Strengthening marriage and family must, for me, include blessing and supporting GLBT Christians in lifelong, monogamous relationships. Here is a rite recently approved by the Diocese of California, Ottawa, and Montreal for blessing same-sex couples:

http://www.samesexblessing.info/cnurse/DotNetNuke/Portals/3/SSB%20Rite-the%20Ceremony.pdf

Anglicanism is based on "lex orandi, lex credendi," or "we believe what we pray." Read the rites carefully--who is eligible, what the responsibilities of the partners are, and what the responsibility of the congregation is. Look at the suggested Scriptures for the service. I think this rite can serve as a model for fully accepting GLBTs in the Christian community.

I think it's important that progressive Christians like Wallis, McClaren, and Campolo start voicing their support for gay marriage rights. I think they are afraid of losing whatever evangelical support they have left, but Jesus was not afraid when people walked away from Him for His inclusive teaching, for instance, His welcoming of eunuchs into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Strong's defines eunuchs, not as castrated or celibate, but as without the capacity for traditional marriage. There is no Scripture which suggests eunuchs were celibate or castrated--look at Potiphar. I believe the term "eunuch" is equivalent to our term "GLBT"--a catch-all term for the sexually other. When Jesus welcomed eunuchs, He welcomed GLBTs into the Kingdom, without asking them to change what they were created by God to be.

Posted by: ashpenaz | October 23, 2007 4:45 PM

I like Mike Huckabee, but I think Hillary Clinton models Christian values more effectively. She is a Methodist, like Bush, and she clearly understands Wesley's call to social justice.

Posted by: skjpm@yahoo.com | October 23, 2007 4:48 PM

I am an evangelical christian who firmly believes that the government should not endorse ANY religion! As I watch this nation being stripped of Christian symbols--based on separation of Chuch and State I have to wonder why it is that the Laws of the Jewish Faith regarding the behavior of Gentiles is now a public law. YES__THAT'S WHAT I SAID! I challenge all to do a search--keywords to search---Noahide Laws--Public Law #102-14(this you will find at the Library of Congress website-it was signed into law in 1991--you will find it hidden under education). Next--search for details--key words 1. Noahide Laws 2. Lubavitch Movement 3. Rabbi Menachem Schneerson make sure you check out the Jewish websites--as they can give you more details concerning these laws(and how they will affect the gentile) and info on the worldwide Lubavitch Movement. So as long as the government endorses one religion I don't understand why not all--yet they hold Churches accountable for overstepping the line when it comes to politics. I guess the government can have it both ways while putting a muzzle on the Christian faith. Please take up this challenge as the future of this government seems to be heading into something that is not good. You have nothing to lose except a little time and think of the knowledge you may gain.

Posted by: Dorothy | October 23, 2007 6:04 PM

anon seems to have a lot to say! I guess with a name like anon you have to learn to speak up.
I, Michael G. Grello, feel that Dennis Kucinich most models Christian values, if not doctrines ;-)
But, the candidate that I most like getting e-mail from at mgrello@sc.rr.com is John Edwards.
Mike Huckabee wrote a book about hope and working together, but has worked to outswagger his republican opponents. It seems to me that Hillary has also worked hard to outswagger her republican opponents. Somebody with humility and concern for the people of our country would get my vote and could even stay the night in my home in West Columbia SC.

Posted by: Mike Grello | October 23, 2007 6:44 PM

* Strengthening marriage and families
* Renewing the moral fabric of our culture
* Overcoming extreme global poverty and disease; and unnecessary poverty at home
* Ending human trafficking
* Healing the wounds of racism
* Protecting God's creation
* Finding a better path to national and global security
* Advancing a consistent ethic of the sanctity of life

Posted by: justintime | October 23, 2007 6:57 PM

Jesus preached repentance and forgiveness. He also preached that marriage was a man and a woman.

He preached repentance primarily to believers. He also said nothing about homosexuality -- didn't need to.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 23, 2007 7:44 PM

Christopher Mohr,
You wrote,
"Since you seem to like accepting challenges, let me issue one to you and all evangelicals:"

I had a difficult time discerning what the challenge was you were issuing. Could you help me out by restating it for me.

Thanks,
Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | October 23, 2007 7:48 PM

After Jesus talks about marriage between a man and a woman, He goes on to say that there are those who for various reasons do not have the capacity for traditional marriage. He welcomes them into the Kingdom, too--affirming that they were created by God to be what they are. Read the passage about marriage again and keep reading it until the end.

You can also read how Jesus helped out a Centurion and his "beloved slave," which in those days meant sexual partner.

Posted by: ashpenaz | October 23, 2007 7:52 PM

When Jesus welcomed eunuchs, He welcomed GLBTs into the Kingdom, without asking them to change what they were created by God to be.

Posted by: ashpenaz

This is in the red letters even

Jesus said "From the beginning of the creation , God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his Father and Mother and CLEAVE to his WIFE ' and the two shall become one flesh . What therefore God has JOINED together, let no man put asunder ".

ashpenaz says

I believe the term "eunuch" is equivalent to our term "GLBT"--a catch-all term for the sexually other

Me
There is not one place in the Bible about homosexuality where God approves of homosexuality .Rather every place it is mentioned it condemned as wrong . I respect your religious beliefs , they are in common with secular beliefs . They are NOT accepted by Bibical Scholars or traditional understanding of the scriptues ,

Your beliefs appear to be culturally based , not scripture based in my opinion .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 23, 2007 9:12 PM

Jeff,

you have to read right to the bottom of my post. There you will find the challenge. I will repeat it for you here.

So, my challenge is this: show me that your god is truly worth following, by your NOT attempting to force it on me through politics or evangelism, and we shall see if this mountain moves.

I should add that I feel the Abrahamic god is a sadist, and that you'll have to convince me otherwise on that as well.

good luck

Posted by: Christopher Mohr | October 23, 2007 10:12 PM

Two-bucks says my last post disappears from this blog in minutes of being discovered by the censors?

Posted by: Donny | October 23, 2007 10:20 PM

I don't know but what this blog is undergoing a kind of attack designed to discredit any kind of serious dialog.

Most (not all) of the posts aren't even desirous of or worthy of having any kind of response offered to them.

Is somebody being paid to disrupt in order to obliterate reasonable and sane discussion?

Why are there so many unreasoned and vehement attacks which have nothing to do with finding common ground, but rejecting it absolutely?

I am increasingly appalled at what passes for Christian thought - believe me, I had no idea how much of it was degraded, but I've been learning and it's not a pretty
sight.

For shame.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 23, 2007 10:28 PM

"Dogma voters" is more fitting. That some on the religious right dub themselves "values voters" is pretentious to say the least. They confuse religious dogma with human values. I do not.

Posted by: Doug Indeap | October 23, 2007 10:56 PM

Non-ideological faith trumping ideologies?

Phrases like “faith trumps ideology” and “political but not partisan and principled but not ideological” do not help to forward dialogue in radically pluralist contexts.

Many secularists claim that the pronouncements of faith are ideological in the sense that they are an interpretation of some set of core ideas and ideals. The term faith itself is an empty signifier; it must be fleshed out with some content, and when this is done the content can only be an interpretation, an incomplete and thus ideological representation that is said to be an authoritative account of some reality.

Being an interpretation, secularists will contest the claim that it trumps --this itself is an ideological declaration--other ideologies that also claim authoritativeness. So rather than asserting a primacy of faith-based beliefs, it is more accurate and fruitful to say that faith X believes that its ideology is better or more just than other ideologies. To claim some sort of special status for faith-based beliefs in any political process can be fatally damaging to the development of any consensus. A tolerant pluralism does not privilege the views of any participant in a discussion.

Posted by: Brent | October 23, 2007 11:01 PM

Universal truths perceptible to most people who are interested in truth (not all people are) can be expressed through a particular faith.

As an instance, Tibetan Buddhism has discovered non-violence resistance to evil and compassion to all, even enemies, as the highest enlightenment, based on evolutionary, non-Deistic thinking.

Regardless of the explanation posited, the truth it describes is universal.

Jesus teaches us in his essential commandments in the Sermon on the Mount these same core truths.

As diverse a group as Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Thomas Merton and the Dalai Lama, among others, have zeroed in on the truth of what Jesus said in Matthew 5, 6 and 7.

The application of this bears tremendous fruit as a practical exercise.

A real faith can be proven by living. An ersatz one falls down in some of the ways described by doubters and critics here and I in no way dispute that finding, but accede that the failure is because it is not genuine.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 24, 2007 12:19 AM

Hey, anon....did I miss something? I didn't read ANY candidate won. I read Mitt Romney got 1/4, and Mike Huckabee bot 1/4...

And that only adds up to 50%....

Posted by: Amazon Creek | October 24, 2007 12:45 AM

To claim some sort of special status for faith-based beliefs in any political process can be fatally damaging to the development of any consensus. A tolerant pluralism does not privilege the views of any participant in a discussion.

Posted by: Brent

Well said . Best comment I have heard in a long time . Can I use it ?

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 24, 2007 2:59 AM

Amazon Creek,

Mike Huckabee got the most votes of those in attendance of the Values Voters Washington Briefing. He had about 50% of the votes based on the straw poll. That was of those that actually attended and voted. To me that means he won. You can't help like Mike after you see him speak.

Posted by: Anon | October 24, 2007 8:23 AM

I'm amazed at how posts on diverse blogs and other web pages seem to converge independently. I just posted something on my own blog about the idea of the 'radical middle', or in other words, that gravitating towards extremes and dividing along party lines is easy, whereas maintaining balance and being willing to listen to both sides, without following either uncritically, is the really challenging position.

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/10/radical-middle.html

Posted by: James McGrath | October 24, 2007 9:14 AM

josh,

i was not comparing Huckabee to jesus really. What I was trying to say was more about the religious leaders. They always have an agenda and sadly it is not values.
Moderatelad - you always have such good views on these posts.

Posted by: Anon | October 24, 2007 9:33 AM

"In the straw poll Romney came in first with 1,595 votes, followed closely by Huckabee with 1,565.

Significantly, however, Huckabee won more than half of the 953 voters who voted at the conference; Romney received 99 votes among conference attendees, with the overwhelming majority of his support coming from voters online."

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | October 24, 2007 10:18 AM

So much could be said about this article but I do not want to take the time. The big problem in my opinion is that conservatives rarely looked to politics to solve the 'great moral issues'.

That's because they were rarely involved before the late 1970s. After that, however, politics became their obsession (see "Blinded by Might").

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 24, 2007 10:41 AM

So, if my exegesis is wrong, what is the gospel you offer to gays?

