How about "Foundation Christians"? Jesus asked us to use His words as a foundation for understanding God. So, I start with what Jesus said and go from there. When I think about the war in Iraq, I build a foundation from Jesus' teachings such as "Love your enemies" and "Don't resist an evil person" and "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." I think these clear statements are more foundational than the fact he didn't ask a soldier to quit his job. I don't see how someone can build on the foundation of Jesus' teachings to support for the war in Iraq.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 3, 2008 11:18 AM

So Brian -

Is this an article on In Search of a Label? or for promoting your book(s) and those of your friends to promote sales so you can make you mortage payments? I believe that in past articles you have blasted other authors that you disagree with when they have talked about there latest publication while talking or writing on an unrelated to slightly related subject.

Level ground anyone?

Blessings -
.

Posted by: moderatelad | January 3, 2008 11:27 AM

Jesse,

I agree with your entry except for, "Saying that one is BEYOND any of these labels is simply an attempt to argue that you have the absolute truth that cannot be captured by "left", "right", or any other worldly categories."

I'm not sure it's about being beyond the labels so much as desiring to not be given only one label. I think the issues we wrestle with are very complicated because people are complicated.

I feel like (note: this is my opinion, not a slander against anyone :-)) when we try to simplify the issues by assigning a single broad label (which happens most of the time, but certainly not all), we are trying to simplify the act of thinking about the issue, and, in turn, simplifying the people who make arguments for or against issues or solutions to those issues. Does the label "religous left" fit all Sojo posts (it will probably be easier to provide example posts where it doesn't, and I don't have enough experience here to provide examples :-))? If not, what are other labels you would assign to some posts on this site?

Thanks,

Will

Posted by: Will | January 3, 2008 11:48 AM

From the outside, I would note that "emerging Christians" would seem to be a completely different movement than "Red Letter Christians". Not sure what the proper term for either movement should be, but keeping them separate seems to make sense.

Likely many 'religious Left' adherents would not consider themselves part of the 'emerging' church and vice versa.

Posted by: Westy | January 3, 2008 12:12 PM

Jesse - I disagree; I think the avoidence of labels, assuming it's done for the right reasons, is a good thing. Labels pidgeon hole a group of people and exclude others who don't neccessarily meet all the definitions of whatever one is trying to label. There are some things that conservative and liberal Christians agree on and some they don't. But by creating a label for one group or another it's like saying you're either in or your out. They divide people.

In addition, labels often do the exact thing you're concerned about. For example, one of the suggested labels above was "foundational Christians". It implies that any Christian that doesn't adhere to everything the "foundational Christians" believe aren't true Christians because they don't have the proper foundations.

Posted by: Eric | January 3, 2008 12:18 PM

Jesse,

I agree that those labels are often used on this site to dismiss people or arguments. This happens in blog entries, as well as posts. The same could also be said of the label "religious left." While I can't think of any blog entries (anyone who can, please add it to this conversation), it definitely happens within the posts, which we can't directly attribute to Sojo.

I have to disagree that "you will not find such individuals among the Sojo flock" "who truly wrestle with these issues and do not have their views captured by "left" or "right"". I can remember one blog entry about someone describing his or her previous voting record and how it was all over the map with votes for Republicans, democrats and independents.

To answer your two questions.

- I definitely have read blog entries where Jim Wallis supported policies/arguments by Democratic politicians and would love to be pointed at ones where he supported Republican politicians (again, I have faith they are out there :-)).

- I plead ignorance in that I can't site examples where Sojo has come out forcefully in support of a uniquely Republican position. If Sojo doesn't come out forcefully in support of a uniquely Republican position (and when you say forcefully, I hope you mean the majority of Sojo bloggers, not all), I don't think this means they should be labeled with "religious left" because it simplifies Sojo and assigns this to all the bloggers on this site and each is a complicated individual, who, as we previously agreed, are hopefully wrestling with all the issues from all sides.

