Wolverine - There's a lot that is insulting about Rodriguez's statement, but what is amusing to me is that he apparently thinks that Hannity and Rush and Dobbs all think alike. Dobbs' positions are actually quite different than the other two on many issues, but he just picked three white guys he doesn't like and said evangelicals follow them. hee hee...

On the larger issue, I think Wallis and the others are correct - that evangelicals have started to look elsewhere for direction than the old leaders of the "religious right".

Posted by: Eric | January 25, 2008 5:52 PM

A lot of conservative Christians I know do pay a lot of attention to Rush, Sean and Lou (and Goldberg!) and allow scripture to be interpreted according to their pronouncements, instead of their media screeds being evaluated by scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit.

Possessing a mass-media megaphone is no guarantee of infallibility by those psossessing it; more likely, their opinions are elevated mostly because of their novelty, their outrageousness or their potential to generate conflict - and consequently the interest and ratings that come from manufacturing controversy.

That's not helpful for discovering truth or building consensus.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 25, 2008 7:08 PM

Don,

Yes, my comments were removed.

I asked a series of tough but fair questions relating to the comments attributed to Rev. Rodriguez. I hope this was the result of a tecnhical glitch. If they were removed intentionally it was done for no legitimate purpose.

I call on Beliefnet and Sojo to restore my earlier comments.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | January 25, 2008 8:05 PM

Let's put this another way:
"The major difference between white evangelicals and black evangelicals is that many black evangelicals take their marching orders from Bishop Jesse Jackson , Prophet Al Sharpton, and the church of the NAACP; and White evangelicals still listen to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."
--The statement above is no less ignorant or bigoted than Rev. Rodriguez's quote that Wallis cited.

Posted by: jesse | January 25, 2008 11:10 PM

Sam Rodriguez: "The major difference between Latino evangelicals and white evangelicals is that many white evangelicals take their marching orders from Bishop Rush Limbaugh, Prophet Sean Hannity, and Apostle Lou Dobbs; and Latino evangelicals still listen to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."

May ALL of us seek to be like that - listening to God's Word directly. THIS is where we get into trouble - by blindly following any human being. God wants a relationship with each of US. He wants us to ask HIM and seek HIM.

Teachers and leaders have all sorts of valuable insights to share - but the moment they start to wedge themselves in between God and you - they are no longer helping.

Posted by: Amazon Creek | January 26, 2008 12:08 AM

I was in Young Life in high school and Campus Crusade for Christ in my first two years of university. My family is still evangelical.
I started paying attention to political rhetoric in the 92 election and noticed that Democrats espoused values much more akin to "The Sermon on the Mount." Second semester of my freshmen year in university I learned about "Supply-Side Economics" and it's incongruency to the Christian preference for the poor.
I watched the Christian Coalition mobilize and win a majority in the Congress in 94. They were on a witch hunt with Rush right behind 'em. Were we any better off spending $52 million to find out that Monica performed oral sex on Bill. $52M could've helped out a lot of poor folks.
Ironically, it seems like Bill and Hillary are campaigning like Republicans against Obama.
Evangelical Christianity changed in the 90s. It went from a Billy Graham/Johnny Cash flavor to ultra bitter witch-hunt mode.
Having grown up evangelical and still having evangelical friends and family, I don't see the tide turning. (I hope I'm wrong!)
It seems now that evangelicals don't wanna soul-search/repent over the fact they put George W. Bush in the Whitehouse 2X. I think that it's not too far out to say that there is some form of mind control to which evangelicals have subjected themselves.
My family thinks Reagan is the best thing since sliced bread. Reagan wasn't a church-goer. His kids wanted nothing to do with him in the 80s. He said his favorite book was Ayn (Atheist) Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", not the Bible. Why did Falwell's Moral Majority support this guy over 'born again' Jimmy Carter?
Dobson's Focus on the Family is supporting Mormon, Mitt Romney over Mike Huckabee.
Former Christian Coalition Leader, Ralph Reed was best friends with lobbyist Jack Abramoff (who is now in prison.) Reeds Georgia campaign for AG was mired in scandal.
Whether it's FOX News (Bill O' Reilly settled out of court for allegedly having phone-sex with his show's producer) or Rush Limbaugh (who was busted for pain-killer abuse and then caught with a suitcase of Viagra coming back from the Bahamas) evangelicals count these guys as their own. At the very least they tune 'em in.
My more secular minded buddies and wife wouldn't give these wackos the time of day. I can't imagine that moderates are tuning them in either.
For all the hot air over abortion - I've posted this week to see which Beliefnet evangelicals have actually given money to the cause for adoption rather than protest - I have yet to see a post tesifying to donations on behalf of toddlers, pre-teens and teens.
I think Evangelicals have poisoned and dumbed down politics in this country by injecting moral absolutism into it. Politics in a plural society is based on compromise. But feeling righteous is very intoxicating.