Step 1--Start by believing that the deepest, most intimate part of yourself is shameful. Believe that the part of you which is calls you to love and nurture another person is, in fact, a disgusting, degrading, unnatural disorder.

Step 2--Ok, now that you see your ability to love as shameful and degrading, it's time to repent. It's time to call yourself names in public.

Step 3--Now, let's get "cured." Even though you experience your orientation as inborn, as part of who you are, it isn't. All you need to do is try a bunch of sports and other "butch" things and then you'll start to like women.

Step 4--OK, that didn't work, although your skills at acting sure made everyone think you were fixed. I hope your wife and kids aren't too angry that you lied to them and betrayed them in order to pretend you got cured.

Step 5--Now it's back to shame and guilt, and this time you get to add a life of loneliness with a promise of growing old and dying without sharing your life with anyone, just the way Jesus wants it.

Welcome to the Church!

Posted by: ashpenaz | October 24, 2007 11:06 AM

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 24, 2007 11:28 AM

You can't talk about issues when they are defined by just one sentence. You need to flesh it out a bit so that you know what you are talking about and can hit the nail on the head.

I was the one that wanted a 'Hannity and Combs' style show where you could bring people together and have a 'discussion' openly about any topic and exchange various ideas. I still believe that it would be a workable idea. I am a conservative who likes and listens to Alan Combs.

Blessing -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 24, 2007 11:38 AM

Prior to the 70's the church and believers could do the work that God called them to with little ov't interfearnce. Congress became more intrusive into church and not-for-profit ministry ventures that cause them financial hardship and some had to close. We had no choice but to mobilize and take on a liberal mindset in DC that was very anti-Christian. We made several changes and gain some ground. Now that we are organized and have some influence you and Wallis are piss-off.

That's not even close to what happened. The "religious right" got started in 1978 when Jimmy Carter threatened to sic the IRS on private Christian academies in the South which he suspected were founded to avoid court-ordered desegregation in public schools (as a Southerner himself, he understands that mentality). As I've mentioned on other threads, at that time conservative fund-raiser Richard Viguerie, whose spiritual leanings, if he has any, I'm not aware of, approached Jerry Falwell to start Moral Majority to add to his direct-mail empire. Only after that did the "moral issues" began to pile on. (In fact, most evangelicals didn't care about abortion until then!)

See, the "religious right," which worships (among other things) the American flag, subscribes to an authoritarian religious culture where they alone are right and everyone else is wrong, which causes it to dismiss anyone outside of its purview as somehow "defective." That extends to even fellow born-again Christians such as Wallis, Tony Campolo and Ron Sider -- and me -- who have never subscribed to that agenda, never will do so and are open about that. Because the issue ultimately is power, I would say that you are deeply threatened by us, otherwise you wouldn't be on this blog saying what you do.

Now, you have said that you came onto this blog to find "common ground." The reality, however, is that you want to pull everyone to your side of the aisle, and let me tell you straight up that it's not going to happen. We really do believe that the conservatives subscribe to some bad religion/theology and how it affects Christian witness, and we feel it is our duty as Christians to speak out because nothing less than the Gospel is at stake. You ignore or dismiss us non-conservatives at your peril.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 24, 2007 11:57 AM

Jeff took offense in Christopher Mohr wanting evangelicals to prove that "our God" is worth following:

Yeah that annoys me too (not Mr. Mohr but the whole concept). What does evangelical mean again?

Posted by: Mike Grello | October 24, 2007 12:09 PM

Ok, Jorge, you and other "conservatives" are opposed to big government. How then do you explain the fact that the current so-called "conservative" administration in Washington has racked up the largest government budget deficits in history and has expanded both the size and scope of government bryond what they've ever been in US history?

My "values" have been systematically violated by this administration in everything from violating the Bill of Rights re. surveillance of private citizens to exapanding Federal control over public schools (No Child Left Behind, or what it's often called by educatiors, No Teacher Left Standing) to ill-fated foreign adventurism in Iraq.

So which and whose "values" really count for anything anymore?

Peace,

Posted by: Don | October 24, 2007 12:17 PM

So you support the idea of a Pres sending the IRS our agaist organizations that the Pres does not agree with? Frankly - Carter and Desegregation should never be used in the same sentence. He belong to a segregated congregation and they voted to maintain that seperation while he was Pres.

You know full well that's not the whole story. In fact, when he was there a black man asked to join the church and the Carters were the only ones willing to receive him -- and that same church has black members today. (Eventually, that church left the Southern Baptist Convention because of the authoritarianism of its new, conservative leadership.) I don't know if you've ever lived in the South, but race colors everything down there and Carter is aware of that -- in fact, much of the "religious right" even opposed the Civil Rights Movement!

Wallis is no threat. He has a message and the foundation is sound. He delivery is at best C / C+ and his attacking of fellow believers and leaders will keep him from having an influence on the greater Christian church internationally.

If he's no threat, then why do you continually dismiss and attack him? And in fact he is having an impact. Did you realize that "God's Politics" made the New York Times' Bestsellers' List? World Magazine felt so threatened it felt the need to pan the book before anyone had a change to read it.

In other words his content is worthy of discussion and consideration, his delivery - slapping people that he disagrees with - is the problem.

Well, interestingly enough, the "religious right" has thrived by "slaing people [it] disagrees with." Only it has few ideas worth discussing.

You really should walk amoung the little people once in a while. you get a better perspective than looking down from Walliston Tower.

I had those ideas back in the 1970s, long before I ever heard of Jim Wallis. And in my faith pilgrimage I have indeed walked among all types of Christians. People thought I was crazy then, but today ...

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 24, 2007 12:39 PM

Posted by: CKC | October 24, 2007 1:07 PM

No - we do not worship the flag. But we have a respect for it that some liberals do not. Yes - the have the right to burn it and I will not argue that point. So when I will wave it at a gathering I attend - now I am accued of worshiping it. They burn it at one of their gathering - I know that some with condemn them. But then again they condemn us.

'...use of war and military metaphors...'

I just bet it puts a kink in your colon when we sing 'Onward Christian Soldiers'. Would you please read the words sometime and see what we have for weaponds. We are marching 'as' to war, not onto war. We have a cross, banner, hope and charity. No spears, swords, AK47's, landmines etc.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 24, 2007 1:49 PM

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 24, 2007 12:39 PM

I believe Carter's church allowed blacks to gain membership after he left the Oval Office.

"God's Politics" made the New York Times'

For how long? Coulter's - Ingram's - Hannity's - Rush's book were also on there for months at a time.

the "religious right" has thrived

SOME, Some of the religious right have. Not all as he implys. He is one that a while ago proclaimed how wrong they were and how unfair they are, and he is doing the same thing. Something about the Pot and Kettle comes to mind.

walked among all types...'

For all that you have said about me and how I write - you sound more and more like one of the Limo Libs that I read in the Star&Cyckel here in MN.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 24, 2007 1:59 PM

Posted by: Mike Grello | October 24, 2007 2:03 PM

I believe that the flag does have a place in church. We have the Christian Flag and the US Flag bookending the front of our church. They remind us to pray for the safety of our military personnel where ever they are. To remind us to thank God for a country that allows all of us freedom of expression in worship. To remind us to celebrate the freedoms that we have as Americans and to remember the cost of maintaining that freedom.

They are not religious artifacts or items of worship. When I die - I would like to have the Christian Flag on my casket. My Father had the US Flag as he was a vet. I was disqualified for military service.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 24, 2007 2:13 PM

Dear Moderatelad,

Rick, feel free to tell me if I am wrong, but when you said, "... the "religious right," which worships (among other things) the American flag," I did not take it to necessarily to mean that they literally worship the American flag. We all know that they do not literally bow down before the flag. Funny how those more conservative of us here took it that way.

It was a metaphor for the blind patriotism I spoke of yesterday in the debate string. They figuratively worship the flag when they unquestioningly follow and support an administration that has embraced unChrisitian ideals (pre-emptive war, torture, etc.) They attempt to discredit and call unpatriotic anyone who dares to disagree with the current administration. I'll go one step further and admit that it isn't just this administration. The inability to admit that America has done evil things in our history to protect "US interests abroad" is exemplary of this same blind patriotism - believing that because of Divine Providence America has been blessed and so therefore what America does IS blessed.

By saying they worship the flag (I think) he means that there is a dangerous blurring of faith and patriotism. That patriotism clouds their religious judgement so that they give ovation to those leaders who say we should use "any means necessary" in a potential nuclear attack on the US. I'd like to see a scriptural reference to support that position.

Posted by: CKC | October 24, 2007 3:08 PM

Liberal christians and conservative christians can not find common ground on issues because libs and conservatives have two different world views. Libs generally think the govt. should solve every problem while conservatives are more into personal responsibilty and taking care of things themselves. the other issue is here truth. Conservative christians generally believe the bible is the Word of God and that truth matters. Liberal christians from I have seen on this site generally do not believe the bible is the Word of God and that truth is relative. Kind of a contradiction in terms huh? A liberal Christian just does not sound right. Two examples of what I mean are abortion and homosexuality. Generally Liberal christians will find those two issues to be morally acceptable and some even go so far to say that are in line with God's will. Utter Falsehoods. If you are liberal and do not agree with me why do you continue to vote for people who do feel that way? I know the president has very little power over these two issues but the one thing he can do is appoint judges who can do something about them. George Bush has appointed great judges in that regard. The other issue going on right now that proves my point are the fires in california. What a contrast from Mew Orleans. New Orleans a very liberal city sat around and still is today blaming the govt. for all their problems while San Diego a very conservative city took sme personal responsiblity and figured out what do on their own with the help of their neighbors of course. The difference between liberals and conservatives can clearly be seen in those two examples. The differnce between victims and non-victims. I will even go so far as to say these fires are and will be much worse then the hurricane that struck New Orleans. I know Rick that you be mad but facts are facts and since you work for the drive by media I know those are hard for you to see. Especailly since your line of work distorts the truth everyday.

Posted by: Doug | October 24, 2007 3:24 PM

Posted by: CKC | October 24, 2007 3:08 PM

patriotism clouds their religious judgement...'

Myself as well as the majority of my conservative friends do not put patriotism ahead of their personal faith. That is something that Wallis and Co talk about so they don't have to deal with us on a one to one basis. Just slap us with the 'patroit brush' so that we all look alike so Wallis can throw stones at any of us. It is my religious convictions that determine my political or patroitic believes. I know that the US has done wrong in the past - STOP THE PRESSES - yes, we conservatives know that, now what.