Thanks,

Will

Posted by: Will | January 3, 2008 12:58 PM

From what I have seen of the Sojourners blog, I can't think of any compelling reason why "Religious Left" wouldn't serve quite well. Not least of all because much of what I read here does look like a response to the Religious Right. And I'm not sure what sort of "baggage" you are trying to get rid of.

Purple Christians implies a sort of political moderation that I have yet to see any evidence for. "Blue Christians" might be more accurate, but sounds way too much like a Christmas song parody.

Foundational Christians is likely to have people confused with "fundamentalists". Not sure you want to accept that risk.

From a PR standpoint "Red Letter Christians" isn't all bad. It does tie in with your conviction that your movement better reflects Christ's spirit. But it might confuse people when you cite O.T. prophets.

From where I sit, "Religious Left" seems the fairest description.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | January 3, 2008 1:06 PM

"A lot of us are people without a label these days."

Maybe this could be a good thing- like that "pearl" one finds. Perhaps it brings us closer to the "true" meaning of when Christ
told His apostles that they, too, were Not of this world. And
perhaps it is what really keeps "those" gates from "truly"
prevailing and why this world still exists today.

Matthew 13:44-46
John 15:19
Matthew 16:18

"Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you will find the kingdom.
For you are from it, and to it you will return."

Humans require "labels" because we are All guilty of being external.
But God is a spirit and cares more about the truth within us- rather than labels- or why else would Christ have said that even the publicans and the harlots got in before them. What good is a "label" if what is within- a lie. If we say we follow Christ- then follow Christ. Customizing God won't work.

The Bible offers multiple examples of when God turned from His own and would not hear them. It is clear, since He created us, that He knows we certainly have the ability to understand. What becomes the problem, at the end, will be the individual trying to justify the multiple examples that He did, indeed, offer. I can imagine that being
a difficult spin. This isn't about anyone thinking they are without sin or above another- but clear truth. How many more examples did He need to give?

Elizabeth Daniele

Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | January 3, 2008 1:38 PM

It seems to me that if McLaren does not want to be labeled with "bipolar terminology," then he should refrain from using it in his own discourse.

Posted by: Sacred Frenzy | January 3, 2008 1:41 PM

The old label from the 70's was "peace and justice Christians." I don't know what's wrong with that. It allows for differences of opinion and certainly does not suggest allegiance with a particular politcal party.

Posted by: I and I | January 3, 2008 1:58 PM

"I know that Dobson, Kennedy and others... upheld a certain amount of respect for the person and ministry even if they disagreed on the issue. Wallis is not known for that nor are most of the writers of articles on this site."

Don't kid yourself; you're not fooling anyone else. The two words "Justice Sunday" put the lie to your claim of niceness by Kennedy and Dobson. Kennedy in particular was vitriloic in his attempts to smear those with whom he disagreed. Add to that Tim LaHaye, Rick Scarborough, Rod Parsley, etc.

Posted by: I and I | January 3, 2008 2:04 PM

"You know - for the idea that I have read in Wallis' writings and interviews about lets not be so extream and come to the center."

Do you think Christ should have done the same?

Elizabeth Daniele

Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | January 3, 2008 2:10 PM

Posted by: I and I | January 3, 2008 2:04 PM

But the argument was first and formost the 'issue'. It was referenced back to the person who made the statement or indictment. But their was a disconnect between their taking on the issue and their judgement of the persons character.

Wasn't it Wallis' accessment of Bill Bright that cause the rift and only at the end of Brights life did they come together?

I have wittnessed more character assisination on this site of Wallis and Co towards consevatives than of years of listening to Dobson, Kennedy, Graham etc.

As for Tim, Rick and Rod. Surely you won't stop there - so many have been squerwed on this site by so few that you can do better.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | January 3, 2008 2:41 PM

I don't like "red letter Christians". When I first heard the word a few months ago, I didn't understand it. But it hearkens back to me to the popularity of the idea among a lot of Christian conservatives of favoring the red print in the Bible over everything else. I think that's poor exegesis. We considered it to all be inspired. And Jesus' actions are at least as important as his words.

Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | January 3, 2008 3:15 PM

Wasn't it Wallis' accessment of Bill Bright that cause the rift and only at the end of Brights life did they come together?

It wasn't so much an assessment as it was an expose of a semi-secret plan to impose Christian morality on an unwitting populace through political means that was published in Sojourners magazine in 1976 -- and because Bright was named and heavily involved he took Wallis to task.

Here's what I don't get: From 1982 through 1985 I watched the 700 Club regularly and many, many non-Christians were invited as guests on the show to buttress the "Christian" (read: conservative) viewpoint. Yet the likes of Ron Sider, Jim Wallis or Tony Campolo, all solid evangelicals -- and Tony especially is quite the evangelist -- were never invited to my knowledge. On the other hand, one year the only thing the show had in recognition of Martin Luther King Jr. Day (admittedly, not a national holiday then) was a gospel choir at the end. Those show me that, in that context, being a follower of Jesus meant maintaining certain ideological positions rather than being "saved" and thus being a disciple. Thankfully, those days are changing.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 3, 2008 5:09 PM

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | January 3, 2008 5:02 PM

"Christians who are really polytheists because they believe in using the state to accomplish what God said He would accomplish through the church in terms of caring for the least of these."

Just where did God say that? I've read the Bible pretty carefully, and I seem to have missed it. What I do read the New Testament as saying is that God is completely involved in this world, including its institutions. If that makes me a polytheist, so be it.

I do agree with Wolverine, though, that "religious left" is the best description of the movement that I see myself as belonging to. Embracing this label rather than evading it would defuse the constant charges of hypocrisy that I see posted here - and not without some justification.

Posted by: Another nonymous | January 3, 2008 5:24 PM

Considering that this entire conversation is a reaction to Right-Wing Conservatism and a response to postmodern thought, maybe "emerging spirituality" is a good label. It makes room for people outside traditional christianity to have a voice (sometimes it feels like this conversation is happening in the basement of the church instead of front-and-center in proverbial Athens, the marketplace of ideas) as we integrate as followers of the Jesus Way.

Posted by: John | January 3, 2008 6:01 PM

But Nathaniel, when Israel had judges they still worshipped idols and did all number of detestable things.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 3, 2008 8:04 PM

Why do I have to throw out the prophets? I do not accept Jewish tradition as an authority, though I respect its ability to provide insights.

Because you can't truly understand the New Testament without the Old. Jesus consistently quoted it, and when Paul said that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,..." (2 Timothy 3:16), he was specifically speaking of the Old Testament -- remember, the New was only being written at that time. Even the kings were subject to the Prophets precisely because they spoke for God to the issues of the day.

That said, the Scripture is not mechanistic in that you cannot glean "formulas" on how to run a country, church, business or anything -- rather, the Christian faith is about relationships. In fact, my view of law is defined as the ordering of proper relationships, determining what is in the best interests of everyone; the Prophets' only function was to get the nation of Israel back to that. This is why I have no quarrel with centralized government even though it may not be "ideal" -- in my view it's irrelevant.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 3, 2008 8:11 PM

I agree with Brian that generally the labels that are used aren't very good. We shouldn't tie the Gospel to secular political positions that all have their shortcomings in terms of faithfulness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I don't like Red Letter Christians either. It carries an implication that the rest of scripture at worst is seen as inconsistent with what's in red, and at best, is at least somewhat suspect. I know that's not what Brian and others mean by it, but that's what it sounds like.

I describe my own position as consistent life ethic, which incorporates peace, pro-life and social justice elements, and doesn't really fit with any of the political ideologies. Now I realize that some of the folks Brian may want to include in a new label may have reservations about aspects of CLE. Wallis seems really conflicted about both war and abortion, sometimes sounding CLE in orientation and sometimes not. But my own view is that if you don't include the various elements of CLE, you haven't adopted the full Gospel.

