I have sensed that change is in the wind, and for that I thank God. Yet I believe firmly that far too many evangelicals are still stuck in the Egypt of the Republican party and its programs and it will take a lot of effort and "spiritual warfare (?)" to tear them loose from the onions, leeks, and garlics of political power and support for their so-called values issues which the Bush administration and its friends have given so much so much lip-service. Fortunately, we who have been the "alternative" voice are now starting to be heard in the media and elsewhere.

Posted by: Dick Pierard | October 29, 2007 4:23 PM

ginab,

I smiled reading that last line last night. Clearly Kirkpatrick had a good time adding that forked metaphor at the end, evidence perhaps that at least he knows both his subject and audience.

I found it interesting that Hybels came out as a pacifist back in 2003. It would be revolutionary if more of these almost-awakened evangelical pastors would speak out more widely on the public issues in which they actually believe.

Posted by: Alexander | October 29, 2007 5:04 PM

If Kirkpatrick is indeed onto something (and I think he is), then it offers yet more proof that in the long run God will not be mocked.

Posted by: carl copas | October 29, 2007 5:38 PM

Wolverine wrote, "With a few exceptions, those that leave the Christian Right will put their efforts into more traditional ministry work. Liberalism is still in desperate need of a rethink; Wallis aside much of the left still radiates contempt for orthodox Christian teaching. Until that rethink happens the modern left will gain relatively few new adherents among Evangelicals."

I think that is right, although, I am hopeful for a rethink on the political left. I think religous progressives need to hear Wallis' message and not be afraid to talk about how their faith effects their politics. I think the secular left needs to give up much of its biases toward religous people. As these things happen, they will feed off of each other.

Hopefully, the result will be Christianity having a voice in both parties. And all Christians feeling empowered to put their faith to work.

Posted by: JimII | October 29, 2007 6:36 PM

My other favorite line in the article is, "When you mix politics and religion, you get politics."

I would hope Christians will be more discerning in the future and less likely to become beholden to a specific political party. Less likely to adopt party platforms as biblical truths.

Now that the conversation is changing and widening, I hope that Jim Wallis becomes as much of a thorn in the side of Democrats as he is to Republicans.

Neither party should feel comfortable about the Christian vote.

Posted by: ginab | October 29, 2007 7:36 PM

Loved the Blog and Wolverine's Post (suspect he's probably right - again).

My own denomination, Uniting Church of Australia, has had a liberal swing and a conservative counter movement and then in the middle a heap of churches have just said enough is enough.

They have stepped out of the political infighting and have taken a stand that their purpose is to draw people into life transforming relationships with God, and through that to bring hope and light to their local communities.

It's interesting that Australia's largest church, Hillsong, has come to the same point as Hybels and Warren at about the same point in time. I'm hopeful that this is a genuine reawakening towards the needs of a hurting world.

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | October 29, 2007 7:41 PM

Anyone who self-identifies as a neoconservative must be willing to
explain how it is compatible with Christianity, a universal religion.

Neoconservatism is parochially American, with its international interventionism based on a belief in enduring American supremacy over all other nations, whether financial or military.

I guess it's a little like explaining in what way the Holy Roman Empire was actually Christian.

It's clear what's purported to be in this for Americans, (or at least for those directly benefiting from hegemony) but what could possibly be in it for Christians in any other nation, when it requires subjugation if opposition is contemplated, or at least deference if in agreement?

Neoconservatism does contemplate one world order. This kind of babylonianism, complete with its own ziggurats, has prophetic implications for Christians.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 29, 2007 8:09 PM

Calvinism doesn't have a monopoly on claiming to be theologically conservative, latecomer as it is.
Just because some pretty severe Dutch reform folk gravitate towards TULIP doesn't mean nothing authentic happened for 1500 years after Christ came.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 29, 2007 8:40 PM

Wow! I've just been excommunicated by Donny!

Fire and brimstone are to be my lot, no doubt about it on his part.

I do recall Jesus pointing out that Sodom's most grievous sin, however, is not what you thought it was from that late night visit to his doorstep concerning wanting to "get to know"the visitors - in the Biblical sense - but that of unbelief and injustice.

Apparently it paled beside that of Jerusalem.

I wonder which church I have been excommunicated from, maybe it's Fred Phelps'? Wait, I'm not in Kansas any more!

