you can.The creator ,of all that is seen and unseen.God loves us all Jesus loves us all ,the holy spirit flows through the Air. The bible says. All the books of the bible are writen by poeple of differnt walks of lifes .Not everybody is going to be able to do all the things of the bible all the time. Everybody is on there own journey. Journey,Atrip from one place to another over a long distance;the distance that is traveled ?Try to be around the people that love you for you .Im always looking for unconditional type love.It says it we have not Love for our felow man then we have not love.We can do all the things in the bible but if we dont have love it means nothing.I am not perfect. I make mistakes . God is Love.I need praying for me as well as to pray for everybody. True nobility is not being better than anyone its being a little better than you use to be.

Posted by: Dan.S. | July 13, 2007 8:17 PM