Posted by: Brian Horan | January 26, 2008 12:54 AM

"It's not only bigoted; it's woefully inaccurate."

That was Jesse's entire point.

It's also clear that Rodriguez doesn't know very much about Lou Dobbs.

If that's his money quote, it is clear that he has very little to say.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 26, 2008 1:47 AM

Thank you, Toby. Although I can only speak for me, my hunch is there are large numbers on all sides who feel the same; including elected officials--i.e. persons who seek to act with love and compassion....to vote (and govern) the best they know. Our government is flowed; as are 'we the people.'
I weary of analysis and strategy such as "People vote their pocketbooks" or "Voters choose based on their fears."
What Do Evangelicals Want?

This Evangelical wants every citizen to participate in love and as Toby states, "to show the world God's love."
Secondly, I want my elected officials to govern. Just like I want the snowplow drivers to clear the streets. I don't need them arguing for thirteen years whether, when and how to do it. Nor complaining the left-handed snow plow drivers are blocking the others from doing thier jobs. There are a range of snow removal strategies. I like some better than others. But I would trust them to solve the problem--if they would simply say, "We're not going home tonight until the streets are clear."

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 26, 2008 7:00 AM

Just a test - how many self-described politically conservative Christians do find themselves aligned with the public opinions expressed by Rush, Hannity and Lou Dobbs?

I know that I myself once thought, for a couple of years back in the nineties, that Rush was the cat's pyjamas, not just a harmless little fuzzball... as in, "Ditto's, Rush" ...

Waiting for a sincere answer...

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 26, 2008 1:15 PM

Hello Jim, I am new to the conversation here. I like to say that I am a backsliden Evangelical who is a re-born Jesus follower. I used to work as a pastor, fell from the ministry due to a moral failure, and during my recovery and healing have found myself on a different path than my old evangelical roots.

A few years ago I started to work with the handicapped and elderly populations in my community. I am struck and dismayed by how poorly our country and our government cares for these people...more to the point, I was taken completely aback at how the Church pretty much ignores them. Long story short, during my time of recovery and this time of life circumstance, I started to see the world and the work of Jesus in this world in a different light.

I very much appreciate what you are saying, and trying to say to the Church and to those who are just interested in the "Least of these". I wanted to ask a question in reference to what you have written in God's Politics, and what you have written/said elsewhere. Actually it's not so much about what you have said etc...but what things you read etc... that inform those ideas.

Specifically, have you read "Myth of A Christian Nation" By Greg Boyd??

Posted by: Gary | January 26, 2008 1:25 PM

"Just a test - how many self-described politically conservative Christians do find themselves aligned with the public opinions expressed by Rush, Hannity and Lou Dobbs?"
--This is kind of a silly question. Kind of like saying "how many liberals find themselves aligned with opinions of liberals"? Except Dobbs isn't even a conservative.

The point we've been making here relates to Rodriguez's bigoted statement arguing that Hispanic evangelicals are better Christians than white evangelicals. This is a highly offensive statement which Wallis for some reason has chosen to praise.

Posted by: jesse | January 26, 2008 1:27 PM

The point we've been making here relates to Rodriguez's bigoted statement arguing that Hispanic evangelicals are better Christians than white evangelicals. This is a highly offensive statement which Wallis for some reason has chosen to praise.

While that statement sounds offensive at first glance, don't miss the deeper meaning behind it. Relatively speaking, Latino evangelicals (and African-Americans as well) have found they needed to rely on God for daily living far more than white evangelicals, for the simple reason white evangelicals as a whole don't face the societal challenges that minorities in this country do. There is no way around that.

Arguably the strongest churches spiritually in our nation's history (never mind theologically, which was a separate issue) were the black assemblies in the South during the civil-rights movement, which of course came out of the black church, and it learned how to deal with real persecution quickly. Whereas, white conservative evangelicals complain -- relatively speaking, of course -- about a hangnail.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 26, 2008 1:44 PM

James,

In your eagerness to score cheap debating points over the (undeniably tragic) death of Edgar Castorena, you skip lightly past two very important legal and ethical questions.

First: were Castorena's parents actually in any danger of deportation if they had taken Edgar for medical care? Or were their fears based on inaccurate descriptions of HB 1804 spread by the bill's opponents in order to make it seem more draconian than it actually was?