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 29, 2007 9:04 PM

I find this time and transition so exciting for the Body of Christ; born of soul searching and reevaluation of the gospel message itself. As a "born again" Catholic and convert of twenty years I have come through and witnessed the transformation of religeon but I am reminded that always the heart of my faith is Jesus and in trying to listen to him I find my way back over and over and over. And this great and glorious grace we're given is more like a fire sometimes meant, like the song, to reduce us to love. So, the question returns us to the gospel. Who was and is this Jesus and what does He mean in our lives and in our world. With clarity it's easy to see his focus was never on "being right" but on those in need; asking us to give of ourselves and of our substance, remembering that we exist only as Jesus exists in us.

Posted by: Nan | October 29, 2007 9:35 PM

I just read the article -- I'm a Times subscriber -- and while I agree it was well-written and -sourced, there were two items that I feel were important that were not really touched on.

1) Americans, and especially Southerners -- which is important in this context because the South is disproportionally evangelical -- culturally do not care for elitism of any kind. Trouble is, much of the evangelical establishment, especially on the political/ideological right, has become itself elitist and thus eventually began to alienate folks; while the mantra before was anti-Washington, it could be that people began to resent Lynchburg, Colorado Springs or Virginia Beach. The shift back toward the left in the Southern Baptist Convention is another sign of that because apparently a lot of people are getting tired of the conservatives' heavy-handed ways. Some years ago I bought a book, "Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America," for my roommate -- the book was written by Jim Webb, now a U.S senator from Virginia -- that gave me quite a lot of insight into the situation.

I suspect that this is the real reason why the current President Bush has become so unpopular -- until recently he has never consulted anyone outside his tight little circle when it came to governing, and this unilateral approach bit him in the butt with the war in Iraq.

2) The writer may not be aware that the "religious right" would not be where it is without the secular right, much of which couldn't care less about Biblical values, and I think the Scripture says something about "not being yoked with unbelievers." But, as I have mentioned on other threads, Jerry Falwell was approached by a conservative activist to start Moral Majority; as such it would eventually drag on religion because it could not talk about the environment, racism, poverty or other "left-wing" issues lest it offend its secular backers. Furthermore, the "Clinton wars" weakened secular conservatism more than was obvious then because Clinton began proving it wrong on an economic basis, and let's not forget that a number of evangelicals voted for Clinton because they economy had gone sour under George H.W. Bush, plus they liked Clinton personally because he didn't come across as an elitist. (Conservatives despised Clinton largely for that reason.)

To respond to Kevin, I wonder how my Calvinist "brethren" will handle the new evangelical reality. Although we talk a good deal about the "sovereignty of God," I sometimes wonder that we're becoming irrelevant in the long haul -- they, with few exceptions (D. James Kennedy a big one), were never involved in political/social/ideological campaigns of any kind. (You won't see R.C. Sproul address any of these issues!) That said, one Reformed "voice in the wilderness" whom I'd like to see receive a larger profile: Michael Horton.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 29, 2007 11:52 PM

The sin of not caring, of indifference is worse than the gross sin of Sodom.

"And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you."

Matthew 11:23,24

The patriot church in America's lukewarm, if not outright hostile, to Christ's radical commandments to love our enemy, but certainly is zealous in condemning homosexual sin, if not its own more common heterosexual sin.

Those who repent will be forgiven while those who don't think they
need to, who already have the benefit of knowledge, stand condemned.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 30, 2007 12:53 AM

One minor comment on a theme that kept recurring in some of the posts up above and was raised in the article.

Just because I believe we Christians should seek to be a blessing to the world around us by helping the poor, seeking justice, etc - does absolutely NOT mean I still don't believe the ship will eventually sink. I believe the book of Revelation will happen literally - although I would never claim to understand all of its nuances and all of the hows and whens and whys within it.

I just happen to believe that Christians were not called to HELP the ship sink due to our neglect. Ephesians says we Christians were saved by God "for good works". There is a certain passage in Galatians 5 that details certain "fruit of the Spirit" we are to ask God to help us be know form. The passage goes on to say "Christ called us into freedom. Only don't use your freedom for an opportunity for the flesh - but use it to serve others."

Our job is to seek to serve our God in our everyday lives, to seek God's power to live out our faith and let out Christ who is inside of us.

For me, the major part of that will be in Christian outreach. But I can't imagine filling out our state's mail-in voting ballot at election time or reading the local newspaper - and not voting and taking action that naturally extends and expresses the faith inside of me that I am called to live out.

It's just that this world is ultimately not my home, I look forward to the heavenly Jerusalem that will come out of the sky. And so...my biggest wish and goal will always be to share Christ with others and see an entire life transformed into one that looks like Jesus.

