So is this Jim Wallis way of saying that he is not endorsing the candidate that overwhelmingly won the on site straw poll at this weekends FRC meeting. Yet another snub to the one candidate that has all christians excited this year. Mike Huckabee. He has yet to gain the political acceptance of any high profile "religious" leader as they are so called. It reminds me of a story, that maybe some of yall have heard. Back in the time when Jesus was gaining popularity all the " religious leaders " were against him because they were afraid of loosing their power. So they conspired to have him killed. It seems like this is what they are doing to Huckabee. It has to make me wonder why we as christians should even listen to the " religious leaders" today. They all are hipocrits. They all have their own political agendas. Including Jim Wallis. I kept waiting all weekend to see what Jim was going to write about the Values Voters Summit. Mike Huckabee is the best chance we have to change the course of our nation in a better direction. He is compassionat about the poor. He values marriage and life and he knows the struggle of the working class. He comes from it. People like Jim Wallis should be jumping at the chance to rally behind someone like Mike Huckabee. I just don't get it. I really don't.

Posted by: anon | October 23, 2007 4:38 PM

"And together, as Richard and I both try to do, we should challenge those who wish to banish religion from the public square."

Pray tell, when has evangelical Christianity ever left room for those who believe differently? I've never seen it. Not in the pie-in-the-sky world both you and your colleague inhabit, or in real life. The reality is this: all I have ever seen out of evangelical Christianity is elitism, absolutism, and prejudice.

Tell me why we should be challenging those who don't want those things to be part of the governance of the nation, or the world. All I see from evangelicals seeking to bring religion further into the public life is this: exclusion of others (including myself for not being part of the flock) and the demanding of faith. One faith, such as evangelicalism, will ultimately gain control, and then seek to force itself on everyone. This NEVER fails, no matter what the religion - ask the Japanese about world war two, or the native americans, or the Russians, or the Afghanis, or the Indians, or the Moroccans, or anyone else - when religion attempts to involve itself in politics. The result is never positive.

Maybe I'm wrong, but all I have seen in my life demonstrates that the above is the truth (which is NOT absolute, by the way, and is different for each person).

Since you seem to like accepting challenges, let me issue one to you and all evangelicals:

those who desire to impose or spread their beliefs and/or their faith are weak in their faith and afraid (of being less than the best, being alone, being wrong, or for other reasons). If you well and truly believed what you say you do, you would not have to spread your beliefs.

That's what Jesus really meant when he taught about faith the size of a mustard seed. If you had any faith at all, you would not have to climb the mountain (me, or other non-believers). The mountain would come to you. 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.

Posted by: Christopher Mohr | October 23, 2007 4:45 PM

skjpm - Why not John Edwards? He talks more about helping the poor than Hillary Clinton does. She also doesn't seem very determined to end the war in Iraq.

Posted by: Ross | October 23, 2007 4:57 PM

skjpm@yahoo stated:
"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. "

Was this meant to be a joke? Hilary Clinton models Christian values more effectively than Mike Huckabee?? I am having a hard time taking that statement seriously.

How so?

Posted by: anon | October 23, 2007 6:25 PM

Hillary uses her faith in Jesus as a foundation for her concern for the poor in supporting minimum wage, her concern for the sick in supporting universal health care, her concern for the aliens among us in her concern for undocumented workers, and her concern for those in prison in taking a stand against torture. Her family life models Christian forgiveness and a willingness to fulfill even the difficult part of marriage vows. I am not entirely impressed with her stand on Iraq, but I believe she is more of a peacemaker than any Republican candidate. I think she is someone who truly cares about "the least of these." Her Christian values are my Christian values.

Posted by: ashpenaz | October 23, 2007 6:53 PM

Here ya go Jim. This is what your leftist partying has got you:

"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."

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

Jim? Tony?

Peter? James? John? Jude? Paul? Timothy? Luke?

Any Christian out there want to alter what Christ taught?

This person sure wants Jim and Tony to.

Posted by: Donny | October 23, 2007 7:33 PM

And this one too. See Jim, it IS all about two issues . . .:

"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."

Um, ah, yeeaaahh.