Personally - I would love to work with someone like Wallis about global warming - climate change - creation care. What other title does he want to adopt to make it more palitable to the general public. Oh - we forgot the coming ice age.
There are things that we can agree to do to 'make this world a better place - if you can'. (sorry the Ross got into me) But - Wallis is going to bring St Al into the mix and we are going to have the biggest tax hike in the history of the world. I have been chastised by some on this site to leave Al out of the mix. I will if Wallis will. (but he won't - after all Gore is the Pres. according to Wallis)

You see why some of us have a little harder time in following Wallis. Some people switch horses midstream. Wallis is riding on the backs of several horses going round and round the riding ring. I have had the devil of a time trying to keep on the same horse (topic) as him as he keeps jumping from one to another all the time. I like to get on a horse (topic) and ride from point A to B and get the job done.

Part of why Wallis will not be as effective as he could be now and in the future.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 24, 2007 3:37 PM

I know that the US has done wrong in the past - STOP THE PRESSES - yes, we conservatives know that, now what.

Does this include Ronald Reagan?

You see why some of us have a little harder time in following Wallis. Some people switch horses midstream. Wallis is riding on the backs of several horses going round and round the riding ring. I have had the devil of a time trying to keep on the same horse (topic) as him as he keeps jumping from one to another all the time. I like to get on a horse (topic) and ride from point A to B and get the job done.

That's why it's always been so much easier to be part of the right, what with its emphasis (until recently) on abortion and gay marriage to the exclusion of almost everything else -- easy to follow. However, the depth and breadth of concerns of those of us on the "left" preclude any instant analysis and strategies. Wallis rightly sees the "big picture."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 24, 2007 3:49 PM

However, the depth and breadth of concerns of those of us on the "left" preclude any instant analysis and strategies. Wallis rightly sees the "big picture."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin

Yep , throw someone elses money at it . LOL

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 24, 2007 4:13 PM

No - we on the right have always been concerned about more than just two issues. Wallis paints us that way so that he does not have to deal with us on issues that he wants control.

Excuse me, but the actual record suggests otherwise. A Christian African-American author wrote about that -- when he was attending an evangelical seminary over two decades ago he wanted the church to focus on issues of racism and one person he talked to said, in effect, "C'mon, buddy -- you know the only REAL issue we need to deal with is abortion." That in the 1980s was my experience too; I remember attending a campus fellowship prayer meeting and almost everyone who attended wanted to pray about starting some "pro-life" group. Gay marriage became an issue only about five or so years ago.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 24, 2007 4:19 PM

Can I set a few things straight? I'm a liberal, and I don't believe the government can or should fix everything. It does have a role, though.

I volunteer for a church-run organization that provides services for the poor and needy in the city where I live. These are mostly hard-working people who have fallen through the cracks of the government's constantly shrinking safety net. Nevertheless, it is an ongoing struggle to keep our organization afloat financially and to secure the ties with the church that ostensibly "supports" us. Many in the church are suspicious of the people we bring around, who tend to have darker skins and to remind them that their part of the city is not as nice as it once was. Some have come right out and said that we have no business being there, since this is a church, not a social service organization.

I'm not claiming that this is a left vs. right thing. Many of the people I volunteer with, here and elsewhere, are politically conservative. What we're doing has nothing to do with our politics. However, *all* the people who want the organization out of the church are conservatives. This clearly is a political issue for them, and what their position amounts to is that they're not interested in taking care of people who are less well off than they are. I wish I could sugar-coat this, but I can't. It stinks too badly.

Posted by: Another nonymous | October 24, 2007 4:22 PM

I should add that I feel the Abrahamic god is a sadist, and that you'll have to convince me otherwise on that as well.

good luck Posted by: Christopher Mohr

Another example of the many issues that Soujourners represent besides the narrow and intolerant view of the right .

Posted by: Anonymous | October 24, 2007 4:31 PM

The biggest problem is that almost one of three (24 million children) in America are growing up in father absent homes.

That is due in large part to economics -- daddy can't get a good job or loses one, so he forfeits the respect of his wife and children; the former leaves and the latter run wild.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 24, 2007 4:46 PM

A quick google and I located over 490 seminaries in the US. I know that there is more. Hardly worth talking about the one you found.

Not all of them, however, are evangelical. I can assure you that his experience was in that day the norm on evangelical campuses.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 24, 2007 5:03 PM

"Excuse me, but the actual record suggests otherwise"

Not excused . If he was an African American that agreed with Moderatelad you mock him for his sincerity and beliefs . Race baiting is a nice way of saying it . The Christian voting block unlike the voting block you are in never was saturated to one party . Still not, but I do see it getting there . From a republican view I say that is good , from a Christian view I do not .
My fellow Union members who know the Lordacknowledge this .

Wallis and people like you who put Christians in your little tidy boxes and distort their views. Thats how you make your two views sound important , Take Other peoples money and spend it . If that does not work , you take more other people's money and spend it , then ridicule any opinion whose different based on their race , religion , ethnic group , or however you can .

People have different opinions on different issues ,because of their conscience . Unless you live in your world you can't respect that . . It has to be if it a black man they are proped up by a white man , or some secret meeting in 1955 with Eisenhower trick us all . Just can not be people who disagree with you do so because they have different beliefs , worth respecting .

When taxes and increasingly amount of government's attention went to funding abortions , and a decadent form of sex education, even legislative rights based on how a person has sex , many people with a traditional value system contray to yours felt like something was going terribley astray and that was enough .

Actually it happened before that , even before 1973 , and gay rights in my opinion is only a result that shows our lost of a moral compass , not the cause of it .

But most people , and especially people involved in Churches and community were uninvolved or aware of the changes in academia and agendas of a growing cultural shift till it was too late . Your a fool Rick if you think Conservative Christians are basically concerned about those two issues . You would be more right if you said they were unaware of most political views , untill recently . But even then , the daily attacks and hit jobs , the nasty perverted distortions you give of Moms and dads just trying to do their best , Live a life that glorifies God in this hostile envirnoment , is so pathetic , its wrong and you will answer for it by someone you claim to know . Because it does not show in their lives the way they live them and how you portray them .

Obviously seeing the poverty rates and a view that does not just blame Republicans but other factors was easy to see by many open minds .
Many Christians that were democrats saw it and republicans . Still do . Those democrat Christians are coming over to republican sides , just the opposite of the bS Wallis promotes . Look at the blog entry recently , the Old Testamnet was wriiten by sadists , a Christian supporting Wallis says this . No lefty here confronted it . Thats the Wallis follower . Keep them please !
A kid going astray , having no one to come home to , later seeing him get in big trouble with the law is an obvious uindictator two parents are needed . Its hard enough with two , it always has been .

What was happening to our moral compass, and resulting in sagging results with education , lower poverty levels , out of wedlock births , higher numbers for child molestation and other crimes against the family and our communitys .

That caused Christians to falsly believe politics could solve this I belive , or stop it . Some still think it can stop it , I personally believe legislation can possibly not increase the rate of decline as fast we are in . But decline we are going , and government can not do a thing about it .

We now have people on the left who are so delusional who think single moms are just fine , Hollywood celebrates moms who have babies without Dads . CELEBRATE it as diversity !

Thats a two issue propaganda BS you try to make Conservatives limited to . How sad , not that you don't even care about the injustices done in your own community based on things that are happening inside your community , you are so prejudiced in your narrow box you can't admit your political allies could possibleby be making them worse ? See how much common ground we have . Agree with Rick or go home .

And both of us can not solve it unless we are together and in Christ together . As if I know , or conservatives know the answers , but at least we are open enough to see some problems .

Amazing all your experiences show negatives to the kindest people I have met in my lives . And who are constantly bombarded with your type of lies and distortions .

And you side with those that show the least amount respect for people of different Faiths , races , and ethnic groups unless they think like you . They have to think like you or you attack their faith , race and ethnic group . You do it yourself , and you got the nerve to blame conservatives .

Promoting stereotypes . People who judge people as a group and not by then individual , have a pea for a brain .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 24, 2007 5:25 PM

Not excused. If he was an African American that agreed with Moderatelad you mock him for his sincerity and beliefs. Race baiting is a nice way of saying it. The Christian voting block unlike the voting block you are in never was saturated to one party. Still not, but I do see it getting there. From a republican view I say that is good, from a Christian view I do not.

Mick -- Frankly, your side of the ideological fence has still lots of poop on it when it comes to racism, and your refusal to address it has caused the divisions we still see in the church. Thank God -- but no thanks to you on the right -- that those issues are now being addressed in evangelicalism. And FWIW, trying to find a white evangelical Democrat in the 1980s was actually quite difficult. So I don't want to hear it.

I won't even respond to the rest of your post because -- well, there's a reason they're called "stereotypes." They have a great deal of truth behind them.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 24, 2007 5:59 PM

Amen Mike.

Mick,

I don't see you taking Doug to task for his ridiculous views and why not?

I really want to hear that one.

Personally I have no desire to confront that idea because I have done so in the past but I have never seen you confront Donny for his foolishness or Doug for being brainwashed. If you want us lefties to take someone that may be left but secular and possibly athiest then you need to start policing your conservative brothers and sisters for their ridiculous comments.

p

Posted by: payshun | October 24, 2007 6:35 PM

Mike Grello,
"Jeff took offense in Christopher Mohr wanting evangelicals to prove that "our God" is worth following:"

What in my post could you even remotely interpret as taking offense with Christopher Mohr's challenge? I do think you caught my point. Christopher criticizes evangelicals for being evangelical (telling the good news of new life in Christ). And then challenges us to be evangelical.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | October 24, 2007 6:56 PM

Correction:
I am not saying that because I am trying to pick a fight or be rude.

Posted by: payshun | October 24, 2007 7:06 PM

Come on refute what I say.

Oh, I'm not at all weak. But you see, you're the one that's so brainwashed that anything we say -- even if we back it up with multiple sources -- you won't accept it. FWIW, we in the media are by nature cynical and don't believe anything we hear unless we can ascertain it ourselves. Based on what you have written so far, I honestly don't think you have the capability to think critically.

In other words, you're not worth the effort.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 24, 2007 7:52 PM

Doug:
You guys are weak. Come on refute what I say.

Me:
If you insist. it's really not that hard.

You:
Quit trying to politize everything and take some responsibilty for your actions.

Me:
But you see Doug you just politicized everything.

You:
The other issue going on right now that proves my point are the fires in california. What a contrast from Mew Orleans. New Orleans a very liberal city sat around and still is today blaming the govt. for all their problems while San Diego a very conservative city took sme personal responsiblity and figured out what do on their own with the help of their neighbors of course. The difference between liberals and conservatives can clearly be seen in those two examples.