And the timeline of events that will eventually happen - is not in my control. That is a spiritual battle - happening in heaven and inside the dimensions we can't see down here on this earth.

And so...a paradox? Yes. But the Bible is full of them. And we must live with them.

A bit complex...requires some daily thought and prayer and consulting with God for direction....

Posted by: Amazon Creek | October 30, 2007 1:15 AM

Eric,
Those are interesting questions. I think in the coming years, many of those currently within the evangelical church, including much of the emergent and seeker sensitive churches (which are in many ways cut from the same cloth), will eventually break off and embrace more fully the liberal/mainline theology they have been leaning towards. Evangelical leaders will be forced to confront theologians who challenge orthodoxy on these and other issues.

Also, Wallis has more or less already answered questions 2 and 3, and his answers definitely depart from evangelical theology.

Posted by: jesse | October 30, 2007 7:26 AM

Posted by: Trent | October 29, 2007 11:58 PM

I believe that Sojo, through its retoric, is trying to convince people that the RR is the fringe group. I believe that as believers we need to be dealing with the poor, poverty, etc. My little 'conservative' church has been doing that for decades both lovally (Jerusalem) and the utter most part of the earth. (Honduras) For a church of less than 230 - God has blessed our efforts. But it is the church being the church. Wallis' fix for almost everything is another big Gov't program. I never did support Robertson's bid for the White House. I believe that Christian Leaders should be able to give verbal support to a canidate of their choice. It is no secret that Gore is the one that Wallis wanted and believes should be our Pres.

So - like me Dad told me. Be careful about what you fight against in life for you run the risk of becoming just like them. That is why I say that Wallis is the Robertson of the Dem. Party.

Who is the fringe group - time will tell.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 30, 2007 8:58 AM

Thanks for the summary, Jim. I'm looking forward to reading the whole article, which will hopefully provide some good fruit for my own research on the great awakening that is underway. I think that cooperative economics are a key part of reclaiming the intent of what was described in Acts: a democratic and voluntary sharing of resources. For more info, please visit www.bookofacts.info.

On another note, it's funny that Donny should mention Sodom. It seems that Ezekiel has a different take on the reasons for city's fall: "pride laziness and gluttony, while the poor suffered outside her door" to be precise. (Ez. 16:49) It is the only clear and specific statement that I have found in the whole Bible of why the city was destroyed, regardless of whatever other depraved events (like threatened rape of visitors) were going on at the time. That indictment also comes in the context of unfavorably comparing Jerusalem to Sodom. I'm inclined to go with a bona fide OT prophet before a random blogger writing centuries later.

Posted by: Andrew McLeod | October 30, 2007 10:44 AM

That is why I say that Wallis is the Robertson of the Dem. Party.

The "religious right" was never a fringe group and never intended to be one, and that was its basic problem. On the other hand, Christianity, as I have always understood it, thrived best when it remained on the fringes of society; let's remember that the early church basically was on the run for its first few centuries. Thus, calling Wallis the "Democratic Robertson" is way off because he isn't trying to become part of the same religious establishment that Robertson has always represented.

I will always remember that story on "Nightline" last year, where in Ohio a ragtag group of religious "liberals" was jusxtaposed against the comparatively well-oiled conservative machine; Columbus "patriot pastor" Rod Parsley was even gloating about "his organization and his turnout," among other things. Yet, as we all know, the conservatives there ended up being skunked big-time. That should give some indication as to who really had the heart of the state and who really was on the "fringe."

When we don't care for each other, we are more likely to look at each other as objects. What does His indictment say of our society, then, and what is at the roots of our sexual immorality?

I think about this too. For years I've been trying to address such issues in a holistic way, not simply telling people not to be sexually immoral but giving them positive alternatives. I personally have suffered mistreatment from Christian women because they didn't see me as "marriage material" (though a couple have told me they have since repented). But when you can't go to your "brothers and sisters" to have your basic emotional needs met, where else can you go but into the world and operate by that mentality? That's why focusing upon sexual immmorality is immaterial in the long run. Besides, in the Scripture sexual immorality is identified as a sign of idolatry.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 30, 2007 11:12 AM

At any rate, Ezekiel goes on to say that the people of Sodom committed abominations before God. While that does not specifically allude to sex, we can reasonably draw that conclusion from context.