You do know that the bill's supporters argued it wouldn't cover basic medical care, don't you? You do note that the story you quote does not indicate that Edgar's parents have suffered any legal consequences on account of their eventual decision to take Edgar to the clinic.

Are you aware of any cases where illegal immigrants in Oklahoma were deported after seeking basic medical care? If you can't, then I'd have to say that the blame may very well fall on those who exaggerated HB 1804's effects, not those who supported the bill.

Second: What are the parents' responsibilities here? Human life is supposedly precious. One would think it would be precious enough that a parent might be willing to risk deportation to get needed medical care for his or her child.

To be fair, it's possible the parents did not fully understand how grave their kids condition was. But if they did understand that their child was seriously ill (and ten days of diarrhea sounds pretty bad to me) then I don't see how they avoid some responsibility for this. Even if HB 1804 is as awful as you say it is, is avoiding detection for illegal entry a justification for neglecting a child's medical needs?

Snide comments about Fortress America aside, it seems to me that you need to get a better grip on all the facts before you start assigning blame.

One last observation: Between Rev. Rodriguez self-righteousness, Beliefnet's censorship, and James Martin's guilt-trips, we've got all the makings for a constructive discussion of illegal immigration. Way to go Christian Left!

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | January 26, 2008 2:01 PM

"..you skip lightly past two very important legal and ethical questions." Wolverine

You ignore the nasty, fearful climate that the bill has created in your neo-conservative self-righteousness. And by the way, the baby was a U.S. citizen who had just as much a right to be here as you do. Good job, neo-cons!

Posted by: JamesMartin | January 26, 2008 2:21 PM

I'm going to stick out my neck and say that this time I side with those who think Sam Rodriguez' statement is offensive and puzzle as to why Rev Wallis not only included it here, but also managed to praise it. (I'm assuming, of course, that Rodriquez isn't being quoted out of context; always a possibility to consider.)

I'm fully aware of the element of truth behind what Rodriquez said. I'm also aware of the "deeper meaning" behind it that Rick Nowlin talks about in his last post above. Yes, minorities do face challenges that white people don't, and most white people are oblivious to those challenges. I probably wouldn't know about them if I didn't read my students writing about their experiences.

Nevertheless, there does seem to be a double standard operating here, as articulated by Jesse's analogy above. If a white person makes such a comment, it's derided as bigoted. But if a minority says it, it is praised as a nuanced way of probing deeper meanings.

Sorry folks. Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of the ethnic identity of the one making the bigoted statement, or the ethnic identity of the target(s). The facts of the case don't excuse or justify the offensive nature of the way it was expressed.

I think Sam Rodriguez could do better, and I know that Rev Wallis can.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | January 26, 2008 2:25 PM

Quote: You ignore the nasty, fearful climate that the bill has created in your neo-conservative self-righteousness. And by the way, the baby was a U.S. citizen who had just as much a right to be here as you do. Good job, neo-cons!

The only nasty, self righteous thought going on here appears to be on your part.

No part of what you say is logical or reasoned. It is purely opportunistic pablum.

Posted by: mark | January 26, 2008 2:32 PM

Just a test - how many self-described politically conservative Christians do find themselves aligned with the public opinions expressed by Rush, Hannity and Lou Dobbs

I like Hanity , he seems more of a cheer leader at times though . I will watch his show if they have a interesting guest , many times they do .
But Hanity himself believes Republicans do no wrong and aligns disagreement with a lack of moral qualities as reasons democrats do things at times . Soundsmuch like many here from the left Mr Truth , especially times the editorial writers that are part of Sojouners .
The motives here always are "often" aligned with bigotry , racism , ignorance , never for sincere beliefs that suggest they may possess integrity , character , and love of country and fellow man . I know of only Donny getting called on it , and people from the right also do call him on it . Being sincere here , sure you want to hear it ?

Lou Dobbs I never really watched except to listen in what was going on with Wall Street and such , then he got into this immigration focus , I listened to him , but he never moved on . I don't share his views , I do share his concerns .
And some of his concerns are dismissed here with out any validity . Michael Medved , an ultra conservative on many fronts always puts down the views of Dobbs down .

Rush I first listened to after a friend of mine who told me about this guy who was great to listen to . That was a long time ago , he use to have these parody commercials that really made fun of the Politically Correct , and liberal groups like PETA and such . I thought he was funny as heck .
My wife told me she thought he was a sexist , many people find him pompous and such , I think he is funny and quite articulate when he wants to be . I quit listening , but sometimes will tune in to get the perspective of what is important in DC to many issiues . Yeah I sahre his view we have a media bias on news , and many conservative positions , less government , pro life , but the details . But the attention Rush gets is amusing to many people on the right . Sort of like when I hear still so much focuus on the religious right , for one thing I don't see anything they accomplished . Kind of amusing if you can take some concerns that have been pumped into your mind from the left Mr truth , if I was a real opponent of the religious right , I would think you would be happy as a lark . Even in the 80s , Reagan served maybe as a conduit for many concerns , the culture liked Reagan , but never got behind the concerns of the religious right .