Me:
You compared two totally different calamities and made it about politics. Those were your words w/ no editing from me.

Oh and I took personal responsibility hypocrite. I have been feeding firefighters for the last three days waking up at three at am everyday to do so. I have sore fingertips from grilling over 270 pork chops to prove it. So kiss my butt. I am tired and I don't feel like being nice right now. why don't you take responsibility for what you write or learn to become a better writer? You are a walking contradiction whose arguments fall apart w/ further scrutiny.

In case you did not know (and how could you you don't live here) the state, local, federal parts of the government are together fighting these fires aswell as other states. That has nothing to do w/ politics which was my point. Can't you read?

Unlike New Orleans San Diegans are accepting all help whereas New Oleans was denied help or it was deliberately postponed. We have firefighters from Arizona, Colorado and other parts of the country here helping us. They came from state and local governments. Hell Canada and other countries are sending aid our way so please get educated.

The individual people have responded w/ grace and wisdom too and it speaks well to the beauty of our city. So grow up and stop being brainwashed.

Do something creative like actually attacking my points. Can you do that?

You also said:
The differnce between victims and non-victims. I will even go so far as to say these fires are and will be much worse then the hurricane that struck New Orleans.

Me:
In sheer size sure I could agree w/ you. The fires have burned up an area twice the size of New York city but in terms of actual toxicity New Orleans is much worse off. You would know that if you studied more. For the record I am calling you ignorant and unlike Rick, I do think you are worth debating. I just don't think you will do a good job representing your side. As a matter of fact I think you will embarrass yourself. I hope you don't. It's not fun debating someone that can't write well.

p

Posted by: payshun | October 24, 2007 8:29 PM

P said
I personally have spent a great deal of time trying to build marriage up in many troubled families. That comes from my beliefs in Jesus and my leftist ideals.

Me
Well I guess I am a leftist too then , I applaude for that !

P
We don't believe in shaming people.

Me
You do realize how phony this sounds . This site ridicules Christians all the time for their beliefs . Bush is immoral for only wanting a 5 billion increase in a medical program . Are you really believing this ? Do you realize how slf righteousness this is sounding ? You can be for the Sancity of Marriage , one Man and One woman without speaking to as a means to shame those who believe in polygamous or other types of marriages . So because you are NOT speaking and including multi partner marriages, only homosexuals you believe that would be shaming them ? To speak out against alcohol abuse that is shaming the drunk ? Praise God who perverted your mind with this type of Gospel . Thru Christ the drunk can find a better life , not through shame , but through Love .

P said
What I have seen from your side in terms of looking at the problems w/n the black community is a shallowness that defies description. I am saying that because I am trying to pick a fight or be rude. It's just shallow.

P said
The difference is that even though we are both black, even though we both worship Jesus we respect the differences that exist spiritually, ideologically and politically

Me That is between you and Rick . Not between you and black republicans . Or Black political conservatives . No respect . none at all .
Actually that is how I see Ricks view , he proves it over and over to me . . Not only shallow , thought control based on race .
I had made a casusal friend I thought from my particpation as a co chair of an organization called the Etnic Unity Coalition . I was the token conservative white guy .
We reached out to all aspects of the community . Japanese , Pacific Inslander , Black , etc . Great forums , great FOOD . I told you about my exerience with the Pastor denied his chance to speak to kids at a HS . I am a firm believer in Affirmitive action , people need to be out reached to besides what so many consider "normal channels" But what became controversal and got me in the papers was on a Human Rights council I belonged to also , token conservative again , they asked for an up and down vote on a proclamation to go against a state ballot doing away with racial preferences in hiring . Well , we could debate it for hours , comes down to it I see it as immoral as institutional racism . Don't mistake my grammar and writing ability for my lack of knowledge of the issues like Rick has P .

I voted against it , abeing in the minority of a liberal bunch , it stuck out like a hernia .
I respect those who see that issue different , I really do . Maybe its from my Mom telling me two wrongs don't make a right , or maybe its my Bibical understanding of equality and not allowing government to make laws stopping it . Who knows maybe it is white priviledge ,

I think I can rationalize why some people support racial preferences , we have a history of doing it to minorities at one time , but I can't . Its immoral to me . Thats the bottom line , I can't have friendships with some people becuase because I believe government trating another based on race is immoral . Tell me whose side is shallow ? He was a great guy also , helped my kid was getting in trouble , gave him a tour of juvy for me thorough his ministry . My lost I guess , too bad friends are not considered a lost to him .

The guy just turned his back on me the next time I went to greet him . Him and others .People who base their relationships on that thinking sure limit their view of life and people .

Rick's stereotypes of conservatives grow evermore tiresome and sometimes yours .

They come from a shallow mindset which has limited i. He is twice as ignorant to conservatives as he makes them out to be . Maybe three times . No excuse for it .

Payshun , you would be surprised how much you say I do listen to . I do not see you as one having the same Faith as I do . I see you as an honest person who cares about people . All people . Quite a compliment coming from me and I hope you can accept coming from a guy like me . I noticed that book at the book store you mentioned by Cornell West , or at least he was an author of a few I noticed . I almost picked up a King book , this actually because of your and mine converations . I would feel like I would be compromising Christ Teachings to support some of the issues you support . I can compromise politically , I can even compromise in some ways morally , I can not compromise My Jesus . He has never done that to me , and I will not do that to Him .I Had a King book that basically told his story and what I considered also would explain the justice through politcal action that sometimes I have a problem comprehending I admit .

I put it back , bought another . You see I guess King according to Rick would not like me , or the values I hold , or even consider respecting the political values I have of more local control and a smaller Federal Government . I rather have those making decisions for my community by those who live in my community . How that gets linked up to racism , hurting the poor , and such , and then saying I support that also , well the Legacy of King is a great one . But if what Rick Nowland is spewing is King's Dream , I rather believe in the myth . People of all kinds do the best we can , and Christians I know have been some of the kindest people I have ever met , and I notice the crap spewed on us by the Rick Nowlands, The Gay Activists , the tolerant liberals all the time .

Like I said , I think the liberals have won , how long you going to blame us for what you have to deal with now ? You got what you wanted . Guess wehat , you need us as much as we need you .

And yeah , God Bless America . This is still the greatest place for opportunity in the world , even for the poor .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 24, 2007 9:40 PM

CKC

Poverty: If there is less government intervention for the poor, how is the private and religious sector going to pick up the slack

Me
I think you are seeing this in a shallow way. Its not JUST the government intervention , its how the government intervenes ,

So a government program that is actually working say lift people out of poverty , would that mean they need huge funding increases yearly to stop the increasing number of people on their list ?

Say a program like Head Start , statistically helps kids , expecially poor kids in their beginning years . As those kids get older , they fall statistically behind again .

No government follow up , of course charters and school choice is out of the question , even though when parents got a chance to make up for what middle class parents take for granted .

Of course , just throw more money at the public school , that will fix it ? .

If nothing else it keeps the democrats getting people to vote for them , because they care so much about the poor . Obviously , their policies keep producing so many .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 24, 2007 9:49 PM

"Poverty: If there is less government intervention for the poor, how is the private and religious sector going to pick up the slack?"

CKC - Good question. As my above post suggests - and I notice that nobody has contradicted it - the religious sector may need some re-education. Both liberals and conservatives and working together to help out those whom life and the government leave in the lurch. My experience working with a non-profit organization, however, suggests that many people are overstretched and suffering from what has been branded "compassion fatigue." There's only so much pain and suffering you can hear about before you begin to feel like you just want to shut it out and get on with your life. That's understandable: speaking for myself, I can say unequivocally that my life is worth getting on with. So what do we do? Are others willing to stop the name-calling and offer some concrete suggestions?

BTW, Rick, I forget who said it, but it's worth repeating: I don't belong to any organized political party; I'm a Democrat.

Posted by: Another nonymous | October 24, 2007 9:56 PM

Gay marriage became an issue only about five or so years ago.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 24, 2007 4:19 PM

Rick, gay marriage was all the rage in public debate here in Canada until legalized by a Liberal gov't in 2005. When that gov't fell to the Conservatives in January 2006, the Conservative gov't made a specific decision NOT to revisit the gay marriage issue much to the displeasure of the RR in Canada.

Since that decision, we hardly hear anything more about gay marriage in public discourse NOR are they fornicating in the streets or placarding the churches or rubbing the RR's face in it; to date in Canada, the big gay marriage BOGEYMAN the RR warned us about has turned out to be non-existent; life continues as "normal" as it was before legalization of gay marriage

Posted by: canucklehead | October 25, 2007 4:12 AM

trying to find a white evangelical Democrat in the 1980s was actually quite difficult. So I don't want to hear it.
Me

They called then Reagan democrats , its because you label them something else does not mean they were not democrats .

I won't even respond to the rest of your post because -- well, there's a reason they're called "stereotypes."

Me

Thats for sure , two issue political parties , Take Katrinna , lets see stealing from sporting goods and stealing from the electronic department , and blaming it all on Bush for racism . I blame it more On Napoleon myself , what a place for a city .
Whoops I guess that is three . So lets see if Katrina happens again , the Feds will be better that i know , the same folks are in control of New Orleans .

Ypu

They have a great deal of truth behind them.

Stereotypes I guess they do , so lets use them . I game .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 25, 2007 4:13 AM

Mick,

You are assuming a lot about Rick that is simply not true.

You are right about the effect our leftist views have on you. It can be shaming and I admit to that. When it comes to people's sexual sin I don't do that. I just don't. Jesus treated the woman caught in adultery w/ class and dignity w/o directly pointing out her sin. He did say sin no more but he never specified what that sin was. I find that interesting and I try to emulate that w/ any that are really honest about their brokeness. it helps to bring a place of trust.

That doesn't mean I don't confront people when they do something that is harmful. I do and I can be quite harsh about that as you notice on some of the threads here. I can be quite brutal when I need to be but unlike you and many that think like you I try to do my best to not give unsolicited correction to people that already know better. It's a waste of time. They need love not rebuke. That doesn't mean that love is not rebuke but I think that most times love is taken out of rebuke and that's not right.

Why is it ok for conservatives to be so judgemental of gay people? Why is it ok for them to favor the rich over the poor and support systems that favor that inequality? Those are two honest questions I have.