Sodom was destroyed because the people living there became full of themselves, with illicit sex being "the last straw," so to speak; in fact, Lot specifically moved there precisely because it was wealthy and cosmpolitan. But here's something not always considered (and that I didn't see until earlier this year): The city that Lot went to in escaping Sodom also was on God's "hit list" for the very same reasons.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 30, 2007 11:23 AM

I don't see social justice as a "left" issue unless the right has abandoned it. I think that balance is important, but part of that is looking at the broad scope of Church history and how a spiritual insurgency was severely damaged when Constantine co-opted it as a tool of his empire. I'm with the folks in Acts 1-6, which is just about as conservative and fundamental as you can get.

On that note, it is simply wrong to say that a passage which says X really means Y because of context. Ezekiel spends Chapter 16 railing on Jerusalem as a "prostitute" because it is spiritually sleeping around, so to speak. The most recent lover listed is "that great merchant land of Babylonia" (Ez. 16:29)

He then compares Jerusalem to a couple of other cities that screwed up badly. He explicitly names the sins, makes an ambiguous (and often misinterpreted) passing remark that most reasonably is interpreted as an emphasis of the previous sentence, and then concludes that whatever Sodom (or Samaria) was doing, Jerusalem is doing it a lot worse. And then Chapter 17 tells a story about how Jerusalem is in entangled with Babylon, which is a decadent militarist merchant empire like our own.

That whole section of Ezekiel addresses collective and leadership misdeeds, not individual sexual morality. And if you really get down to it, Ezekiel generally has a pretty strong focus on social justice (see 18:7-9 and 22:27 for a couple of examples, or better yet, I encourage anyone who hasn't yet done so to read the entire book; it's a doozy, as well as Isaiah and especially Amos).

Ezekiel rarely brings up sex, and when he does, it is often a metaphor. It simply doesn't make any contextual sense that the "loathesome things" are sexual. I believe that a relatively small number of passages regarding sexual morality have been blown out of proportion over history by an imperial church that had much to gain by distracting us from how badly it was contradicting Jesus' teachings about equality and liberation. Furthermore, if you look at the overall trajectory of the kingdom of Israel/Judah, it is one in which wealth and power led to the downfall, and it is during that final collapse that Ezekiel prophesied.

I would argue that at every Biblical level, the context is social and economic in nature, including the teachings of Jesus and the Acts of his followers.

At risk of shameless self-promotion, I'll mention that I'll have a book out next spring on the economic and social message of the Bible, as well as the ways that church history has supported and undermined that over the years. I've done extensive research and reached some conclusions that are difficult to support in short blog entries (or even, ahem, longish blog entries) but which make sense when viewed as a whole. Please keep an eye out for it.

Posted by: Andrew McLeod | October 30, 2007 12:15 PM

"You apparently had no problem when the political right was "rewriting" Scripture to justify its authoritarian, self-centered agenda. Why can't the "left" bring some balance?"

Why is this apparent. Is it simply because I am conservative? Can you provide an example of where I have re-interpreted scripture solely to fit an ideological agenda?

"On that note, it is simply wrong to say that a passage which says X really means Y because of context. "

That's not what I said. What I said is that the scripture is vague, but that context adds clarity. Scripture frequently cites the sexual sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, which isn't to say we should lose sight of gluttony and laziness, which are also sinful.

You suggested that the Bible never specifically mentions the sexual sins of Sodom as a reason for its destruction, and attributed the book of Jude to Donny. You were incorrect to do so, and that was my only point.

All of the aforementioned sins are the summation of rejecting God, which is about more than both sexual immorality or social justice. If we reject God, or worship a false God, we will engage in all. They are not symptoms of our disregard for our justice, but rather our sinful nature, which only Christ can combat.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 30, 2007 1:12 PM

Is it simply because I am conservative? Can you provide an example of where I have re-interpreted scripture solely to fit an ideological agenda?

Easily half of what you've written on this blog, on just about any subject, fits into that category.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 30, 2007 1:32 PM

Some examples:

Race, torture and "Islamo-fascism," among others that I remember. That's the reason I and others have argued with you ad nauseum on those and other topics for months.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 30, 2007 3:36 PM

Dear Rick Nowlin:
I just caught your comment about the "rag tag" group of liberal Ohio pastors who took the Rev. Rod Parsley to task. I live in Columbus. Parsley's World Harvest Church is about three miles from my house. This story is quite interesting, and there are a few recent developments.