I am pretty conservative , A Reagan Consrvative if I was to label myself . People here find that disgusting , amazing being in America and supporting one of the most popular Presidents in our time , and having people who say they represent the sermon on the Mount view of politics foam at the mouth and say the most beliegerent personality traits that are associated with people who sahre some of my view points .
Listening to some of the views on Air America that have nothing to do with Christ , Sermon on the Mount , in fact they are secular liberals who represnt the majority of the liberal "political " agenda often have radio ads for a religious free America and the folks here agree with them on political issues almost to the letter , trash talk and all .

I find that amazing when I fist came on board here . It did not make sense. Nor the fact it is seen as something that the religious left should be concerned about . One nice happy coalition I guess ? That does not bother you , the folks on your side of the political compass ?

.I find the most interesting , and sadly , the religious left using the Bible in a contorted un balanced way to rationalize some very extreme political positions , then using the better then thou view when questioned on it . Plus having so much heat come from the same political allies against people who want Winter Vacation to be called Christmas Vacation again . The political left successfully scared the majority of Americans about people who believed a time of silence before school started would bring America down . Yet say nothing when the religious left promotes polcy on immigration , governemnt expenditures , taxes all based on the Bible according to their minority view points .

Just what many concervative Evangelicals were dismayed about the religious right for doing the same thing . Without Love , the Gospel does not go very far .

Posted by: Mick | January 26, 2008 3:09 PM

"I'm sure that is true of you, but I can't help chuckle a bit. I don't know if this is still the case, but there was a time when followers of Rush Limbaugh referred to themselves, with great pride, I might add, as Ditto-heads."

True, but that was at a time when Rush was attractive to latent conservatives who hadn't really heard a voice like his on the airwaves. It was very unpopular to be conservative in the early 1990s. The "ditto" thing was a way of saying "I've been thinking this all along, but didn't have the guts to say it."

White evangelicals, as Rick Nowlin will happily inform you, had been vocally conservative throughout. Rush was not tapping this demographic, by and large.

At any rate, the term is not in common parlance now. Talk radio is mostly background noise for commuters, anyway, and the various prominent conservative outlets are hardly in lockstep about major issues.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 26, 2008 3:43 PM

Not to pull the conversation completely off track, but...

My problem with what I have heard from Hannity, Limbaugh, Chris Matthews, Fox News, the View, and even the McGlauphlin Group (although I kind of enjoy that from time to time), is this extremely flawed and annoying debate tactic of constantly interrupting and bullying those who you disagree with. They will be giving an interview, ask a question, and before the interveiw-ee gets five words out explaining his or her position, they have already interrupted him or her. They always degrade into shouting matches in which the loudest voice wins, whether that voice is right or wrong. It's an extremely combative tactic, does nothing to allow the expression of contrasting viewpoints, and no listener or viewer can possibly gain a sense of understanding of all the complex sides of any issue other than what the host is promoting. There is absolutely no hint of balance in this type of "news", or "debate" if you can call it that, and for that reason, I do not waste my time on it, and for the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would. Contrast that with NPR shows like "Talk of the Nation" and "Diane Rehm", and the Sunday morning TV news shows. Both of these outlets bring in guests who represent more than one side of the issue, they let the guests speak, ask questions respectfully allowing the guests to get their point across, and when two guests with opposing views start stomping on each other, they step in and moderate the discussion so each can fairly speak their minds. I don't know how many times I have thought "huh--that's a good point" about something someone I don't think I agree with has said, and I am thankful for the perspectives I can gain from these outlets. That is nearly impossible on the combative shows, and again, why in the world does anyone waste their time with them? They are completely biased, often full of half truths, and you learn absolutely nothing from them. What's the attraction?

Posted by: squeaky | January 26, 2008 4:30 PM

What's the attraction?

Apparently, some people like having their own views constantly reinforced rather than having to think through an issue's complexities or possibly be challenged to reexamine those views.

D

Posted by: Don | January 26, 2008 4:37 PM

Thanks Sojourner--very good reflections.

Posted by: squeaky | January 26, 2008 5:04 PM

Fascinating discussion.