I can understand why you would think I am compromising Jesus and to be honest we all do it at some time or another. When we offer a harsh word out of judgement. When we lust after a woman or ignore the people we love, everyone compromises Jesus. We are human. None of us is perfect. I am a Christian, I believe that Jesus died and rose again for my sins. I believe he sent the holy spirit and that spirit indwells w/n me making the bible more than something to live by but the means by which I am unified to my Father.

I don't believe for a second that God supports all of my political agenda and neither should He. It's mortal and made to die as are all political agendas. That doesn't mean that I should not have one or use it to help as many people as I can while I am here.

I am not an evanglical, and I realize that doesn't make discussion easy. Neither should it but that doesn't mean that I think your faith is suspect and neither does Rick. He questions your political ideology but he does believe you are his brother in Christ. His tone doesn't always say that but then again when i say I believe evangelical christianity is a dead religion does my tone say any different?

I am a contemplative, as a mystic I see things differently than you. I am proud and glad you have the faith you do. I just wish it went deeper. But I feel that way about almost all evangelicals. But you see the difference btwn me recognizing spiritual things and things of this world? They are not the same. I believe all people should have equal treatment. That's why I support gay marriage. That has nothing to do w/ Jesus and neither should it. It is a worldly manner that has nothing to do w/ my sexuality or practice.

I live my life according to the principles of Jesus. I know you do the same. It's just that I want everyone else to be able to live as they see fit and my faith should never hinder their choices and right now it does. That's a gross injustice to me.

p

Posted by: payshun | October 25, 2007 4:14 AM

Gay marriage became an issue only about five or so years ago.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 24, 2007 4:19 PM

Rick, gay marriage was all the rage in public debate here in Canada until legalized by a Liberal gov't in 2005. When that gov't fell to the Conservatives in January 2006, the Conservative gov't made a specific decision NOT to revisit the gay marriage issue much to the displeasure of the RR in Canada.

Since that decision, we hardly hear anything more about gay marriage in public discourse NOR are they fornicating in the streets or placarding the churches or rubbing the RR's face in it; to date in Canada, the big gay marriage BOGEYMAN the RR warned us about has turned out to be non-existent; life continues as "normal" as it was before legalization of gay marriage

Posted by: canucklehead | October 25, 2007 4:17 AM

Gay marriage became an issue only about five or so years ago.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 24, 2007 4:19 PM

Rick, gay marriage was all the rage in public debate here in Canada until legalized by a Liberal gov't in 2005. When that gov't fell to the Conservatives in January 2006, the Conservative gov't made a specific decision NOT to revisit the gay marriage issue much to the displeasure of the RR in Canada.

Since that decision, we hardly hear anything more about gay marriage in public discourse NOR are they fornicating in the streets or placarding the churches or rubbing the RR's face in it; to date in Canada, the big gay marriage BOGEYMAN the RR warned us about has turned out to be non-existent; life continues as "normal" as it was before legalization of gay marriage

Posted by: canucklehead | October 25, 2007 4:28 AM

assume you're including GLBT Christians who want to live in lifelong/monogamous relationships in your list of people not to stereotype. Please clarify.

Posted by: ashpenaz

Actually I am flying out to Cedar Rappids in April for a wedding of lady and her female partner . I never looked at her as lesbian , more as a pain in the neck , but she was my sister what can I say . All in all , a better person then I , but I am glad I don't have to live with her .

Why do you ask , you clarify . hmmm

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 25, 2007 5:33 AM

They called then Reagan democrats, its because you label them something else does not mean they were not democrats.

What are you talking about? The "Reagan Democrats" were generally blue-collar whites, often Catholic. Evangelical? I don't think so. (And many of these same people ended up voting for Clinton.)

I am not sure if Rick talks to people like this in person, but if he does he does not have any conservative friends. No one will respect a man who does not respect him. For friendship there has to be respect, then understanding, then reconciliation. Without rspect the things you talk about will never happen.

Truth be told, most of my friends, including some girlfriends, are conservative. But they know better than to smack down "liberals" in my presence the way you do on this blog.

Rick the side that promotes racist views is the one promoting negative stereotypes. It is what stops people coming together. Its puts aperson on the defenisve, no one likes being lumped into a pile of people who hate because of race.

Physician, heal thyself! As I said elsewhere, the conservative side has no authority to lecture anyone else on how to deal with racism -- because it has yet to clean its own side of the fence. Ever wonder why most blacks are against you (and we are)? Hint: It's not because we love "liberals!" Seriously -- how many blacks go to your church, and of that number how many are in leadership?

canucklehead -- I was specifically referring to the United States.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 25, 2007 8:37 AM

Mick,

Not to be rude here but you don't know what you are talking about.

You said:
Rick , actually your side of the fence uses racism as a tool . Its so bad that even people of the same race are at times not black enough .

Me:
That has been a problem for centuries and it has nothing to do w/ liberalism. It has to do w/ the self hate blacks inherited and developed from white racism. Have you ever heard of the brown paper bag test? I doubt you have. But basically only blacks that were lighter than a brown bag could get into some black owned clubs, fraternities... That was going on way before the civil rights era started and the spectre of supposed liberal ideals.

Even that test (hopefully dead) has its genesis in the house slave and field slave battle for resources. House slaves tended to be lighter bred from the rape of their mothers, field slaves tended to be darker. They fought against each other for minimal resources and standing. That bred hatred for our own skin color and the beauty of our heritage. It's that same nihilistic urge that is destroying our innercities and affects all the poor regardless of race. If you read Race Matters he has a great chapter examining this very thing.

To be fair Mick Rick does want reconciliation or he would never be part of a white church. Give him more credit please. You want him to respect you more then maybe you start by respecting the work he has done for the last few decades instead of assuming he should respect yours.(He should but then I don't see the same level of disrespect.)

I can see how you feel dehumanized because all Rick does is attack the larger issues surrounding your party and ideology. But he addressing you as a person and as a member of a group. I hope you can see that.

p

Posted by: payshun | October 25, 2007 11:38 AM

CKC -- My church has been doing that for years. Right now we have more money in our community development fund than we know what to do with. Recently we started a credit union that we hope will encourage neighborhood folks to join to get away from those check-chasing places that charge those humungous fees (ripping them off in the process). Our deacons' fund hands out six figures annually and also is well-funded. We do need a new worship center because the campus is way too crowded; however, that's on hold in part because we are loathe to spend money on ourselves.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 25, 2007 12:10 PM

Isn't it true that Jesus was the first genuine communist?

Not exactly, because Marxism basically denies the spiritual. Someone on another thread aptly called Marxism a "Christian heresy."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 25, 2007 12:58 PM

I am so soory that you think I can't write. It just breaks my heart to see two(Rick and Payshuan)very bitter black man who are christians yet can be so decieved. I know that it is only God that can help you to see the truth and it is not my job to make that happen. Rick everything liberals belive are all based on policies that come from socialism and communism. Why as a christian would you by into ideas that are based on lies and are plain evil. The policies liberals promote do not set the captives free they only keep them in more bondaage. Why are you so blind to this? You should know as a Christian that Jesus came to set the captives free. How then can you support policies that do not do what Jesus came to do. It is the not rich conservatives that are keeping people down but the policies that liberals force on people are. Rick and Payshaun contrary to what you believe I am not a mean guy. All I am trying to is figure out how people that claim to believe in the same God can have totally different worldviews. One of us is wrong. I believe it is you. Liberal ideas are pure evil and wiil lead to the ruin of this country eventually if they are not defeated. Do you honestly think the Anti-christ will come as a conservative. I doubt it because it in order to get followers he will have to promote tolerence for all, free health care for all, tax the rich to help the poor. In other words he sound just like a liberal. He will use peoples feelings to get them to follow him. Just like liberals do today. Not based on facts or anything tha works but on how hw will make people feel. Like they are doing something to help people when in reality they are bringing about there own destruction. I hope this was written better because I have probally do not have as much schooling as you do Payshaun. After all I am just a dumb brainwashed Christian who happens to be conservative.

Posted by: Doug | October 25, 2007 1:35 PM

"After all I am just a dumb brainwashed Christian who happens to be conservative."

Couldn't have said it better myself!!!

Posted by: stoler | October 25, 2007 2:14 PM

Rick,
That's a great problem for your church to have. Blessings to you and them.

Mick,
Can you offer an example of a program that helps sustain the poor? Either currently existing that you are in favor of, or a concept of one not yet created? Do you mean rather than offering the poor free health insurance you would offer a job training program to help them get a (better) job? Or am I misunderstanding ? I really am trying to understand. Is your point the give a man a fish he eats for a day vs. teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime concept?

Secondly, are you saying you would be in favor of government assistance to the poor if the way in which it was implemented was: more effective, more efficient, etc?

Thirdly, what about programs like WIC - good or bad in your opinion? I think WIC is a valuable nutrition assistance program, but wish it was more supportive of breastfeeding.

And BTW, sorry I didn't know I had to build a friendship before we could find some common ground or work together.....but I am willing to do that. You say you are a union member. My Dad was part of the glass blowers and ceramics union. He worked for Owens Corning all his life. My mom's a nurse. They worked hard all their lives to raise three daughters and put us through college. They sacrificed a lot. What we had wasn't fancy, but we had what we needed. We grew up in fundamentalist churches, and I went to a private Baptist school. Because of that, I am fairly certain that you and I don't differ very much on quite a few doctrinal issues. But having a more moderate husband and becoming a mother has broadened my world view. Doctrinally I haven't changed very much, what has changed is how I think that God wants me to treat other people. (Being angry and frustrated with strangers online might not be part of His plan). But if in the course of that we are able to learn something insightful about His Kingdom, then I believe it is a valuable exercise.

Posted by: CKC | October 25, 2007 3:03 PM

The policies liberals promote do not set the captives free they only keep them in more bondaage. Why are you so blind to this?

Because, with apologies to "Porgy & Bess," "it ain't necessarily so." We are not about to forget, for example, that Martin Luther King Jr. ended up having to fight people like yourself in order to rid the South of racial segregation, and it you think we are you're denser than you let on.

Rick and Payshaun contrary to what you believe I am not a mean guy. All I am trying to is figure out how people that claim to believe in the same God can have totally different worldviews.

We clearly have different experiences and histories, plus the Christianity I subscribe to never had "cultural standing" in the context that "this is what everyone is supposed to believe" As such, early on I had to define my own walk with the Savior, based not on what others said and believed but on searching the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, for myself. FWIW, I've known rejection from both sides of the the aisle, whether liberal/conservative or black/white, and as such I do not subscribe to any form of "pop religion."

Do you honestly think the Anti-christ will come as a conservative. I doubt it because it in order to get followers he will have to promote tolerence for all, free health care for all, tax the rich to help the poor.