Posted by: Bill Samuel | January 3, 2008 8:37 PM

I think the Red Letter Christians don't want to get locked into the nasty business of partisan politics. The extremes of the Left and Right seem to be more interested in attacking each other rather than in looking at how issues affect the country as a whole. I consider myself a progressive but even I'm sick of all the name-calling, mudslinging, and fingering pointing going on between the Right and the Left. I think Wallis and the other RLCS are more interested in finding common ground and working for the common good than in engaging in petty partisan politics. Also, the RLCS may be progressive on some issues, but they don't want to turn Jesus into a Democrat. In his book, God's Politics, Wallis advocates reducing, not criminalizing, abortions. Prevention is much better than criminalization. I would also agree with Wallis that we need to abolish the death penalty and use war as a last resort.

Posted by: Allison | January 3, 2008 9:14 PM

"How would a government provided universal health care system be paid for if not by taxes? Taxation is theft."

Only if you believe an individual has no obligation to the common good.

"I would not, as a Christian, go to Bob, the atheist, and force him to pay for John, the sick’s, health care."

If by "force," you mean hold a gun to his head, I'm with you. Otherwise, see above.

"I would give John my money or shut up and go home."

And suppose John needs a heart transplant? I don't regard it as my job to pay, or as my church's job, even if either of us could afford it. (We can't.)

"The church used to do it until progressive Christians though it would be a good idea to use the government to do the church’s job."

Medical care didn't used to be so expensive either. And progressive Christian's didn't do any such thing. Government-sponsored health care was pioneered by Otto von Bismarck in late 19th-century Germany - which admittedly isn't much of a selling point. Paul Krugman has pointed out, however, that the only reason it didn't go through in the US was that Southern segregationists, an essential part of the New Deal coalition, didn't want to desegregate their hospitals. Of course, they didn't want to give up lynching, either, but the government forced them to.

"...that kind of pessimism is debilitating to the church and mediocre."

I am actually not a pessimist. I am an optimist, and I believe we are a good enough people to solve this problem.

Posted by: Another nonymous | January 3, 2008 9:52 PM

I am a mystic, a contemplative by God's call. The prophets are of the utmost importance because they teach man how to commune w/ God. They teach prayer which the one factor that no one is talking about. All the prophets prayed consistently and taught their people and their enemies to commune and deal w/ a God that is altogether other. We would never have the level of depth for praying and talking to God w/o the prophets. yes I said that outloud.

When it comes to prayer and communion w/ God The new testament doesn't give us the level of depth that Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Jeremiah give (possible execption being John.) It gives us the level of diversity of opinion and practical experience that is lacking in Paul's letters. How does one learn to pray? Jesus gives one prayer on that very subject. But how do we listen? In order to answer that question one has to look at Jesus first but to understand how diverse listening is one must use the prophets. They all listened and did things differently, so must we as Christians.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 4, 2008 12:44 AM

Red letter Christians? Christian Left? Christian Right? Progressive Christians?

Yuck to all of them!

In my opinion, and I've expressed this before, we should abandon the use of labels. Labels lead to stereotyping and in the current political climate become convenient handles for bashing one's political opponents.

Rather than hanging a label on people, wouldn't it be better to try and listen to what they have to say and draw conclusions based on that, instead of cataloguing them and then trying to fit what they say into a preconceived box?

Let's just call ourselves Christians, why not?

Peace,

Posted by: Don | January 4, 2008 9:42 AM

Another nonymous,
That’s right the individual has no obligation to the common good. That does not mean that he will always act contrary to the common good. The free market system works because it takes individuals self-interest as granted and yet allows it to work to the good of many.