Mark,

I am a progressive, liberal Christian. I believe Jesus lived, died and rose again. I believe he sent his holy spirit to bring me into union w/ the Father. I believe that God is one in three persons. I am against abortion but I find myself not being judgemental of people that have them.
I am also pro gay marriage because I don't believe ancient Judaic law should be forced on gentiles. I believe every American should have the right to decide how they live their lives.

Sojourner is right to point out that many conservative white evangelicals listen to Rush and others as gospel. I have some liberal friends that do the same for Chomsky. I guess my point is that we are all standing up for our beliefs. Many conservatives believe in the myth of America's Christian status all the while ignoring the poor.

I know liberals that do the opposite and ignore the poor. No one side is perfect but I side w/ liberal ideology because it does allow for more freedom of thought, more acceptance and notice I did not say tolerance. I realize that's the buzzword conservatives want when they use their bigotry to discriminate against homosexual marriage, illegal immigrants, or the poor but there are many liberals that don't subscribe to tolerance.

I am one of them. Tolerance is a joke. Why would I tolerate bigotry, racism, fear...? It makes no sense. I believe in love. Love is not always nice.

Liberal ideology allows for the marginalized to be who they are w/o having to change it. I like that. It seems that conservative ideology is about forcing people to change or keep their lives hidden. Most of the people I minister too would not feel comfortable in a conservative baptist church. It would not matter if it were black or white. They just want more love than that.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 26, 2008 6:38 PM

payshun... You had the same problem I had, I see. Hopefully the mods can delete the reposts.

I just guessed that I got posted, though the next page never loaded, and Viola! I dodged the "multipost annoyance".

If we are to discuss Christianity, and faith, I would have to say that we hopefully agree on our salvation being purchased by Christ's self sacrafice, the actual method of the Plan of Salvation, and our flawed human inability to be perfect. At this point, I could just drop any further, and we'd be in agreement on our faith. I hope, at least, at least enough in agreement that we understand each other and smile and on we go about our daily lives, encouraged by each other's faith.

And so I do.

And then we part company when it comes to politics. I don't see any "guidance" from the Bible when it comes to what role the government should play in a self-governed society.

I see the repeated instructions to be generous with each other. To go out and DO GOOD FOR OTHERS. I submit to you the notion that command is NOT for the "good of others" but for for our OWN good. The real purpose is not to feed the hungry. Christ can do that from nothing. We, on the other hand, need experience, the humbling, and the constant reminder of our own blessed situation and how much we have to thank God for.

The commands to care for the ill, visit the jailed, comfort the weary, and so on are instructions on how to save our own souls. God doesn't need us to do any of this. We need to do it for our own salvation.

Whether it's our own mental health, staying humble and grateful, or just keeping our minds occupied off our own selves, engaging in service to others is very much for our own personal good.

And this is why I reject liberal othodoxy. Not on religous grounds, but because it is imcompatible with human nature, it is destructive to humanity itself. It teaches that generosity, giving, service to others is the province of the state. That you've done your part if you just pay your taxes. Oh, and burn a few conservative books ,and try to squelch the infidels Rush, Hannity, and Savage.

I read endlessly the wailing and moaning of liberals and conservatives alike, complaining that churches, communities, individuals... all failing to act out of compassion for people who through no fault of thier own need our help.

It is it any wonder, when you've ground into them that "private charity doesn't work" and that only government can REALLY care for the sick, feed the hungry, and house the poor?

I find liberalism to be entirely and utterly at odds with Christianity, then. Nor must I be 'closed minded' to know that some things are wrong. Nor does "tolerance" require me to accept all manner of behavior as "ok". Quite the contrary, I HAVE to recognize what's right and wrong, and then accept that ALL are sinners and that even the most repugnant of them are as worthy as me in the sight of God. I do not need to "accept" bad ideas or bad behavior. But I still must accept every ONE as being my sibling in Christ.

Posted by: Mark | January 26, 2008 7:08 PM

"I see the repeated instructions to be generous with each other. To go out and DO GOOD FOR OTHERS." Mark

"Sojourner... You're pretty arrogant sounding, especially when you use your "religious message" to promote a very secular liberal agenda." Mark

No disconnect here!

Posted by: JamesMartin | January 26, 2008 7:31 PM

Quote: We have "pro-life" folk who are for small government...

...except when it comes to building jails, hiring police, border guards, massive military expenditures, fighting wars and the death penalty. Most of these want to spend even more, when those expenditures are already more than the entire rest of the globe spends combined.

I'm a little confused, here. Honestly, because I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm not sure if you're being saracastic, or serious, or just sort of running off on rhetoric.