I believe it was in early 2006 when the group of, originally, 31 progressive pastors reported Parsley's political activities to the IRS, complaining that the congregation violates some of the terms of their tax exempt status. (A few other pastors signed on to the complaint after the original 31 went public.) A second church, Fairfield Christian Church of nearby Lancaster, Ohio, was also accused of similar violations--specifically, of endorsing candidates. Of course, the IRS doesn't disclose their investigations' findings, so we don't know what has become of the complaint. But recently, within the last month or two, the Rev. Russell Johnson of Fairfield Christian has resigned from that pulpit. (Johnson helped found the Ohio Restoration Project, which both he and Rev. Parsley have been involved with.) Rumors have it that Johnson may have resigned under pressure, similar to what happened to the Rev. Terry Fox in Kirkpatrick's NYT article cited here. I wonder if they Johnson has always been politically motivated in just about all he does, and some people I know, including my own pastor, have had negative run-ins with Rev. Johnson over political matters.

My guess is that Parsley's church will come clean from the tax investigation. Parsley knows what he's doing. While I don't like Parsley's preaching style at all, and especially disagree with his policy of non-disclosure of the church's financial information, his church is one of the most integrated, multi-cultural congregations in the region. I have known neighbors--both white and black--who attend there, or who have attended there. He's also deeply involved in social ministry to the poor in the area, and may be expanding ministry to the Latino community.

While I can understand the concerns that the progressive pastors had, I can't help but wonder if they would have complained had Johnson and Parsley been more ideologically aligned with them. And if a more progressive pastor like themselves seemed to "cross the line" of appropriate activity for a tax-exempt, would they complain? Further, the principles of Matthew 18 were apparently not heeded: shouldn't these pastors have tried to meet with Johnson and Parsley to work out their differences? (One of the 31 pastors wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper, trying to defend their action and explaining why Matt. 18 didn't apply in this case and why they were justified in taking their complaint to the IRS and to the public both. So obviously, they heard that concern from somewhere.)

All in all, this has been a fascinating tale in the ongoing debate over the roles of churches and church leaders in the public square.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | October 30, 2007 4:19 PM

He's also deeply involved in social ministry to the poor in the area, and may be expanding ministry to the Latino community.

The question is: Does Parsley encourage the poor to vote, run for office or become community activists? If not, I have suspicions about his "minstries to the poor" because the issue should be empowerment, not simply relief.

While I can understand the concerns that the progressive pastors had, I can't help but wonder if they would have complained had Johnson and Parsley been more ideologically aligned with them. And if a more progressive pastor like themselves seemed to "cross the line" of appropriate activity for a tax-exempt, would they complain?

I doubt that a pastor who was aligned with them would have even been doing what Parsley is. For openers, that kind of religion requires targets to be defeated -- scapegoats, if you will -- because that's how they get a name in the first place; ultimately it's about which side has the authority. Furthermore, during the ABC News interview Parsley seemed to dismiss out-of-hand anyone on the other side, almost as if they weren't really believers, which unfortunately is par for the course. (I would have to look at the transcript again to confirm my suspicions."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 30, 2007 4:53 PM

The question is: Does Parsley encourage the poor to vote, run for office or become community activists? If not, I have suspicions about his "minstries to the poor" because the issue should be empowerment, not simply relief.

I can't answer this question. I don't know who could. Depending on what the answer is, it might make an interesting story, though!

I doubt that a pastor who was aligned with them would have even been doing what Parsley is.

I dunno. Some of these pastors are quite active in the gay rights and other, as you put it, empowerment issues. Whether they endorse candidates from the pulpit, though...

...during the ABC News interview Parsley seemed to dismiss out-of-hand anyone on the other side, almost as if they weren't really believers, which unfortunately is par for the course. (I would have to look at the transcript again to confirm my suspicions.

You're probably right here.

D

Posted by: Don | October 30, 2007 5:09 PM

I dunno. Some of these pastors are quite active in the gay rights and other, as you put it, empowerment issues. Whether they endorse candidates from the pulpit, though...

IRS regulations do allow pastors to promote political issues and even endorse candidates directly from the pulpit, and churches may agitate for or against specific political issues. However, churches may not be mobilized on behalf of or against a specific candidate. (Whether it's wise to do so, however, is another issue -- my church is struggling on how to deal with abortion even though there's virtually no argument in favor in the church because we know that it's historically gotten in the way of ministry.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 30, 2007 5:22 PM

"If it were simple disagreement I would have left it at that; however, you consistently justified your stances by twisting Scripture, which I don't take lightly."

Apparently you take it lightly enough to make unsubstantiated claims about whether I have done so.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 30, 2007 6:05 PM

Kevin, here's one example: I know that I had a feeling that scripture was being twisted this morning when you wrote of Ezekiel 16:50's loathsome/abominable acts that "While that does not specifically allude to sex, we can reasonably draw that conclusion from context."