Medical care is expensive because of government involvement. While everything else in our lives has become less expensive over the course of time, some forms of health care have shown rising prices. First, one must grant that the demand for health care has risen as incomes have risen, thus raising the prices, but government subsidies of health care have encouraged rising prices on the whole, as have government protections of drug companies through patents, which I would do away with.
Finally, John doesn’t have a right to a heart transplant. He wants one, and needs one to keep living, but who should pay? He should. Or people who care about him should. Or the insurance company with whom he has had a contract should. But should you or should I? No way. If I want to volunteer to help pay, fine, but I have no obligation to do so.
The church has an obligation to help the least of these. This does not mean that we must save every life. It means we are to work to correct injustice and to help those who have no way of helping themselves. I define least of these rather narrowly. If John has lived long enough to need a transplant then he probably wasn’t one of the least of these to begin with.
It’s harsh, I know, but if the size of the state were severely limited and people were able to do more with their own earnings, and the price of health care were not artificially high, and we were not playing the world’s policemen, then most people would have enough income to pay for the majority of their health care needs. The problem is (pun) symptomatic.

Rick,
I’m working on a detailed study of Judges demonstrating the amount of time actually spent in idolatry compared to the time of freedom. So far the weight is heavily in freedom’s favor.
“The government should create conditions where people can earn their own living and not depend on their families or the church for hand outs.”
You draw the contrast so well. Its either depend on family and church or government. Family and church were instituted by god. Government was instituted by man. You choose government. Fine.

P,
Even if all 12 incidents lasted a full generation (20 years) that still just barely accounts for a majority of the time of the Judges. Again, my study will show that the numbers are far from even. I’m actually for returning to a wild west way of living. Those were not so violent of times as they are often depicted. Most of the worst problems found their source in government military action. I’d rather have liberty than stability. It has not shown that they must be mutually exclusive however.

Nathanael Snow

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | January 4, 2008 11:00 AM

Posted by: JamesMartin | January 4, 2008 10:42 AM

Unfortunatly - everyone has at some point made personal attacks and many regretted it and at times appologized. But let's compare some of the title of the books these people have written.

Rush, See I Told You So - The Way Things Ought To Be, and others that he co-authored.

Frankin - Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar - Limbaugh's Reign of Error (I believe that this was done by someone else) and others.

Rush and others like him take on the Issue and will name people that they believe are responsible. Frankin and Gang strike out at the person. The one that is great at articulating their opinions and convictions is Newt. I have seen news anchors set him up to blast a person and he steps back - and then answers the question about the 'issue' and will leave the 'personality' out of the discussion.

Coulter has stepped over the line - but then again so has Huffington. So - yes, it happens which is sad. But when the issue is paramount - personalities are a lot safer. Ingram has been threatened by the majority of the people she talks about it he book "Shut Up and Sing". Again notice the name of the book. Each time she has sent the person all of her research and evidence that she collected and they all have backed off. Interesting.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | January 4, 2008 11:39 AM

For just two, National Review Online and The American Spectator magazine, especially editor in chief Emmett Tyrell, love to do scathing and sometimes witty personal attacks. These pieces are the unflattering editorial cartoon writ large, in prose.

Personally, I no longer enjoy it (jesus warned me personally it wasn't pleasing to Him), although I may have shamelessly overindulged during the Clinton era.

Posted by: X Con | January 4, 2008 3:38 PM

I can agree to disagree. I and I mistakes my message for conservatism, though I am adamantly anti-war and anti-military. Rick is utterly suspicious of any big business, an issue we have come to disagree about many times now. Its not that I see big business as good, I just see it as neutral. Government I see as a use of force and thus evil.
Many people throw the accusation of trust in the market as idolatry around, but it does not make sense. Trust in the market means to allow all and only voluntary transactions. It completely does away with the use of force. A really free market would not permit any favors to anyone, big business, mom-n-pop, or consumers. No favors at all. No government to process favors or transfers. Perhaps what I call for is just to radical to you. It is not conservative, or status quo, or existing system enough for you. I am just as opposed to Wall Street getting favors from the government (that is what the Fed is all about) as I am to anyone else. An idol creates a permission for someone to use force on someone else. The market process, if completely free, does not do this.

Either that or you are afraid to agree that the church must assume full and exclusive responsibility for the least of these. Afraid that it will not or that it might mean you are personally more responsible than you are comfortable with. You would rather be absolved of that responsibility.
Fine.