I'm not exactly sure any of us want criminals free to roam the streets unhindered, when they're a danger to people.. So is it then wrong to build jails to relieve overcrowding? It seems like that's a pretty proper function of government, and really, this country doesn't spend much of its public budget on it as far as percentages goes.

And what's wrong with hiring police? Are there too many of them? If so, can you make that case? I know that in some places, like where I live, we have a serious shortage of law enforcement people. Again, I'm not understanding your point.

"border guards"? Now I'm terribly confused. What's wrong with that? If there's ONE function of the federal government that ANY or ALL of us should agree upon, I would think that policing and guarding the borders of the country would be a federal government duty -as charged by the Constitution. I know that the percentage of the federal budget devoted to it is miniscule. Are you arguing that it's too much, or too little... or what?

"massive military expenditures"? What level of military do you think we should have... and why? Personally, I think the human cost of failing to have a mobile and powerful army that can project force anywhere on the globe at any moment is is beyond calculation. There are madmen who seek the most horrifying of weapons and seem perfectly willing to use them with no concern for the consequences.

I actually have no understanding how this is a left or right issue. I think we'd agree that the federal government at least, is the one that runs the military. At that moment, left and right become meaningless, and we're left with ascertaining the wisest means of accomplishing national security. That's up for debate, and always will be.

"Fighting wars". Well, my thoughts on that are: If we're going to fight a war, win it." The cost of not winning, failing to fight when you should, or being defeated seems overwhelming compared to winning. Again, this seems to be about reason, logic, historical experience and practical matters, not really one of ideology. Maybe it's not to you? If so, explain why or why not?

The death penalty. Now there's almost as may opinions on that as there are voices talking about it.

I do think there are situations where the taking of the life of people with no redeeming qualities seems like justice. If you're wanting to argue this is incompatible with the historical role of government to defend "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", argue away. I find the discussion interesting, at least.

But now I've read all the way through your first real comment, and I've come away without any sense of there being any overriding purpose or principle. Which means I don't understand your point, which is what I said in the first place.

Let's not leave it that way. Explain, please.

Posted by: Mark | January 26, 2008 8:03 PM

I think what Mark's saying is that it's self-evident he's right, so how could any reasonable person possibly disagree, since his views are informed by fidelity to reality, as he will be the first to tell you.

Oh, yeah, and if you don't see it his way, as anyone truly reasonable would, well then, you're mighty dumb.

And since he won't acknowledge any of your points, you need to explain it to him... again. And then he will say that you need to make your point, since he says you haven't done so.

Quod erat demonstratum. I guess.

I think one of the side-effects of Sojourners' increased media attention and influence, is going to be that a disorganized ad-hoc effort is going to be made to inundate it with propagandistic, rude and dismissive posts, in service of "the cause."

Obviously, we don't need people taking Ann Coulter's bogus advice on how to talk to a liberal... if you must.
Especially since Christians of any stripe are not garden-variety "liberals," nor should they be - and not conservatives, either, whatever that happens to be this year.

But the unexamined talking points seem to be the same ones, enumerated with singlemindedness, if not with any peculiar attention to their accuracy.

For instance, if we've not spent enough money on prisons in the "land of the free" then why does a country with a few per cent of the world's population, have an incarceration rate that is 25% of the entire incarcerated population of the whole earth's population?

And if so many of America's population are evil, and one portion of terrified citizenry needs heavily-armed protection from fellow Americans, then how can America substantively be "good" with such a high preponderance of law-breakers? Or perhaps all evil's attributable to aliens, legal, illegal or maybe from Area 51. Maybe we should ask American Indians about that - if they think the anglo majority's ancestors were thieves or no, and their descendants are merely reverting to type.

And if no price is too great to pay (until it reaches financial decrepitude, which is very close) in service of having a military that can dominate all other peoples (force projection anywhere and everywhere with over 800 foreign bases), then does the expenditure which is currently far more than the entire rest of the world combined, really need to be dramatically increased?

And do we really need a heavily subsidized munitions industry that now amounts to 85% of our remaining manufacturing infrastructure, building "jobs" by selling the latest weaponry to all sides in every conflict?

Even principled conservatives and libertarians, none of whom are liberals, find something's seriously wrong with such reasoning. And in fact many liberals are for the status quo, with negligible if nuanced differences from Republicans. That's why virtually nothing's changed for the better since November 2006.

We don't need, as Christians, to ask, what will Hillary or Huck or Rudy or John or Obama will do - we already know. And it isn't going to measure up to what Jesus would do - unless we fulfill our prophetic function of speaking in truth to power, and making it stick, regardless of prevailing ideology.