And the definition of marriage by Christ Jesus IS?

A man and a woman.

This is the way God set it to be "from the beginning." No matter whom . . . bi, straight, or gay, or confused, want to do otherwise.

There are plenty of other religions out there to choose to alter what Christ preached.

Posted by: Donny | October 23, 2007 7:46 PM

All worthy goals on the agenda, to be sure.

The one at the top of my list would be Protecting God's creation.
We are it.
Everything else follows, spiritually and logically.

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

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

Posted by: Rick Nowlin |

He left that to the judiciary I guess

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 23, 2007 8:51 PM

Interesting how Wallis is here being criticised by liberals for not being liberal enough.

When he's usually criticised by conservatives for being too liberal and too tied to the democrats.

Perhaps he's been honest all along and is really seeking a way that is neither democrat nor republican. That would explain his rejection from both sides.

I am curious though how different people would rank the items listed. I don't think you're likely to find any candidates who score well on all of them.

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | October 23, 2007 9:16 PM

There is not one place in Scripture where God mentions homosexuality--that's a concept and a word which only appeared in the 19th century. None of the words translated to mean "homosexual" are equivalent to our understanding of a homosexual orientation. They refer to pagan sexual practices which may or may not have been homosexual. There is no reference at all, anywhere to lesbians--what's described in Romans could just as easily be describing women having nonprocreative sex with men. These pagan practices were just as unnatural as men with long hair and God's splicing Gentiles onto a Jewish vine, according to Paul.

Many scholars are coming to a consensus that the Bible nowhere condemns homosexuality. For a popular version of these arguments, read Walter Wink, Marcus Borg, and Peter Gomes. Read "The Children Are Free." Then, look up the scholars listed in their references.

God does bless same-sex love--look at Naomi and Ruth, David and Jonathan, Daniel and Ashpenaz, the Centurion and his beloved slave, Isaiah and his beloved, etc. While you will say there is no evidence that these are sexual relationships, the Bible nowhere describes ANYONE as having sex with each other. The writers always use euphemisms. Naomi and Ruth "cleave unto" each other just as much as David and Bathsheba. It's also important to note that Ruth's child is called Naomi's child, not the father's. When David falls on Jonathan's chest and weeps until he "grows large," it is not hard to imagine what the writer is saying.

You might want to look at the Rite for Same-Sex blessing I posted. Look at the prayers. Look at the Scriptures. You can go the Diocese of California website and look at how they came to accept these rites.

You keep quoting the first part of Jesus' teaching about marriage, but you never mention the last part: "Not everyone can accept this." He knew there were those who would be born without the capacity for traditional marriage, and He accepted them anyway, just as they were. Genesis says, "It is not good for someone to be alone." Jesus didn't require "eunuchs" to live alone, without partners and without sex.

Posted by: ashpenaz | October 23, 2007 10:19 PM

Mick,

The entirety of the Bible (right up to the point where Paul slaughtered Christ's teachings to benefit his own ego), and especially the Old Testament, were written as a means of getting the Hebrew youth to stop following Sumerian/ Babylonian/ other religions in the area that were MUCH more attractive. I mean, come on, what 20 year old is goingto give up the one day they aren't working for prayer and fasting? No, they're going to go out and have hot wild sex, and sing and dance and eat, and enjoy themselves.

The Bible is not revelation from god, or even divinely inspired. It was written (and redacted) over a long time because the Hebrew elders were losing the cultural control that they had to have to gratify their egos, and to defend their semi-nomadic way of life from the more attractive other religions. Part of that meant throwing cultural/social stigmas on what the Sumerians let them do freely (hot wild sex, bacchanalia, etc.)

That's the rationale behind half of the sexual proscriptions in the bible. The other half are found in Leviticus, which originally referred ONLY to the early Jewish priests (who came exclusively from the tribe of Levi - hence the name, leviticus). For priests, it makes sense. For the rest of the people, it was and is just one more way that the clergy attempt to force their beliefs on others. For that reason, they don't stand up to reality, whether or not they stand up to scripture.