I'm a Calvinist; therefore, I don't subscribe to any of that pop eschatology. I don't believe there is one "Antichrist" -- in fact, the Scripture talks only about a spirit of such -- and thus have no interest in discovering who he may be because that would get in the way of the spiritual goals.

That said, however, if there were one he might very well be conservative. Hypothetically, he will come out against folks who speak up for the poor, disposessed and downtrodden, same as those who persecuted the prophets of old. I can tell that Jim Wallis is on the right track due to the fierce opposition he's generated on this blog -- he's had to take this kind of abuse from other Christians since the 1970s.

But you see, Doug, you're focused only on ideology, which at some point has to break down because it's not foolproof. Sometimes "doing right by your fellow man" needs to get beyond those parameters. Let me give you an example: Suppose you have a friend who is also black who is suffering from racial discrimination. Doing things your way, he's just supposed to "work his way around it," which is fine to a certain extent -- but wouldn't it be better if those barriers were simply removed? Or, were that you, how would you personally feel about banging your head against the wall?

This is why most African-Americans, especially Christians -- King, remember, was first and foremost a minister of the Gospel -- look susiciously upon conservative efforts against, say, "big government"; you get the impression that conservatives care primarily about having their way, not serving the LORD or others. In our view they are not willing to give themselves away so that others can benefit, and that is about as "anti-Christ" as it gets.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 25, 2007 3:26 PM

Marxism was an abstract economic theory written by a man that had servants. To equate it with any type of serious political movement is a mistake that lberals and conservatives alike make way too often. Christians across the politcal spectrum garner wisdom from Aristotle and Plato, but I don't think any of them mistake them for theologians.

Posted by: Mike Grello | October 25, 2007 3:55 PM

Donny wrote: "Rick everything liberals believe are all based on policies that come from socialism and communism. Why as a christian would you by into ideas that are based on lies and are plain evil. "

I am not saying I support socialism or communism but the question we should be asking is why do we assume that capitalism is inherently good?
As a Christian and one you would likely classify as liberal, the ideas that I have "bought into" that speak up for and help the least of these are based on the Bible not socialism and communism, and I am certain that you would not classify Bible based beliefs as lies and plain evil.

Donny: "You should know as a Christian that Jesus came to set the captives free. How then can you support policies that do not do what Jesus came to do."

We on the middle and the left are asking the same of our conservative brothers and sisters - How can you support policies that do not follow the example of Christ? Would the Prince of Peace support war? If we are to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, how is it OK to inflict bodily harm on our enemies in order to gather intelligence, or imprison them indefinitely without a trial? Would a Jewish carpenter be in favor of tax breaks for the rich while at the same time decreasing nutritional assistance programs for the poor? Would He who made the lame to walk again and the blind to see be in favor of comoditising health care?

Donny: "All I am trying to is figure out how people that claim to believe in the same God can have totally different worldviews. One of us is wrong."

Donny, Rick is right. It has a lot to do with life experience. Where you have lived - same place, many places, different country . Who you have met and associated with - people only exactly like you or people who are different and beleive differently than you. I will give a different example. Have you ever met somebody that didn't like the same food as you? The same music? As a kid I had a friend who didn't like pizza. Pizza! What kid doesn't like pizza!? Had he tasted the same pizza that I had? I loved pizza, how could he not? Was he weird or somethin'? Was he wrong for not liking pizza? No - he just had a different world view. I'm not saying God is relative - but how people understand God is related to their world view.

We aren't secular liberals. We are Christians with a different perspective than you who have been squashed into a box labeled liberal. Some of us would rather be called progressives. Some of us would just like to be called Christians.

What is false is the belief that Christians who hve a different perspective than you don't base their politics on deep biblical convictions just as you do. The lie is that either of us is right or wrong because we are conservative or liberal. That is the beleif system that Rick and I have mentioned. The concept that I am a conservative therefore I am right. You are not a conservative and do not think like me, or look like me, or sound like me, or like pizza like me so therefore, you must be wrong. That is wrongheaded thinking.

Posted by: CKC | October 25, 2007 5:00 PM

SHOW me how I am wrong. That's my challenge. SHOW me yours is better. Don't bother telling me it is, or forcing your ways on me through politics. Show me.

In other words, you need to see the fruit of our lives. A legitimate request.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 25, 2007 5:55 PM

Doug,

I am trying really hard to have a conversation w/ you where I not only hear your views but actually learn about you as a person. I am starting to wonder if that's a waste of time. It's not because you are conservative even though that doens't help. But you seem unable to listen or answer any of my questions. You seem committed to your view and just spouting off about things.

I am a mystic, a contemplative at that. The form of Christianity I practice is one of the hardest forms there is. Prayer is difficult, I mean that in the I should give up and not do this any more kind of way.

It involves more surrender than your protestant lifestyle can fully articulate. I have a fear for the Lord but like the prophets of old I know I can challenge my Lord and be honest w/ him about anything even if it is stuff he doesn't want to hear. The same thing is true of His relationship w/ me. What is your relationship w/ Jesus like? How much does the Holy Spirit play a role in your understanding? Do you worship the bible?

Feel free to answer any of those.

p

Posted by: payshun | October 25, 2007 8:55 PM

In response to CKC who said, "I am not saying I support socialism or communism but the question we should be asking is why do we assume that capitalism is inherently good?" and those who loosely throw around the labels of socialist and communist.

Marx was an atheist; his family was FORCED to convert from Judaism to Lutheranism in order for his father to get a government job. And, in Europe, where they had state religions, Christianity was abused by the monarchies to further their own wealth and power. This and Hitler's ersatz Christianity are why Europe is so secular today (and why the Antichrist would be more successful masquerading as a conservative: a wolf in sheep's clothing,eh?)

At any rate, let us examine the proponents of laissez-faire capitalism. Adam Smith is considered the father of capitalism as we know it, and is religiously quoted by Ann Coulter. Adam Smith was an atheist and, in fact, greatly influenced Darwin.

The Ayn Rand Foundation was founded by Ayn Rand, an atheist. The Ayn Rand Foundation (and they do have a website, so look it up before anyone makes an ignorant rebuttal) promotes laissez-faire capitalism, including abolishing any gov't programs to help the poor. They also promote atheism. Members have included Milton friedman (the architect of Reaganomics), Alan Greenspan (appointed by Bush 41), and Ben Bernanke (appointed by Bush 43). Bernanke is an avowed atheist. The economic brains of the Republican economic model are all atheists and followers of Ayn Rand. On top of that, many members of the University of Texas Economics faculty (TEXAS!) are Ayn Randers and some are close to the Bushes (interestingly, the Hinckley and bin laden families also were close to the bushes, but that's another topic).

Acts 2:44-45

Posted by: Floyd | October 25, 2007 9:31 PM

This is amusing. The observation that "faith is personal but never private" reminds me of the paradoxes lampooned in Don Quixote. By definition that which is personal is private. If it isn't private, it is public.

Public Christianity has been transformed from a private spirituality to ease the way of the afflicted through a mean world (as in "be in the world, not of the world") to a temporal institution that is fixated on money and engages heavily in politics. The "Lords Spiritual" are as greedy as the "Lords Temporal" ever were. The idea that it will serve individuals and save their souls now sounds so passe. Salvation of souls is out, lobbying, rent-seeking in Congress, and money grubbing are in.

Posted by: Jsens | October 25, 2007 10:30 PM

Doug,

First let me apologize for attributing your quotes to Donny. I don't know where that came from. Not enough sleep I guess?

I hear what you are saying and trust me when I say that I understand your perspective. I understand it because I lived your perspective for over half of my life. Where we differ is how we beleive we are called to live out our Christianity on a daily basis and interact with the world around us. We share common ground, Doug. Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me. John 14:6. I believe that and so do other Christians labeled liberal.

Thomas Jefferson said: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." Yes, God is a righteous God and He will judge us all - me, you, Bill Clinton, George Bush. I don't think it is a sin to vote for a particualr person. Bill Clinton had flaws, so did Moses and Noah, Abraham and David - but God was still able to use them for His purpose. George Bush has flaws. We are all sinners. I don't think it is realistic or fair to blame one man for all of the problems we face as a nation.

Your pastor has clearly preached from the pulpit that there is a watered down Christianity in America today. Fair enough, but he wrongly believes that people like me have lost their way and been deceived by the world, that we are backsliders, our faith was never genuine or real, because real Bible believing Chrisitans go to churches like yours, they study the word, they are in church every time the doors are open. I know this because I have heard this same sermon many times throughout my life. I was taught all of the things I was not to do in order to be as righteous and Christ-like as I could possibly be. I was taught to not be "of this world" but to be separated from it. I was taught that the only way to fulfill the true calling to serve God was to go to a Christian college and become one of two things: a minister's wife or a Chrisitian school teacher.

My Christian life centered around worship, trying really hard not to sin, asking for forgiveness when I did sin, and doubting my faith because my pastor said that if we were having trouble not sinning maybe our faith wasn't real. Christianity revolved around my personal relationship with God and trying to be as sinless as possible. The problem is, that's a very self-focussed faith. It's all about me.

What I learned was lacking was any teaching about what I was to actively do to serve others as a Christian. I discovered some verses that I hadn't been taught before like Matthew 25: 31-46. The story about the sheep and the goats. I took a closer look at Jesus' life as an example of how we should live and treat other people. While we are not to be of the world, we still have to and need to interact with it. We're not supposed to hide under a bushel or bury our talent in the ground. We are commanded to be a light, to use the talents God has given each of us to do His good work. Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven Matthew 5:16.

Where we differ, Doug is that I have come to understand that living my Chrisitian faith is more than believing the right thing. It is more than repenting of my sins by following the Roman's Road and saying the sinner's prayer. It is more than trying not to sin. As one who has been labeled a liberal, it may surprise you that I take literally and dead seriously Christ's charge as to how we are to treat the least of these: the widow, the orphan, the prisoner, the infirm, the weak, the marginalized, the stranger among us, the unwed mother, the illegal alien, the alcoholic, the homeless person, my enemy, my neighbor, people who are different than myself - people of different races, religions, and yes even different sexual orientations. You see, I was a Christian first and a progressive second. My close walk with God, fervent prayer, and thirst for Biblical knowledge lead me to my progressive views. It was God (not Marx, not Hillary, not Ted Kennedy) who softened my heart to stop blaming people for their shortcomings and opened my eyes to the need for forgiveness of others if I had any hope of God forgiving me. If I wanted to receive God's grace, then I needed to practice showing grace to others. Living our faith is not limited to following all the rules as a Christian, it includes hearing God's call to serve those around you.