Christians don't need to be constrained by all these political advisers of every stripe. I liked Reagan, too, so let's take a page from when he was on the electoral rocks and it was decided to unleash him, to "let Reagan be Reagan," - and let Christians be Christians.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 26, 2008 8:58 PM

Quote: I think one of the side-effects of Sojourners' increased media attention and influence, is going to be that a disorganized ad-hoc effort is going to be made to inundate it with propagandistic, rude and dismissive posts, in service of "the cause."

Are you serious?

You've decided that I'm some kind of Ann Coulter follower (disciple?) who's here to be arrogantly dismissive of ... something?

You are right about something, though. You have no intention of "understanding" anything about me, or what I believe. And because of that, your only option is to pretend that you're so much wiser and more enlightened than I, that my opinion aren't worthy and my questions are insincere. Oh, yeah, and unchristian, too.

It's all settled in your mind, isn't it? I'm evil, and that's all there is to it?

So, if I ask you to talk to me in straightforward terms, to explain what you actually think, so we can agree or disagree, it's all hubris? I'm "talking down" to you, as a debate tactic, to influence other people to look down on you?

Grief. What kind of opinion must you carry about your fellow man? When one person comes to the table and says "come now, and let us reason together" (Isaiah 1), you must answer with "Your debate tactic is born of ill will. Go away with your false humility, you're just a pompous jerk"?

I asked, because you demonstrate a grasp of the language that amazes me. One that reveals considerable intellect and thought.

I just didn't realize that prejudice and rage was going to prevent communication on any level except the flung insult.

My mistake. I'll look for someone else.

Someone less infected with "liberalitis". Grief. And you people wonder why there's friction between the left and right and so much animosity.

Posted by: Mark | January 26, 2008 9:27 PM

"I think Sam Rodriguez could do better, and I know that Rev Wallis can."

Don, as a fellow white educator, I agree.

kevin s: " It was very unpopular to be conservative in the early 1990s."

You can't be serious. Clinton studiously avoided the term "liberal" when running in 1992.

Posted by: carl copas | January 26, 2008 9:47 PM

What do Evangelicals want?

This was a curious conversation in response to that question.

What have we demonstrated in this conversation that we want?? There have been many good points; but what has the conversation demonstrated that we want.

Folks can't see Jesus these days--in the flesh. Well, except for His Body---whose love for each other will draw others to Him.

There are times to speak brothers and sisters. There are times to stop. There are times to listen. There are times to be gracious and sincerely express gratitude for the other person taking time to express their ideas.

Being right is its own reward--and the only reward. Do you have any relationship in which love has become deeper because you were right?

"Lord make me an instrument of thy peace...
for it is in dying,
that we are born to eternal life."

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 26, 2008 10:34 PM

I'm an Evangelical. Here's what I want:

I want Sojourners, Jim Wallis, Brian McLaren, Sam Rodriguez, and Rick Nowlin to quit making the presumption that just because someone is conservative he or she therefore

-does not care about the poor
-does not care about social justice
-can be labeled as "Religious Right"
-is only concerned about the rapture
-gets his or her marching orders from Limbaugh, Hannity, and Dobbs
-doesn't read Matthew, Mark, Luke (esp. 18:9-14), & John
-is guilty of every sin a conservative has committed against Rick Nowlin

Posted by: Sacred Frenzy | January 26, 2008 11:50 PM

Many conservatives care about the poor but they don't want the government involved in it. That means that the poor get a bigger shaft than they would w/o the government. there was a time that there was no government intervention. The poor suffered greatly, and then the government got involved. For some things got better. For others things were slower. My point is that conservatives need to understand that government can be a great tool to help people. Our own history backs that up.

p

Posted by: Payshun | January 27, 2008 1:09 AM

Hmm... it's not just those on welfare who develop a sense of entitlement! :-) or should I :-( ...

From the beginning, those who arrived on these shores since 1492 had a grandiose sense of their entitlement to take whatever they saw and to dominate or destroy others.

You can't plead historical ignorance to evade responsibility. Ignorance of the consequences of breaking God's laws doesn't stop them from occurring. Saying we are not responsible is wilfully evading the responsibility incumbent upon knowledge, and it's like lying to God as Cain did when he offered a curt "Am I my brother's keeper?" Scripture makes it clear that the consequences of sin extend through multiple generation and don't have short statutes of limitation where injustice is concerned.