Posted by: Christopher Mohr | October 23, 2007 10:25 PM

Mick,

you're forgetting the last half of that passage (perhaps deliberately). Matthew19:10-12 reads, "His disciples said to him, 'if such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.' But he said to them, 'not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are those who are eunuchs who have made themselve eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can."

Jesus himself leaves acceptance of the teaching on marriage/sexuality open to those who can accept it, rather than issuing an all-encompassing command that all believers must follow. If Jesus didn't command it directly, certainly lesser men cannot either.

Posted by: Christopher Mohr | October 23, 2007 10:39 PM

"God does bless same-sex love--look at Naomi and Ruth, David and Jonathan, Daniel and Ashpenaz, the Centurion and his beloved slave, Isaiah and his beloved, etc. While you will say there is no evidence that these are sexual relationships, the Bible nowhere describes ANYONE as having sex with each other."

Asphenaz,

What or who is teaching you the Bible?

Onan literally was having sex with Tamar and "spilled his seed on the ground." That is, unfortunatley for Onan and Tamar, as explicit as it gets! Well, certainly far more unfortunate for Onan huh.

God killed him for doing that.

It is also very clear that Ruth was the daughter in law of Naomi. Her love for her mother in law was exemplary, not homosexual. What's up with your pederasty dude or dudette? David repented of his sins in Psalm 51 and desired to tell sinners how not to sin. David "married" women.

(I hope you're not a baseball player.)

Jesus left no uncertain terms about proper sexuality. The Apostles are more than clear about that. IN FACT Paul literally coined a word "arsenokoitai" to leave no doubt that for Christians, same-gender sex was not a good thing.

Romans 1 and 2 are also hard for LGBTers to deal with as well. No place anywhere in the New Testament by anyone mentioned in it supports Christians having same-gender sex.

It's just a fact of Christian culture.

Why is it so hard to love someone of the opposite sex the way God intended. I thought discrimination was hated by Progressives?

Posted by: Donny | October 23, 2007 10:57 PM

I like the article. I'm comfortable with that. At last, I feel understood, as a quintessential swing voter. Usually, I get looks like I must be wishy-washy or illogical...or something unpredictable.

But...

"Red and blue, Left and Right, are not biblical categories. They are political ones, and religious people don't easily fit the labels—nor should we. God's politics resists ideology and often calls us to transcend our narrow political categories and place our commonality as Christians above any political allegiance or identification with a political party.

God is not a Republican or a Democrat. The people of God must not be in the pocket of any political party. There is a great danger in being too close to either side and not maintaining our critical prophetic distance. We should be the ultimate swing vote, judging all the candidates by our moral compass."

Yeah...now THAT says it! I can live with THAT.

THAT says why I am a swing vote that every pollster wants to call at election time. I am not wishy-washy - to God's Word. It's just that each party sometimes follows God, and other times doesn't. And so...I find myself playing political hopskotch - not because I'm wishy-washy, but because I'm trying to follow God's voice. Not a party's or an ideology's. And God doesn't fit inside their little boxes.

Me-thinks we'd all have better dialogue if we could climb out of the ideological boxes.

And I like that agenda:

"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"

That about covers it...

Posted by: Amazon Creek | October 24, 2007 12:09 AM

"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."

Then, in evolutionary terms, what China did to the Tibetan Buddhists was not at all a bad thing. It was just the better organisms doing what they do evolutionarily.

And the whole Dalai Lama guy "running" away from the Chinese, strikes me as a bit odd. If he were killed, isn't it a fact in his religion, that he just gets reborn in some new child a short time after his latest death?

Why be scared to die if it isn't really a real demise?

Oh well, I'm going to bed.

Posted by: Donny | October 24, 2007 12:31 AM

"I think it's important that progressive Christians like Wallis, McClaren, and Campolo start voicing their support for gay marriage rights. "

I agree.

"If you well and truly believed what you say you do, you would not have to spread your beliefs."

Christ told us to spread our beliefs, though that is a facile way of putting it.

"I like Mike Huckabee, but I think Hillary Clinton models Christian values more effectively."

How so? What I think you are saying is that you simply agree with her politics. Why do we need to bring Christian values into that equation?