Nathanael Snow

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | January 4, 2008 4:34 PM

I and I,
So you concede that my argument is logically consistent and follows directly from the Christian ethic as mandated by Christ?
You just don't think it is practical. What is most practical is good theory, to paraphrase G.K. Chesterton. Without a right understanding of theory we won't know which direction to move when dealing with issues at the margin. My theory provides such direction, and it demonstrates ways in which both the religious right and left are moving in the wrong direction.

To insist on "whatever seems necessary" is to give in to the premise of fascism.

Nathanael Snow

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | January 4, 2008 5:10 PM

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | January 4, 2008 4:34 PM

"I can agree to disagree. I and I mistakes my message for conservatism, though I am adamantly anti-war and anti-military."

So am I, and I would describe your message as radical liberalism. Back in the days before Adam Smith, governments looked out for the economic interests of their people, and trade guilds looked out for the economic interests of their members. Nobody was expected to go it alone. Times have changed, of course, and nobody would suggest going back to unrefined mercantilism, but I'm conservative enough to be attuned to the limitations of human nature, which is why I am not, and will never be, as radical a liberal as you are.

Posted by: Another nonymous | January 4, 2008 6:03 PM

"So, I'm a classical liberal, if you must."

Granted - and I'm afraid I'm not. It's not that I don't understand what you're saying. I actually do believe that individual self-interest can and does work for the greater good, and I would be the last person to idealize the pre-capitalist world. I just believe history shows that the most just societies have been those that have avoided the poles of unregulated economic liberalism on the one hand and complete state regulation on the other. Right now, I believe we are tilted way too far in the former direction. If I lived in Cuba, I would be a free marketer. I see this as the only practical approach to politics, which is why I characterize your idealization of the market as bordering on idolatry.

BTW, I've enjoyed this exchange. It's nice to debate someone who doesn't fit the usual categories.

Posted by: Another nonymous | January 4, 2008 8:55 PM

"I beg to differ. Companies in retail generally make only about 1 percent profit, which doesn't sound like much on the surface"

Yes, I've heard this spiel before. It sounds like quite a bit, but three percent (much less two percent, which constitutes the difference you cite) is not the difference between expensive health care and affordable health care.

To the extent we have a health care crisis in this country, it is not because Americans are only able to come up with 97-98% of the bill. There are other, more substantial factors at play, and ignoring them in favor of the all-purpose Wall St. bogeyman is not going to aid in a solution.

Incidentally, part of the margin is offset by reinsurance, which is required by law to mitigate against insurance companies taking on too much risk. This partially explains the higher margins, but you probably already know that, heavily researched as you are.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 5, 2008 2:47 AM

Another nonymous,
I’ve enjoyed the exchange as well. Drop me a line and I’ll link you to my thoughts on other issues. (No spam…) ndsnow@gmail.com, or if you trust an edu address more, ndsnow@ncsu.edu
Do you include distributive justice in your definition of justice, or mere procedural justice?

Rick,
You really are fearful of big business, per se. But you are not fearful of big government. Is there some mantel over government that prevents it from acting in its own self-interest? Are decision makers more likely to respond to loss of revenue for not satisfying customers, or to loss of votes for not satisfying voters? Which situation is more likely to create a moral dilemma? A couple of book suggestions for you: Winners, Losers, and Microsoft, by Steve Margolis. Explains how the qwerty keyboard really is better than dvorak, how VHS really was better than Beta for most folks, and why Microsoft was not a monopoly. Also, Myth of the Robber Barons, by Burton W. Folsom, which demonstrates how those traditionally labeled “Robber Barons” consistently lowered prices and made life better off for most consumers, by driving their competition out of business.
Your fear of big business, per se, is unfounded. A fear of big business, when attached to government, is justifiable.

Mick,
For good economic discussions that are politically neutral, inasmuch as I often disagree, check out the Econtalk podcast by Russ Roberts.