I then stated at length my reasons for thinking that context points to a different reasonable conclusion; this prompted you to backpedal and write "What I said is that the scripture is vague, but that context adds clarity." Again, this seems like a twist. I think that the scripture is very clear by itself, which is further supported by its context. Vagueness is only needed when twisting the meaning out of its proper context as a condemnation of Jerusalem's social justice failings.

Jude might have conflicting thoughts, but in this passage the reasons for Sodom's fall are pretty obvious. Maybe not superior to other prophetic interpretations, but still obvious.

Posted by: Andrew McLeod | October 30, 2007 6:36 PM

The question is: Does Parsley encourage the poor to vote, run for office or become community activists? If not, I have suspicions about his "minstries to the poor" because the issue should be empowerment, not simply relief.

I think you're half right. Relief has its place, our longer term goal has to be to help the poor escape poverty. But I think you have a very limited view of empowerment. You see it as entirely political, but there are lots of ways to empower oneself or one's community and family that are only tangentially related to politics.

There's economic empowerment: starting businesses or developing marketable skills. This is the first step away from material want and there is no shortcut around it.

There's intellectual empowerment: education and reasoning ability. The good book says the truth -- not political power -- shall set you free.

There's also personal empowerment, arguably the most important sort: developing self control and emotional stability.

It would be cruel to suggest to anyone that they pursue political ambitions (at least anything beyond the most basic step of registering to vote) until they have mastered themselves (you cannot lead others until you have mastered yourself) and then achieved at least one of the other two forms of empowerment. Without those traits, their activism is almost certain to be rejected by the larger society for perfectly understandable reasons.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | October 30, 2007 6:58 PM

Ooh, and that brings us back to co-ops, which is what got me to open my fool mouth in the first place. They aren't perfect, but in some cases they can at least stem the flow of wealth out of a community. Profits go back to the people who use the business, whether they are utility rate payers, shoppers at a food co-op, or farmers selling soybeans. There are some great examples of cooperative solutions saving towns from losing their last grocery or general store. Plus they run an awful lot like what was created in Acts 6:1-4.

Posted by: Andrew McLeodq | October 30, 2007 8:05 PM

To truly prove your point, Rick, you would need some actual quotes from Kevin where he uses chapter and verse to support a conservative ideology, and unless you want to slog through old blogs to do that, I don't see anyone really winning this argument.

That's true, and I don't have the time to do that. But my point is that before we complain about someone on their side taking the Scriptures out of context to promote an ideological agenda we need to look at ourselves to make sure we're not doing the same. In my experience the political right just won't do this, so tied is it to what it believes, and that's its downfall.

As far as the empowerment of the black community goes, I'll admit I'm not the expert on this, but it seems to me that the leaders of the civil-rights movement were fairly well educated. And non-violence required a fair amount of self-control.

Your suspicions are absolutely correct. The original "foot soldiers" comprised the professional and mercantile class in Southern cities; to put their livelihoods on the line for social justice took the kind of guts you don't see all the time; in fact, when MLK Jr., who had just gotten his doctorate from Boston University, came to that first church in Montgomery, Alabama, it was actually a "high-class" church. The NAACP also was more for the wealthy folks as well. But here, you see, the problem is that they couldn't vote or otherwise maintain a voice in community affairs.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 30, 2007 9:53 PM

Backpedal was the wrong word. Please pardon the distraction. I should have stuck with twist.

Yes, I know the story of Lot. I am quite aware of those cities' reputations. I don't get why that writer would focus on that part of the story and then later on a prophet says that it was a different reason. God's kinda mysterious sometimes. But if you look at what it is that consistently gets God in a froth and in the mood to wipe out a city, it's injustice and dysfunctional leadership. That's very clearly the main problem leading up to the Exile (read the whole downward trajectory starting with 1 Sam 8), and that's what was on Ezekiel's mind for a chapter on either side of the hair that we're splitting. That verse is also immediately downstream of a much more specific one, which tends to mean that it follows that verse. No doubt Ezekiel was aware of the story of Lot, but for whatever reason, he didn't get stuck on that aspect of it. Instead, he named "pride, laziness and gluttony, while the poor suffered." I don't see how that makes for a vague passage.