"Her family life models Christian forgiveness and a willingness to fulfill even the difficult part of marriage vows."

I think even some of the liberals here had to snicker at this one. Come on, are you working for the campaign?

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

This is absolutely correct.

"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."

He doesn't have to convince you of anything. You are accountable regardless. Is that a disconcerting idea? I hope so.

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

Beloved slave = Love slave. Sweet. Did he have Ving Rhames bent over a table in his basement?

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

And I believe that when he was talking about the least of these, he was referring to magical unicorns who shoot candy out of their eyes. Which is to say, um, no... He was referring to dudes without working genitalia.

"Perhaps he's been honest all along and is really seeking a way that is neither democrat nor republican. That would explain his rejection from both sides."

He is not rejected by Democrats at all, and I haven't really seen that rejection here. He agrees with the entirety of the Democratic platform.

"Many scholars are coming to a consensus that the Bible nowhere condemns homosexuality."

Many scholars are ridiculous. Walter Wink's argument for Biblical homosexuality is mind-bending. He simply discards those texts he finds problematic to his cause without giving any particular reason. He begins with the assumption that the Bible allows permits homosexuality, and works backwards. Borg isn't even a Christian.

"Jesus didn't require "eunuchs" to live alone, without partners and without sex."

He didn't put scare quotes around the term "eunuchs" either.

"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..."

From what I understand, Huckabee got the vast majority of votes from those in attendance.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 24, 2007 2:32 AM

Mick,

Thanks for the complement. Use the quote as you will.

A note of the gay/lesbian thread:

Following on my prior comments, in a context of open, equal, and fair discussions, no one should be excluded nor any voice not heard. For to do the opposite is to practice an odious intolerance similar to some who would exclude the "sans papiers" (those without a national status)from their enjoyment of human rights simply because they are different and alien.

It's like the French say "vive la differance".

Posted by: Brent | October 24, 2007 7:23 AM

'...politics fails to resolve the great moral issues, social movements often rise up to change politics...'

Mr Wallis -

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'. Liberals do and it doesn't work. In this day and age to use the words moral and politics in the same sentence in strange. Social movements rise up - yes and they can have an effect on soceity, not always the desired effect. It has been when there is a great awakening in the Christian Church that things really changed and were resolved. Oh for an awakening of the Holy Spirit in the churches of America that they would step up and be the church that God wants us to be. That we will give the cup of cold water.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 24, 2007 8:44 AM

anon said:

"Yet another snub to the one candidate that has all christians excited this year. Mike Huckabee. He has yet to gain the political acceptance of any high profile "religious" leader as they are so called. It reminds me of a story, that maybe some of yall have heard. Back in the time when Jesus was gaining popularity all the " religious leaders " were against him because they were afraid of loosing their power. So they conspired to have him killed. It seems like this is what they are doing to Huckabee."

anon, some good thoughts in your post, but let's not start comparing Mike Huckabee to Jesus.

Posted by: Josh | October 24, 2007 9:19 AM

kevin s., I'm not sure where you find in Jesus' teaching where it's OK to mock those who are struggling to sort out their faith. It's interesting to note that the word Jesus uses to mean "You fool"*, that is, "Raca"*, actually is a derogatory term equivalent to "faggot."* You might look to see where Jesus places people who say those things.

*These are not scare quotes, these are quotes for emphasis. Just FYI.

Gay theology is just beginning to emerge the same way Feminist theology emerged earlier. Both are an attempt to read Scripture with the eyes of the marginalized. You might want to compare gay theology with, say, prosperity theology, dispensationalism, or Christian Zionism and see which is truer to the Gospel. I trust Borg's, Wink's, and Gomes' approach to hermeneutics over John Hagee, Joel Osteen, and Tim LaHaye.

If eunuchs are men without working genitals, explain Potiphar. There is nothing in Scripture which says that eunuchs were castrated and celibate--only that they were not naturally inclined to traditional marriage. Even men who are castrated can play the passive role in sex--and they were frequently the partners of royalty. 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.

And as for the truly offensive conflation of homosexuality and pederasty--I assume you're referring to that story of a middle-aged man and his 14-year old wife we hear about every Christmas.