Nathanael Snow (my real name)
ndsnow@gmail.com (my real e-mail)

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | January 5, 2008 9:42 AM

"Big government is accountable in theory..."
How's that theory working out for you? Six years at war, and the robber barons you mentioned included. The theory is flawed. Government is not accountable. Take a look at Public Choice theory to see how it can't work, and how the special interest always wins in a pure democracy.
Big business is accountable to competition in the market, to the customer, a much less fickle measure than any government regulation. What's interesting is that big corporations don't practice known wasteful procedures like government does. They reinvest earnings or dispurse to shareholders and no wealth gets squandered. Instead more customers get satisfied. Are you a satisfied voter? Can you hold the government accountable? Really? Try getting a refund on your taxes.
I'm assuming you live in the Northeast or Great Lakes region. If the jobs left that part of the country, so should you. No one is entitled to a job, a wage, an occupation or a standard of living. We all have to compete and remain competitive. Smart people get paid according to their productivity, not according to their effort. No one had to work for the strong-arming firms. Try quitting when all industry is state-owned though.
Nathanael Snow

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | January 5, 2008 12:10 PM

Rick,
The modern conservative movement stinks, we’re agreed on that. The way to fix things is not to redistribute the power once again, and hopefully more evenly, but to get rid of it altogether.

Re: Enron,
Buyer beware. No protection for consumers. File a fraud suit if a contract has been violated, but otherwise leave it alone. Why are so many investing in stocks they know nothing about?!? Partial ownership in a company means you are risking part of your wealth on the firm’s profitability. If you want to do well, you have to do your homework. Buffet has shown us that it works, when you do.
The problem with Enron was twofold: People were overinvested in something they didn’t know anything about. The executives committed fraud. Prosecute the fraud, laugh at the idiots who should have known better. No need for more government intervention a la Sarbanes-Oxley.

If people in other countries are more productive than some people here, whose fault is that? I have no pity for people who don’t spend their evenings studying and preparing for their next job. No one should get comfortable with where they are, because tomorrow it will be gone. If you were working at a textile plant in NC, where I live ten years ago, and were not reading about biotech or programming, and were watching WWF at night, that’s your mistake. Now you have no job and no marketable skills, and no pension either, and the best you can do is sell grandpa’s farm, move to the city, and be a greeter at Wal Mart. Good. Too many people living on farms anyway.
The market system is brutal, it crushes mediocrity and stagnation. It requires a constant looking to the future and progress. It forces people to find what they are best at and do the best they can. When the state intervenes and provides a safety net it only permits mediocrity and rewards stagnation.
By the way, if we’re so hurting, why is unemployment under 6%? Move to where the jobs are, or come up with a new idea and make a job. No one deserves a job or has a right to one, though, and everyone ought to expect to have to fight to make a living.
Nathanael Snow

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | January 5, 2008 7:17 PM

Mick,
For good economic discussions that are politically neutral, inasmuch as I often disagree, check out the Econtalk podcast by Russ Roberts.

Nathanael Snow

Thanks I will check it out .

Posted by: Mick | January 6, 2008 3:41 AM

“Impossible…”
I’m more optimistic, maybe its because I’m young. If not total elimination, we can work to reduce state power.

I do assume that people don’t do their homework, because they don’t.

Should we pay people what they need to be paid to make a living, or pay them according to productivity? Who decides what a decent living is? Globalization is happening. Isolationism, or protectionism, is fatal. Neutrality is most likely to produce peace and prosperity. Environmentalism and health insurance are luxuries, not necessities. Americans treat them like entitlements.

You don’t accept the government’s numbers, but we should trust the government? If people are not looking for work, how are they surviving? Relatively speaking, unemployment numbers are low, even if higher than reported, as you say.

Mick,
You’re welcome.

Re: Folk Christianity. It would be hard to take seriously. But the emerging movement is hard to take seriously due to their lack of good doctrine, Mark Driscol excepted (Vintage Jesus is awesome!), so, go with it. Christianity of the people isn’t very promising either. The people are usually wrong.