I don't deny that Jude says that the place was "filled with sexual immorality" but I think that's weaker than Ezekiel's statement, which actually named specifically the sins that brought about the fall. Also, this was written by a full blown prophet as opposed to a disputed author who might have been an Apostle. Even if it was that Jude, the Apostles repeatedly showed themselves to be capable of extreme cluelessness at times. I'm still going with the prophet. So bringing it full circle, those words from Jude via Donny that launched this whole jousting match were from a blogger of that day; an articulate, opinionated, literate dude like you and me.

God has such a great sense of humor.

Posted by: Andrew McLeod | October 30, 2007 10:37 PM

kevin s.
as another example the use of Romans 13 as a support of war or of the death penalty is reading into the text.
It 'might' be what is meant, but it's an ideological reading.

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | October 30, 2007 11:33 PM

Wanted to ask Trent what scripture he would use to support a non-pacifist view. Just to be clear.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 31, 2007 1:41 AM

The original [civil rights movement] "foot soldiers" comprised the professional and mercantile class in Southern cities; to put their livelihoods on the line for social justice took the kind of guts you don't see all the time...

We just read Dr. King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" in my comp class this morning. Every time I teach this class, I re-read the letter myself all the way through (it is rather long). And each time I read it, I learn something new. One of the things that struck me this time around was how King described the foot soldiers' preparations for nonviolent action. Self control and self-denial were part of the training, of course, but so were (if I can read between Dr. King's lines) self-reflection, repentance, and humbling oneself.

One important reason I have students read the letter is that it's a superb example of how to argue properly. It's a masterpiece of persuasive dialogue. Dr. King focuses all his attention on the arguments and treats his "opponents" respectfully all the time. It's obvious he took the time to try and understand why they opposed his methods (when was the last time Limbaugh, Coulter, or any of the other sound-byte media folks--on the right or the left--did anything like that?). He never demeans them for their attitudes. He never uses the ad hominem approach or attacks someone's character. His arguments are based on facts, examples, and he provides plenty of supporting details. The spirit of Christ is evident throughout the letter. We could all learn how to argue better from Dr. King's example.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | October 31, 2007 12:25 PM

To Rick Nowlin --

Your question somewhere way up there -- two days and about a billion posts ago -- caught my eye, where you wondered:

> how my Calvinist "brethren" will handle the
> new evangelical reality.

As a Presbyterian pastor (Chicago area), I'll offer one perspective ... albeit a tentative and unfolding one at this point, in part because I'm fairly new to this topic (about which just a bit more in a moment).

The first time I read anything by Brian McLaren -- in this case, A Generous Orthodoxy -- I was especially struck by what he saw as the values, or strengths, brought to the "table" by various Christian traditions. In particular I appreciated (and agree with) his sense that -- if I am remembering correctly -- conservatives bring the unique high energy of commitment to Christ. Or words reasonably close to that effect.

One of the reasons I find myself pulling away from "mainline" "liberal" Christianity is precisely its frequent aridity in that regard: so very little energy growing out of a strong, personal (not private but personal) sense of participating in -- and being committed to -- Christ Himself, and His work in the world. I find it painfully awkward to love Jesus as much as I do, and bring that up in conversation with "mainline" sisters and brothers.

An infusion of conservative/evangelical Christian energy of personal commitment is, to me, a welcome thing. And again, I may be mis-remembering Mr McLaren's exact words, and if so stand corrected. But I think I'm not far off.

My guess is that self-identified Reformed/Presbyterian evangelicals, clergy included, will (or do) feel much the same, although probably much more of a sense of "at last, more players on the conservative/evangelical roster!" than is true with me. Me, I'm just happy for the higher levels of energy and personal commitment -- and for such evident love of Jesus -- but that's for later.

My impression -- and this is largely personal and anecdotal -- is that this influx of conservative/evangelical membership will itself benefit greatly from immersion in a tradition that is somewhat more liturgical, and far more in touch with church history. By the latter I mean the historical depth and resulting perspective provided by centuries of writing -- sermons, theologies, tracts, hymnody, creeds and confessions, etc. etc. etc.

I find much if not most contemporary Christian writing -- evangelical and "mainstream, liberal" alike -- to be vapid. By no means all (Brian McLaren and Diana B. Bass for starters!), but most. Sorry, but I do. And while my congregation offers both a traditional and contemporary/praise worship service each Sunday; and while I benefit richly from each (even though it's awfully hard to lead worship and worship simultaneously) I find the language in so many praise lyrics to be equally vapid.