Posted by: ashpenaz | October 24, 2007 10:15 AM

OK Mr Wallis -

I can agree if we are talking about the same thing. I keep feeling that you and others like me speak the same language but deliver the same message.

Strengthening marriage and families

OK - as long as we are talking about one man and one woman marriage. I have yet to hear you say it that way. (remember we both lived thru the Clinton Adm and understand that idea of 'IS')

Renewing the moral fabric of our culture

This could be difficult because what do you mean by 'renewing' and what moral 'standard' are we going to use in compared to what 'cluture'. Other than that - we should do just fine.

Overcoming extreme global poverty and disease; and unnecessary poverty at home

As long as there is accountability - no problem.
I am not interested in giving food to the hungrary in a country and finding out later that the Gov't or Rebels took it and sold it on the black market so that it never got to the people that it was intented for.

Ending human trafficking

Lets just call it slavery. To what extent are you willing to go to stop it. I am will to try anything and everything but they are willing to murder to keep their industry going. What are you willing to do to save the life of a child?

Healing the wounds of racism

Right along side you. There is a lot that all of us can to to heal the situation. But if we are talking about paying people today for what happened 50 100 150 years ago. I can not go there. My family entered in the late 1890's to the early 20th century.

Protecting God's creation

We all need to be involved in this. But - if you are going to bring in Al Gore and his carbon tax. I will be on the otherside of the fence from you. We do not need another big gov't program and dept that will suck up 70%+ of the taxes it will 'require' to handle this issue.

Finding a better path to national and global security

OK - so are we keeping the UN on US shores or allowing it to go somewhere else. You know as well as I when it comes to 'security' the UN would be the last group you would hire to protect your house. They are effective in a few areas but have failed almost everywhere they have sent the blue helmets in the last 5 decades.

Advancing a consistent ethic of the sanctity of life

Womb to Tomb as you have said. Work out a way to make abortions not an 'elective' all three trimesters at the wim of the mother. Keep Dr. Jack out of our Nursing Homes.

I believe you would put health care in this area. (I would put it seperate) Provide good care for all, make it affordable. Stop federal funding of illegitimate children so we do not keep adding to the health care crisis in the US. I will pay for one child born to a young girl with no job and no dod to support the child. I am not going to pay for her to keep having child after child so that she get more money from the gov't.

Meet you in the middle.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 24, 2007 10:20 AM

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

Your opinion.

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.

I was a very quiet pro-life person. I know that you change a persons perspective one heart at a time. But my pro-abortion friends kept fighting the battle so that today for any reason, a pregant woman can abort her unborn child days prior to birth. I am more outspoken today. I was willing to let the origional RvW ruling stand but they kept waging the war. They made me the person I am today. Mondale and Humphery created the conservative animal in me because of their policies which more have failed or are failing to solve the problem. The only solution liberals have for solving the problem is 'more money'.

Blinded by Might got part of the story correct.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 24, 2007 10:56 AM

Jim Wallis' comments were just fine, taken as they are, without trying to read things into them to intentionally become dismissive of them. Spirits of strife and division.

This whole response thing is so far off it has no value at all to me. I'm not learning anything from it - no insights - except people want to fight, fight, fight, left, right, left, right.

Not a damn thing to do with Jesus or truth, just scoring zingers, offering put-downs and putting people in boxes.

Someone here said they wanted a Christian channel with fighting Christian talking heads like Fox News.

Other people worship a national war Jesus, agreeing with Mao Tse-Tung that "power comes out of the barrel of a gun."

Now that is bizarre, fear and loathing in Wheaton.

Bye.

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

Christopher Mohr,
So let me get this right, you want evangelicals to prove to you that "our" God is worth following, but not by politics or evangelism.
1st
You do realize your on a sight that is about religion and politics.
2nd
What conversation with you about God would not be considered evangelism?