Nathanael Snow

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | January 6, 2008 8:56 AM

I’m more optimistic, maybe its because I’m young. If not total elimination, we can work to reduce state power.

I'm not so young anymore, but my basic beliefs have not changed since my youth. And, in this country, state power isn't the issue because much political power is in private hands. So, basically, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Should we pay people what they need to be paid to make a living, or pay them according to productivity? Who decides what a decent living is?

Here, the Scripture is clear -- "The workman deserves his wages."

You don’t accept the government’s numbers, but we should trust the government? If people are not looking for work, how are they surviving?

There's something called the "underground economy" where people work "under the table," usually in straight cash, often to get out of paying taxes. (I moonlight as a musician and usually get paid that way when I do, but I still report all my income from that.) Then you have people work as domestics and things like that, plus such illegal activities as street drug sales and prostitution.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 6, 2008 1:54 PM

"At least "big government" still, at least in this country, is in theory accountable to the governed and I can join it and help to foster change if I so desire"

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: Tom | January 6, 2008 11:34 PM

Is there anything the cause of "justice" cannot be used to justify? Is there anything that puts limits on what we or the government can do in the name of justice?

Posted by: Eric | January 7, 2008 10:58 AM

Why is that a "bad question" Rick? Because you didn't feel like answering it? I have no problem with the government being involved in bringing justice in theory. Just because the government gets involved doesn't mean "big government".

What I want to know, is there anything that puts limits on what we or the government can do in the name of justice? If so, what is it? Or what are they?

Posted by: Eric | January 7, 2008 2:25 PM

The Emerging church is looking for a new label? I have an idea, Brian Mclaren and friends. Your group could call its self Revelation 17 proponents, cause that is where this movement is going. Or how about Tower of Babel 2 believers. All of these would be very appropriate.

How terribly sad that this movement has moved so far from God's word and the prophecies that you will soon fulfil as you blindly run towards spiritual adultry and deep error. Yes, throw off the chains of God's protection and see where it is all going to go. Revelation is a book you research with great interest and should cling to. But most of you Emergent listeners are not listening to the warnings about this new way of thinking and merging all religons into a Supra- religon,with except to the born again authentic Christian. I am deeply saddened that things are taking this turn and that for a while, you will all get what you want, but once you get it, you won't like it. Rebellion always has a price to pay.
Olivetreeviews.org with Jan Markel is an amazing site I suggest you look into, especially to her radio show in archives. My you find Christ's Truth while there is time to do so. It won't last forever.
In his Truth, Teresa

Posted by: Teresa Blosser | January 8, 2008 1:19 PM

P,
It is the height of arrogance to think biblical prophecy doesn't describe today. Apparently you believe it only applied to early Israel and the ancient "emerging church". What if you are wrong?

I am trying to learn more about this "emerging church" teaching. Has Biblical prophecy already been fulfilled according to your belief? It appears you don't believe that Jesus will return to rule his kingdom? Do you believe he has already returned?

Is that your Christ like attitude, treating Theresa the way you did?

Michael

Posted by: Michael | January 8, 2008 4:34 PM

What is very frustrating is that we're looking for labels to differentiate among "Christians". I find it amazing that Jesus prayed in John 17 for the unity of all believers both in his current day and for us today. Yet here we are arguing about what we should be labeled, passing judgment upon each other, and assuming that we have all the answers. I have been doing some studying on what the "early" Church believed and it is amazing to me how far the Church has wondered from. It's moved from sound theology to arguments over politics and what sins are the worst ones to people who believe whatever they're told from the pulpit or stage. Granted there were issues in the "early" Church and have always been issues in Christianity but the one thing that needs to happen is unity. I suggest if we're going for a label we stick with Christian.

Posted by: Jeremy | January 10, 2008 1:03 AM

New label? In one word.....Apostasy!

Those who love not the truth will receive a strong delusion. (see 2 Thess. 2)

Perilous times have come.

Posted by: Leah | January 14, 2008 7:34 AM