You see, following the example of Jesus is a philosophy for living. If we treated each other the way that God intended us to, we wouldn't have many of the difficulties we face in the world today. Sin and selfishness messed up the world - not Bill Clinton. This is true evangelism. Sharing the good news with others through our living example, every day.

Now you know what a progressive evangelical Christian looks like and how we can both love and serve the same God, yet have a completely different world view.

Posted by: CKC | October 26, 2007 12:19 AM

Mick,
Can you offer an example of a program that helps sustain the poor?

Yes , the current health care program in my state . Example , one of my wife's day care worker . She quite one of her other jobs so in order to keep her under a wage that made her qualify for free medical care from the state . I personally ,bet the majoriy of blue collar workers started at a fairly low pay compared to where they are after 15 years on a job . When you have government giving programs with strings attached that only certain income levels can receive , taking a 50 cent raise may not be worth it if it keeps you off government medical care , food stamps , or another program that can help your family today .

But if you get a 50 cents every two years , you see my point , it stops people from advancing , they get immediate help for the situation , with no concern for their future .or the tax payers . The conservative view I have is you are setting a bunch of rules for this person to live by that keeps the person in poverty . Or what we call poverty , some countries would not consider it that . Old welfare programs required the spouse to be out of the home and such . Think about that , I pay you X amount of dollars as long as you have the father of your kids out of the house . Thats sounds crazy , but we fought politically about such issues for a long time .

CKC said

Either currently existing that you are in favor of, or a concept of one not yet created?

Me

I would like to see less regualtions with small businesses. These provide jobs . Also targeted tax breaks for corportations that have training programs . my wifes Preschool /DayCare is a ministry , but it has to obey the laws of Washington state in regards to buisness . They take on many kids from the government system that no other day cares will take . They also take special needs kids . BUT because of employer state requirements , the extra portion the employer has to pay sometimes causes our church to absorb the lost . Long story short , our church is considering dropping the day care ministry . in our state the state is advaning the agenda , and it will be hitting your state also of taking care of preschoolers also . State day preschool . Taxes will go hope , to pay for this will cause employers taxes to go up , and you will an eroding of private daycare and state run daycares . You may not see this as bad , but some kids the time they will hear of Noahs Ark , or the story of Jesus healing the leper , was because of of my wifes minsitry . Plus the help and care that these people offer to parents ansd kids , its their ministry , but like all of us that have to feed their kids too . More government , less choices for our kids . Thats the basic problem as the right side of the political compass . More government means LESS choice , less freedom to choose .

CKC

Do you mean rather than offering the poor free health insurance you would offer a job training program to help them get a (better) job? Or am I misunderstanding ?

Me

Well somethign like that , but healthcare is sucha complicated issue for me . I see both sides . I like the idea of using different ways to get everyone covered . But medicare is a government system , many areas , in fact regions have doctors who will not take medicare coverage . Again government one payer system I believe will hurt everything , but perhaps vouchers , and a mixture of systems is what we need to do . I believe capitalism is better then socialism , but there is nothing wrong in directing the capitalism economice system in a way that we can all benefit form it in regards to healthcare . Competition is a good thing between insurance companies , forcing poor kids to have only one system available to them will make it worse for them and the system . I like the voucher system , the money follows the kid instead of the buracracy .

CKC said

I really am trying to understand. Is your point the give a man a fish he eats for a day vs. teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime concept?

I think so , Thanks for trying to understand , just think what i do to my poor wife .

CKC Said

Secondly, are you saying you would be in favor of government assistance to the poor if the way in which it was implemented was: more effective, more efficient, etc?

Me

In a way that it it protects people from having to be homeless if they do not wish to be . But in a manner that it allows people , unless mentally or physically unable , to work at a means to get out of their situation . A life raft , not a motor boat . I have know many people who exist to xist , that is sad and it is not what Jesus meant by we helping the poor . Not to me anyway . Thats like giving a hungry man a buck , and patting your self on the back for helping the poor . Don;t misunderstand me , yes we are to feed and clothe the poor , take care of the widows and orphans .

CKC

Thirdly, what about programs like WIC - good or bad in your opinion? I think WIC is a valuable nutrition assistance program, but wish it was more supportive of breastfeeding.

Me

Its a great program , Carter actually said he started it as a means to support his pro life personal beliefs. I don't think it helped in that category of curtailing abortions , but I believe it has helped many babies get a fighting cance at being healthy . plus help out some lower income families .

CKC

And BTW, sorry I didn't know I had to build a friendship before we could find some common ground or work together.....but I am willing to do that.

Me

Well actually you get a little rattled here sometimes with the incoming , the church I go to and the churches I have visited and revivals attended have had the kindest peopel you want to meet . Actually little politics , but to hear what some say about people in my Faith category , we are racist , hateful etc . That gest very old when your trying to have an intellectual converation with someone , I just gotta wonde ri these folks talk to people in person like that to people ? Yikes .

CKC said

ou say you are a union member. My Dad was part of the glass blowers and ceramics union. He worked for Owens Corning all his life. My mom's a nurse. They worked hard all their lives to raise three daughters and put us through college. They sacrificed a lot. What we had wasn't fancy, but we had what we needed. We grew up in fundamentalist churches, and I went to a private Baptist school.

Me

I work for the Washington State Ferries , Five kids , I was the youngest boy . 52 now . My Grandparents were immigrints , and I guess we were poor when we were young ? Hard to tell , we had four in one bedroom , but we had a house and a yard . The school was pretty good I thought . Went to an Episcopal church , quit going when I got to 8th grad e I think . My Mom seldom talked about God , my Dad only mentioned Him when the Jets were loosing .

CKC said

Because of that, I am fairly certain that you and I don't differ very much on quite a few doctrinal issues. But having a more moderate husband and becoming a mother has broadened my world view. Doctrinally I haven't changed very much, what has changed is how I think that God wants me to treat other people. (Being angry and frustrated with strangers online might not be part of His plan). But if in the course of that we are able to learn something insightful about His Kingdom, then I believe it is a valuable exercise.

Me

You might be surprised . I go to an Assembly of God Church now . I was invited and hearr a sermon that had my name on it . First time in my church I thought they were quite peculiar people . . I remember thinking it was rude for them to be clapping like this , and they were all smiling , I had always been in a church where people were very serious looking , solemn like . Well the Bible does say God's people are peculiar .

I use to think we the Body of Christ was one huge love fest , but unfortunately got a prety good taste in my area, the liberal political beliefs are very strong here , even thought the Evangelical population is higher , this is the most unchurched state in the country from what I have been told . Hence my erspective is somewhat different because of that I guess.

God Bless , Your Ok . Ever have some ask you how to spell your name CKC .

Get it , I crack me up ..

God Bless , Mick

and thank you

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 26, 2007 1:59 AM

P said
Mick,

Not to be rude here but you don't know what you are talking about.Me:
That has been a problem for centuries and it has nothing to do w/ liberalism

Me

Not rude P , your just wrong . it has to do with racism , its wrong . I did not say it was liberalism . Your way too defensive , you need to chill out my friend. Racism and its root causes can often be explained . The roots of a group being mistreated by another group , real wrongs occur , it blocks the abailityto reason as God wants us to . Black on black racism is wrong .

P said
I also dont condemn homosexuals which is what you folks on the right excel at.

Me

Many of us who still have the value and belief systems of our parents and theirs actually live quite nicely in this country . We commit fewer crimes per capitia to our "group" we also give more to charity . We obey the laws , do not do anything to harm homosexuals, cause them any problems . The vast majority of Conservatives do not . I think people in general need to learn to practice a little more tolerance and acceptance of diversity .

90 percent of blacks condemn us as has been stated , but that is God;s politics for ya . That of course is ok .
Can't wait to see this new world .

Posted by: Anonymous | October 26, 2007 3:17 AM

I doubt they voted at all.

Rick - com'on...they voted. They know who they want in office.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 26, 2007 9:20 AM

"Well I tried really hard to change the tone. I think there were some break throughs - maybe a couple of A-ha moments. But we're right back to ugly name calling again."

Thanks, CKC, for making the effort. I have nearly given up on this blog numerous times because of the endless name-calling. There's always the temptation to hit back from the id (which is why I've never responded to a single post from Donny; it wouldn't be pretty). I really appreciated your long post above. Please keep trying.

Posted by: Another nonymous | October 26, 2007 9:47 AM

CKC -- I finally read your post above, and I loved it. Few of us become Christians the same way and none of us, if we're maturing in the faith, will stay where we are.

But the people arguing with me have missed the very point of the Gospel, which is reconciliation -- first with God through the cross of Christ; and then with others similarly affected. In the process God builds an entirely new community (the Church) in which He desires to display Kingdom values, to show the world, "Folks, this is how life is meant to be lived." To use the faith as a political and social battering ram for the sake of cultural authority represents nothing more and nothing less than a perversion of the Kingdom of God. We Christians were never meant to be in "power"; our power, such that it may be, should come always and only from the Holy Spirit, Who alone can do the transforming work. (Now, there are times when we may be given temporal power but we ought not to get used to it.)

I think Jim Wallis gets that. People often have accused him of being part of a "religious left" counterpart to the "religious right"; however, he's been ministering since the early 1970s and if his goal was to build Sojo into a similarly big, influential ministry he would have done it long ago. He's hot today, of course, because he comes from a long-neglected perspective, but I'm sure he understands that this stage of his ministry is only temporary and only for this time. Frankly, I'm grateful for his work because I saw in the 1970s -- I became a Christian in 1979 -- the things he's talking about today.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 26, 2007 11:06 AM

Rick,

Thanks. I agree. I get it too. It's been a slowly evolving epiphany over several years. Maturing in the faith requires being willing to be critical of yourself and long held beliefs. What do I beleive? Why do I believe it? Why do I think I am right and someone else is wrong? What if I am wrong? In what ways is the other person right? But it requires being willing and able to admit you might be wrong - a difficult thing for many of us to do. It requires the work of the Spirit as you said.

I met Jim Wallis once and had the opportunity to ask him a direct question. I explained that I was one of many who had heard about his book from his appearance on The Daily Show. (See God can use Comedy Central to reach people.) I explained that I was a "God's Politics" convert and considered myself a "recovering fundamentalist." He chuckled and said, "That's OK. I am too." I told him I read the book and I get it. I really get it. It couldn't be clearer to me now. How do I help my fundamentalist friends get it too? Because I know that when they read passages like Jesus came to liberate the poor and set the captives free they are going to say that means the poor in spirit and the captives to sin. He told me to tell them that they just needed to read their Bibles for themselves, because it's all in there. Yes, Jesus came to set us free from sin, but all 2000 verses aren't just about those who are poor in spirit. It is a Biblical call to serve the least of these - Kingdom values.