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | October 24, 2007 11:39 AM

Well said....Moderatelad...I'm tired of the progressives throwing mud at 'conservatives' because they don't care. Heck ya they care, they dont want to do it through the government. Look at most of the private aid to other countries. It is financially supported by the so called religious conservative people. (Ask missionaries where they see all the aid the government gives out hehe..you will get a good laugh. The issues isn't who cares the most. The issues is what plans and strategies make the most sense. So move on from who is a 'value voter' and what issue makes one more of a value voter. Focus on what will work and what wont. And yes that will hurt feelings. And yes there is right and wrong. And more money or more tolerance won't fix everything.

Posted by: Jorge | October 24, 2007 11:58 AM

The issues isn't who cares the most.

No -- it's who calls the shots. People also need self-determination, and conservatives never call for that unless they're the ones ultimately making the decisions.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 24, 2007 12:16 PM

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

'...Jimmy Carter threatened to sic the IRS on private Christian academies in the South which he suspected were founded to avoid court-ordered desegregation...'

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.

'...ultimately is power, I would say that you are deeply threatened by us...'

Threatened by us - please. Rick I find you very intellegent but you are no threat. (and I have been accused of having an inflated ego...) 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. In other words his content is worthy of discussion and consideration, his delivery - slapping people that he disagrees with - is the problem. He is his own worst enemy and therefore no threat.

'...our duty as Christians to speak out because nothing less than the Gospel is...'

The Gospel has survived Popes - Kings - Tyrants - the Krouch's and Bakker's and it will survive you - Wallis and me. (you really should walk amoung the little people once in a while. you get a better perspective than looking down from Walliston Tower)

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 24, 2007 12:19 PM

Rick Nowlin said:

"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,"

So true. Not my opinion. Not Rick's opinion. I have seen it first hand over and over again. They (extreme RR) are so convinced of their rightness and everyone else's wrongness that they won't listen to anyone or anything that doesn't sound like them. It is ingrained in them from the pulpit to be closedminded, not to think for themselves. Moderate progressive thinkers who attempt to engage them in thoughtful conversation are viewed at best as weak, "back sliding" Christians trying to lead them astray. At worst we are viewed as agents of the devil bent on overthrowing God's will which they are convinced they know and are following.

While I'm at it their use of war and military metaphors is troubling to me. I understand it because it is the church of my youth, but it is no less disturbing. Like Rick said it is about power.

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

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 weapons. We are marching 'as' to war, not onto war. We have a cross, banner, hope and charity. No spears, swords, AK47's, landmines etc.

Perhaps some of those more militant types themselves ought to take that song much less literally -- because some of them live to fight and fight to live.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 24, 2007 1:55 PM

I really want to get to the flag thing; but first. why do you consider a kink in CKCs colon a good thing? Do you suppose that Paul didn't think you should live in peace as much as is in your control?

The flag observation is interesting. I don't mind the flag and kind of like it and would never burn it; just keep it the heck out of my church. It does not belong there, Way back to the Jewish religious leaders who bared their throats to Pilate's army to have it removed from the Temple it hasn't belonged there. I don't put symbols of faith in your goverment buildings, where they would be writing a check the inhabitants cannot cover in any case, so do not put symbols of the civil authorities in my church.

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

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

And I believe that Carter's stand had something to do with it. You see, in Baptist churches the congregation votes on whether to receive a certain person as a member and it takes only five "no's" to turn someone down.

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

I'm not sure how long, though I think "God's Politics" eventually rose to no. 2. But there is no pre-fab "religious left" that had the same heft as the current modern right; the other people you mentioned would sell regardless, because of their audience. That Wallis' book did so well without that much pub says something.

He is one that a while ago proclaimed how wrong they were and how unfair they are, and he is doing the same thing.

He is empirically right. As I said, much of the right is interested primarily in domination at the expense of everyone else; no way could Wallis mobilize folks on the "left" to do the same, nor would he even want to. If that were the case he wouldn't have these debates with conservatives in the first place.

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.

Droll -- not. For all I know you may make more money than I do; only a handful of people actually get rich working for a newspaper. Besides, as I've said before, most of my associates are more conservative than I, yet there's a mutual respect and understanding of each other's views. That's why there's relative harmony in my church and also one of the reasons I go there.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 24, 2007 3:03 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

Doug you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about especially when it comes to abortion.