In that regard, I remember reading an article a few years ago (Christianity Today, I believe?) on how evangelicals were "discovering" older prayer books. And about the same time some evangelical friends were beginning to say: If I hear the word 'just' one more time in prayer, I'll go running and screaming out of the sanctuary! "Father I just want to ... Jesus we just ... and God I just ..." Traditional liturgical language, including personal prayer, can be awfully refreshing and even spiritually renewing.

So a preliminary response to this situation is positive: a much-needed mix of the high energy of personal commitment, combined with some significant spiritual and historical depth -- sounds good to me!

Having said that, nevertheless I'm not so sure my own personal "take" is at all helpful.

First, at the end of the day, I don't identify very much with "mainline" or "liberal" Christianity (meaning theological liberalism). That's probably less important to your question than my second reason -- next paragraph -- but I'll offer it anyway.

I am using the word "mainline" here to mean an outward form of Christian religiosity which in fact thinly, and fairly poorly, disguises the real and actual operating world-view. And that world-view, in my experience, is secular epistemology (first and foremost, imho) ... followed closely by secular political perspectives, whether of the Left, Center or Right ... by secular economic views, secular psychology, secular sociology, and on and on ... until frankly there isn't much or anything at all left over. Christian faith and practice become frankly embarrassing ways of talking about what "real people with real professions" talk about with far more sophisticated language.

In my opinion that kind of "mainline Christianity" is crap, and deserves to die quickly and ignominiously.

By "liberal Christianity" I mean, I guess, a subset of "mainline": I mean a social justice or social ministry stance, and action, informed by liberal political and economic views. One reads The Nation or The Progressive or (and probably less likely) The New Republic ... and then finds biblical language to fit ... and voila.

In my opinion that, too, is crap.

I love Jesus, period, and trust fairly heavily in what the mind of the church has conveyed through the centuries to us of His mind ... confessions, creeds, core theological writings e.g. Calvin's Institutes ... and that doesn't fit very well with "mainline" Christianity.

And I came by my frankly left-of-liberal politics not by way of Mother Jones but by reading the prophets first of all ... and then trying to absorb what to me was and is a vastly larger sense of what Torah is all about (larger than just Paul's arguments with Law and "works righteousness"), once it finally got through my thick head the prophets were bringing Torah to bear on social/political ills ... once I finally had gotten it through my head that Torah includes God's perspective on a just and equitable society translated into the terms of an ancient Semitic culture-in-transition.

That led me to find common ground with friends in liberal and considerably-left-of-liberal political circles, as I do to this day. I find it very hard (usually impossible) to track back from conservative political values to biblical values. I find it very hard to find biblical warrant for much that passes for conservative politics in this country. How one could go from Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Micah etc. etc, let alone Torah, let alone Jesus Himself -- to the politics of Mammon-driven policy is beyond me.

All of that means I don't fit in "mainstream" "liberal" circles very well, even though I appreciate and value friends who do.

And I do not sit very comfortably with conservative/evangelical circles very well either, although if I felt welcome there I'd certainly choose to "belong" with all of my caveats still intact. I see theologies (plural) in the Bible, not only from book to book but within books, and not one grand harmonious inerrant testimony ... I see the plurality and diversity of these faith perspectives as inviting an equal and mirroring plurality and diversity within the church ... I see the saving power and presence of Christ (the Cosmic Christ of, e.g., Colossians 1) emerging in the form appropriate to the questions and needs of all people ... I find the saving power and presence of Christ in other religious traditions ... and while I deeply (deeply) appreciate my own Reformed tradition, I still am not wed to it. It has strengths that, to me, need to be kept "on the table" in -- let's say -- the emerging church. But to me taking it seriously without taking it literally is de rigeur and that ...

Well all of that keeps me somewhat unwelcome around many if not most conservatives/evangelicals. And no doubt it at least "qualifies" -- if not rules out entirely -- the value of any perspective I might have as one of the "Calvinist brethren."

What's a pastor to do. Well, for the moment at least, save this stuff for the sermon I should have started working on yesterday ...

But before I do, I'd be very interested in knowing more about Michael Horton (did I get that right?). Unfortunately that's not a name I recognize. I do find "warrant" for what easily could be mistaken for a "left-leaning" theology and Christian witness among a lot of Reformed writers: Karl Barth, Emil Bruner, Hendrikus Berkhof, W. Fred Graham (historian, The Constructive Revolutionary on Calvin's life in Geneva), Nicholas Wolterstorff ...

Thanks for these discussions above ... I just keep on keeping on having so much to absorb, so much to learn!

grace and peace,
bro. steve

Posted by: bro. steve | October 31, 2007 4:32 PM