So I sent the book to my childhood pastor and the principal and teachers and former classmates of my Baptist school and challenged them to read the book with an open mind and discuss it with me. I got a few takers (not the minister or principal). Two insightful things that came out of that discussion with them that helped me understand them better were this:
1) They had a sense that it was their responsibility to make sure that the members of their own household had achieved the proper level of righteousness first. Then second came nurturing the other members of their congregation in their spiritual journey before moving on to help others. But as I described before the focus is always on holiness in place of service not in conjunction with it.

2) They felt that they didn't need to worry about problems like Darfur or global poverty because those problems were obviously too big for them to handle and instead they could pray about it and let God handle it. I agreed there is a need for prayer, but who's hands and feet were God going to guide if not ours as Chrisitans?

BTW we go to a Presbyterian church too. I wasn't going to complicate things by attempting to tease out predestination and free will with Doug - something I still struggle with.

Thanks for your commments.
Peace.

Posted by: CKC | October 26, 2007 1:31 PM

He told me to tell them that they just needed to read their Bibles for themselves, because it's all in there. Yes, Jesus came to set us free from sin, but all 2000 verses aren't just about those who are poor in spirit.

I think this comes in part from the influence of Calvinism on American Christianity -- despite its theological strengths it can at times be more of a "head trip" rather than the Gospel being fleshed out. (BTW, I no longer attend a Presbyterian church.)

payshun said something on another thread that should be food for thought: None of us gets it completely right. I think of the church as, say, a basketball team: The center and power forward do most of the rebounding; the point guard runs the offense and handles the ball; the small forward does a little of everything -- we don't all have the same roles and we ought to encourage everyone in the role he/she has.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 26, 2007 2:05 PM

"You might want to compare gay theology with, say, prosperity theology, dispensationalism, or Christian Zionism and see which is truer to the Gospel."

Those are apt comparisons.

“If eunuchs are men without working genitals, explain Potiphar.”

He is generally considered to have been an officer, who may or may not have been actually castrated.

“So, even if Jesus were only referring to castrati, He was still welcoming those He knew to to active homosexuals without asking them to change.”

There is nothing in the text that suggests this at all. A number of men grew up with damaged genitalia (modern medicine can correct a number of the issues the rendered them as such), and others had been castrated. Jesus acknowledges their existence.

“So, if my exegesis is wrong, what is the gospel you offer to gays?”

Grace and the opportunity to leave a life as a slave to sin.

“Step 1--Start by believing that the deepest, most intimate part of yourself is shameful.”

This is the first step to repentance for any non-Christian, gay or straight.

“It's time to call yourself names in public.”

You don’t have to do anything of the sort.

“All you need to do is try a bunch of sports and other "butch" things and then you'll start to like women.”

There’s quite a bit more to counseling on this issue.

“Welcome to the Church!”

Christianity isn’t supposed to be about what makes you happy. Christ denied himself quite a bit, if you’ll recall, having never so much as lusted for anyone. He has every right to expect that we adhere to the scripture. This idea that the scriptures need to adhere to us, lest they be dismissed, is a product of American self-absorption.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 26, 2007 3:09 PM

P said
Not defensive at all. It's just that my reading comprehension skills must be rusty. Because you said:

"Rick , actually your side of the fence uses racism as a tool . Its so bad that even people of the same race are at times not black enough".

Me
Rusty maybe ? . Maybe e mail is hard also because you can't say huh and get what the person meant , then the rest of everything said is off . Rick is not a liberal from my perspective , He has a different culture from liberals, and those who believe in his idealogy . Similiar , but more culturally . I don't think you will see rick in a gay rights parade or screaming give illegals a driver liscenes . Maybe , but I don't think that is his issues .

P said

Tavis Smiley held a conservative presidential debate at a historically black college in an attempt to get your candidates to engage us. They all walked away and you wonder why black people reject your politics. Cmon now.

Me
I listened to the commentators after republicans came to a black hoested debate on PBS . Are you kidding , are you really being serious here . They mocked them !Except one , who supported the ones who showed up . But diagreed with everyone but one . A smart man in my opinion . I guess maybe some thought he was a sell out ?

Lets explain something to you P , its too late . The NAACP have said some of the most disgusting character perjoritives about the personal beliefs of many of the republicans in leader ship . They lost their chance if they were really interested . If they were , they should be thrown out of their leadership roles . Some code words that Republicans have been taught by African American leaders to what their heart beliefs really mean , such as smaller government means

Charles Rangel , Nice Grandfatherly type of guy , but he says

Its not "spic " or "nig---" anymore , They say lets cut taxes "

These quotes are heard all over P , not in your NY Times , but yeah , they are heard . Their are hundrends of them . The message is sent . Loud and clear . Perhaps when the leadership that seems to be crowned down goes away , or God touches their hearts , then some good communication can begin . You think I haven;t been trying ? I don't think too many people would have stuck around to listen to the things about my church , my beliiefs , and have then turned into somnething evil , mean and dirty .

I do see a culture that has obviously has lost its family basic structure , and the community you speak of will never be able to make up for it P . I believe personally it is being damaged by your views of support . So do Republicans , so do the propped up African Americans you say you feel betrayed by . I aggree with them . 70 opercent of babies in your culture are born in a home without a Dad . Think about it , the next time someone is staeling something its not the white mans racism that caused that , its the fact a dad was not there to set that person straight when he stole a cnady bar orwhatever when he was 8 .

Thats the view from the cheap seats over here .
Yeah its more complicated , but we will not have an honest exchange till their is a mutual exchange of respect . Only a fool from either side of an issue would consider anything else .
Your side is not willing to do that , so be it .
Democrats obviously have all the answers from what I read anyway .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 27, 2007 2:02 AM

The NAACP have said some of the most disgusting character perjoritives about the personal beliefs of many of the republicans in leadership.

And they deserved them. Right after GWB was handed the presidency GOP lawmakers -- Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich, for example -- started badmouthing black leaders; I wish I could remember exactly what was said, but they were nasty. And when you consider that the NAACP was driven undergroud in several states during the civil-rights movement, it has absolutely no patience with or respect for the right wing. And do you know what? Most blacks agree!

I do see a culture that has obviously has lost its family basic structure, and the community you speak of will never be able to make up for it P. I believe personally it is being damaged by your views of support. So do Republicans, so do the propped up African Americans you say you feel betrayed by.

Once again, you display your lack of understanding. Part of the problem was the "Great Migration" from the South at the beginning of the last century to get away from Jim Crow; that helped to weaken the black family. (Funny, but conservatives never talk about that.) Then, because of discrimination several generations ago it became easier for a woman to get a job (as, say, a domestic) than for a man of the house to find anything; as a result, he lost the respect of his wife and kids; that broke up homes as well. But you don't address that one -- because, frankly, you're trying to find an easy solution that doesn't give creedence to our concerns. That's why payshun doesn't respect your views, and neither do I.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 27, 2007 10:05 AM

CKC -- I think the problem is that many folks have a different self-image than what and who they really are and how they project themselves, and if you tell them the truth about what they're doing they accuse you of "misunderstanding them." I have found this quite a bit with a lot of people on the political right -- they honestly believe things that are absolutely false and usually do not realize that they are being offensive, where and why because they don't relate to people outside their own circles. Some years ago I was with such a guy who led a men's small group of which I was a part; during the very first meeting he basically misrepresented Ron Sider's beliefs/theology and I told him so on the spot. But do you know what? To my knowledge, even though information that challenges what he said exists, he still believes them! (I ended up breaking off the relationship because of that.)

In my experience, they also are quite touchy about someone even questioning their belief system, as though it's sacrosanct. You may remember Doug's comments about the "drive-by" media who misrepresent conservative views; truth be told, however, the mainstream media get it right (but he doesn't want to hear that). Now, as you have seen, I'm very aggressive in challenging their assumptions, which is what has caused more than a few of the fireworks on this blog. However, there is no "kindler, gentler" way to do it because sometimes sin has to be confronted head-on.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 27, 2007 1:54 PM

Rick,

I think you have done a fine job confronting it. I tend to agree with what you say and you are generally the voice of insight and moderation on these strings. You have every right to your own righteous indignation. I don't have a bone to pick with you or your points. Thanks for the support you have given mine. I am admitedly undereducated about racial leaders, racial politics and historical aspects of race relations in this country partly do to my age, my ethnicity, and partly do to my source of education. I take responsibility for not better educating myself on my own during my adult years. As I said in my last post, I think people earn some leeway when they are a primary source for their points.

BTW I completely agree with and suport the points of your last post. Confront away.......

Posted by: CKC | October 27, 2007 4:08 PM

"You look the other way ? Why , you think right and wrong are rules for some and not for others . Who is hurt by racism ? In the long run it is always the racist. Yes they can inflict pain , and our history is full of them doing so . but eventually a racist view point will cause your self destruction or any culture that embraces it . Not only does racism hurt the group it is aimed at , it hurts the individual who carries that teaching ."

No argument there. Ofcourse the racist is always hurt by their self destructive and destructive belief system. They learn the most dangerous form of human contact, destruction.

But the one thing that will heal the racist is by learning to love the people they were racist against. Usually healing happens when a person learns to love themselves but this specific problem is different than any other issue (I would also argue the same thing about sexual brokeness, its different than other types of sin. W/ that it begins by the person starting to love themselves.)

The racist must make restitution and for total healing to happen must become a life long advocate. It's the only way to show that they value themselves and the people they hated.

p

Posted by: payshun | October 27, 2007 6:26 PM

We have similar problems the time of Jesus: Children of God (that's everyone) struggling under a draconian social system. The people in Iraq are occupied by foreigners like the Holy Land was. In our own land, people become debtors who never expected to, because of an expensive illness.

Big Business thinks its only obligation is to show a profit for its stock holders, that you can't to good with other people's money. (Milton Friedman, the misanthropist economist, stated this). It so happens that until about 1880 corporations legally had to exist for the public good. Business interests got the Supreme Court to delete this requirement. You see the results in things like Katrina reconstruction, where big companies like Halliburton make outrageous profits, yet little has been rebuilt, people are still suffering.

We not only have to be more conscientious and compassionate in our own lives, but push for more responsibility in the whole system!

Posted by: Gertrude Reagan | December 27, 2007 1:26 AM