I think it is wrong. But I learned to not judgemental and condemning of those that had them

As for homosexuality. You are right to some extint. I personally don't care too much about the issue in the same way you conservatives do. I don't believe it is any more sinful than heterosexual sex and I think it is quite human and not as deviant as you all percieve.

I also dont condemn homosexuals which is what you folks on the right excel at. They know they are going to hell because that's all you tell them. Instead of being wise and not using hell to scare them you all condemn and judge. That's foolish.

Not only that and this is a big thing here even if what they do is sinful (like what you do isn't) they still have the same right to do it just like everyone else. It's fair. this is America where people can choose their own lives.

Ok I live in San Diego and you are right it is a conservative city but if you think their conservative politics are what saved the day then you would be a fool. Politics has been thrown out the window because San Diego learned from New Orleans and saw it's citizens as people first. That's why San Diego has been so successful. They learned to kick people out of their homes and a whole host of other things.

BTW San Diego a conservative city is actually one of the most corrupt cities on the west coast. It has been for years and will continue to be. Guess what republican mayers have been in charge. So please Doug, be quiet until you know what you are talking about. I live here.

p

Posted by: payshun | October 24, 2007 3:36 PM

Doug -- Your comments are so out of touch with not only the facts on the ground but reality in general I don't have the time or energy to refute them point by point (which is actually easy to do in your case). For openers, the fires in California are in rich neighborhoods; Katrina, on the other hand, victimized the poorest of the poor in New Orleans (and that's a whole other topic).

But your diatriabes represent almost perfectly the arrogance and illogic on the part of the right that I was just talking about. It is you, not I, who is utterly, completely deceived.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 24, 2007 3:39 PM

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

Reagan - cute.

'...always been so much easier to be part of the right...'

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.

He goes round and round in the ring and rarely gets the job done. I believe he jumps from issue to issue because he has no vision on how to get the job done. So by bouncing around from topic to topic - one looks busy and that you are working hard on the topic. He is working hard at looking like he is working hard.

Your old men will dream dreams and young men will see visions. I think he is getting a little old and needs to develope a young vision on what can and needs to be done.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 24, 2007 3:59 PM

There is no reason to endorse any of those R. candidates. They all espouse that the tiny amount in numbers of gay people out there are destroying American marriages. The math alone is ludicrous. While I disagree with what they do the biggest social problem in America isn't gay related. The biggest problem is that almost one of three (24 million children) in America are growing up in father absent homes. The right wing can't win elections on fixing problems like these. They win elections by picking on people like bullies. The GOP is really the POP for Pick On People.

Until they start addressing big problems and fixing them like the Republicans of years ago did, they will continue to lose favor.

Posted by: Steve | October 24, 2007 4:15 PM

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

Posted by: CKC | October 24, 2007 4:19 PM

Posted by: Steve | October 24, 2007 4:15 PM

You know Steve - there are many of us that have tied to help people throughout the years. We have express concerns and talked about possible solutions. We will have guys making babies and then making tracks as long as the Gov't is will to underwrite illegitimacy in the country. We could be slowly making this problem if we would agree to pay for one but not two. There would be so many women that would be more responsible with the sexual habits or cutting the stud off if she knew that being on state assistance and having a second baby. She would have to make what she gets for one cover two. But the DFL in MN just want to keep paying for all those dependants because if they are on the state funds they will vote for the Dem. from their area.

This is not picking on people (POP - lol) This is making people accountable just like me who had to figure out how to make a budget for four cover five. No one offered me a raise of hundreds of dollors just because I shot one more by the goalie.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 24, 2007 4:28 PM

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

So why no moral outrage? Why no visible understanding or support for the concept that our enemies hate us around the world because of our POLICIES not our freedoms? Why no moral outrage regarding torture form the religious right?

Posted by: CKC | October 24, 2007 4:46 PM

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

WOW - you have one author and one seminary that the main issue was abortion. I bet if we looked hard enough we could find a science dept in a college that still believes the world is flat too.

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.

Conservatives are not as simple or shallow as Wallis makes us out to be. I also know that not all Catholic Priests are into little boys either - but according to the mainline press you would think that is the case.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 24, 2007 4:51 PM

Well said Don. I think many 'conservatives' are frustrated about this administration because of some of the reasons you listed below.

Peace

Posted by: Jorge | October 24, 2007 5:13 PM

"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 ."

I 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 | October 24, 2007 5:39 PM

I know several GLBT folks that are Republicans (and many more who are Christian). So, this is not a left/right issue, only tangentally a religious issue (yes, yes I heard what you said, but regardless of all of those other valid ways to read "clobber" passages, I will still cling to the one that is most uncharitable and ignores all of the affirming passages), but a human rights issue. And more so, a fairness issue; if you wish to denie a certain group of people some of their rights, then give them a discount on their taxes. It is not right to expect all of the responsibilities of citizenship on people, but deny them over 2500 rights and protections.

Posted by: Mike Grello | October 24, 2007 6:11 PM

OK, let's agree that there are extremes on both sides of the fence, and that those people drive most of us crazy.

I hear Moderatelad saying he's frustrated with running circles around the issues, but never accomplishing anything. Amen to that. We are all frustrated here. We've spent an adequate amount of time pointing out the speck in our brother's eye - so let's work on understanding each other.

Pick a topic.....

Abortion: OK let's say on some level it becomes illegal - what can we agree to do to help decrease unwanted pregnancy?

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

The Environment: If we concede as lefties that we do not value the creation more than the Creator and frame the issue as a pollution issue, as a public health issue, as a glutony and wastefulness vs conservation issue - can we get our heads together on this one?

Anybody willing to join me?

Posted by: CKC | October 24, 2007 6:50 PM

Mick,

"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 . "

While ignoring many of the others. Mick, I am a progressive. We critique everything including ourselves. As a matter of fact we are generally harder on ourselves than you or most conservatvies know about. 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.

There are many of us on the left that fight to empower the poorer and more ignorant members of our ethnic groups. We do it from a perspective that looks at the whole of the human experience and not merely the behavior which is what your side is so good at focusing on.

There is a really great book called Race Matters by Cornel West. It's deep give it a read. It examines all the problems plaguing my people and the urban poor while at the same time calling all Americans to take part in the solution. It's very holistic and flowery. There are not a lot of practicals and that's the point. It's designed to get ideas going and empower people to be change agents. Despite your idea of the left we are concerned w/ unmarried pregnancies, broken families...

That was one of the strengths of the Black Panther movement. That's despite the fear they raised in the white community for brandishing guns. 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.

We don't believe in shaming people. We attempt to handle personal sexual choices and poor decisions privately. Sometimes that's not the best way but sitting there and bringing up poor moral standards while not dealing w/ the deep need for self destructive behavior will get us nowhere. We have to address both, it's the only way for the poor to see their own value and overcome the disease of complacency and consumerisim. Those two things are the bane of America.

Is the right diverse ideologically? yes. NO argument there. But so is the left. Rick and I are different politically and theologically. He is theoloically conservative. I am theologically liberal. I tend to go a little further when it comes to LGBTQ issues and he stands as a constant critique to your movement. 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.

He is a democrat. I despise the party. But we agree that we can make positive change despite that difference. You all do the same thing but you don't do it from a community perspective. Your views by their very nature are based off of the individual. Mine are both individualistic and communal.

p

Posted by: payshun | October 24, 2007 6:59 PM

Rick and Payshaun,
You guys are weak. Come on refute what I say. You can't can you. If I am brainwashed then about 80 percent of people who believe in the same god you do are brainwashed as well. Contrary to what the drive by media tell you or Jim wallis tells you this country is a conservative country. Qusestion for you both does truth matter to you because it sure does not seem like it. Newsflash I know San Diego and money has nothing to do with it. Quit trying to politize everything and take some responsibilty for your actions. That was my point. Conservatives do not sit around waiting for big govt. to come take care of them.

Posted by: Doug | October 24, 2007 7:39 PM

payshun -- I'm a DINO (Democrat in name only). Because of my occupation I'm not allowed to get involved in partisan political campaigns; however, I still wouldn't do it even if I were and I give not one dime to the Party (or any other political entity).

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 24, 2007 8:03 PM