Perhaps it's not seen as so severe as all that to those who claim they did nothing wrong personally, but it smacks highly of "as long as I don't hurt anyone else, I can do whatever I want" and "I'm alright Jack, keep your hands off my stack." Moreover, I think folks don't realize just how deep is the effect of sin in their own souls since it's often only cursorily examined. It is highly probable that any one of us, if not cognizant of our own potential to do evil, will under similar circumstances and influences do just the same things we condemn in others. We all bear responsibility for making redress for sins, even of others, as much as we can. This is called doing good.

A certain streak of Ayn Rand libertarianism, formed by a Russian immigrant mesmerized by Hollywood depictions of the ideal American capitalist as gangster, infects conservatism due to the Republican alliance with that movement. It makes the case for selfishness being elevated to the highest possible philosophical virtue as a sort of revered "rugged individualism." This was expressed in these forums by the person who extolled his own Horatio Alger story of pulling himself up by his bootstraps and achieving "financial independence" as a kind of Christian conversion story away from the dependence fostered by community solutions.

I do recall, however, that "foxes have holes and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."

Personal wealth and security are not necessarily blessings indicative of the degree of God's approval. I have wondered, having experience a certain amount, while thanking God for it, whether or not it was some sort of terrible test, which failure could render a curse.

There is a kind of common sense to the protestant work ethic, no doubt, but what God's spirit teaches us is uncommon sense, which is not about materialism and self-seeking.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 27, 2008 4:14 AM

From the beginning, those who arrived on these shores since 1492 had a grandiose sense of their entitlement to take whatever they saw and to dominate or destroy others.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. — GEORGE ORWELL (attributed)

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious^ lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to. — THEODORE DALRYMPLE

Posted by: RealTruth | January 27, 2008 4:39 AM

So does that mean I should sacrifice as though I had the opportunities it is convenient for you to assume I had?

Yes -- your conservative demand for cultural dominance, which you've done on this blog consistently.

But at that point we would have left elements of conservatism as well.

And that's the rub -- some folks just don't want to give that up.

But for some strange reason it's ok for him to spout off and lump all white conservatives together saying we don't get our teachings from John, Mark....and instead are so stupid as to actually vote on what the consevative talk shows tell us, I am insulted!

You'd be surprised just how much the conservative agenda is informed by secular values, not the Scripture -- which was Rodriguez' point.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 27, 2008 9:06 AM

Encouraging people to have abortions, engage in homosexuality and other sexual perversions, and taxation-to-socialism, are literally causing people to stumble. No Apostles supported immorality or tax collectors. They tried to change them into Christians. Precisely because they were preached to and taught BY Christ Jesus.

Time for the truth:

How many liberals and progressives are really following the Humanist Manifesto in word and deed and not the New Testament? I sure cannot see a difference between what liberals and progressives say and do and what the Humanists preach and teach.

They all appear to be an oddly different and somewhat altered copy of Christian culture.

Mr. Wallis?

Posted by: Donny | January 27, 2008 11:10 AM

Donny--Do your words convey a love for your Brother that compel the world to know Jesus? We are to judge with profound caution, making sure truth-telling is done in love. And honestly, have you taken the time to listen to and know Jim Wallis and the ministry of Sojourners?

These are not rhetorical questions with an implied answer? I am looking for your objective assesment.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 27, 2008 11:53 AM

"But is it an impasse? Do you hold to a Gospel that can break down barriers and reconcile where there has been hostility?"

Yes, but Rick's arguments essentially boils down to "Rodriqguez will continue to disrespect conservatives because of who he perceives them to be." Not much wiggle room there. I'd rather just ignore Rodriguez and focus on people who are capable of having a conversation.

"If you accept Rick's "demand" you will find yourself on a journey of submitting in ways you don't want to submit. It is like learning to say "Yes Dear" (with sincerity) to a wife even when "I know" she is wrong."

I don't see submission to belligerent Christians one has never met manifested in scripture. I believe the scriptures would call on Rodriguez to educate himself here. Further, Rick is calling on a collective set of individuals, who may or may not be Christian, to sacrifice for a Christian, which is completely backwards.

Further, Rick adds this:

"Yes -- your conservative demand for cultural dominance, which you've done on this blog consistently."

But, by his definition of conservatism, conservatism inherently seeks culutral dominance. Nowhere on this blog (much less "consistently")have I called for cultural dominance by conservatives.

What he is asking me to do is change my ideology so that those who hold an uninformed view of that ideology will embrace, well, what exactly? The new, less ideological me?

Why is this inherently valuable? I have a number of friends who are not saved (conservative, moderate and liberal), and who don't argue by way of senseless piffle the way Rodgriguez does here They have learened to respect those with whom they disagree, even during periods of disagreement. Why should I cede everything I believe about politics to those who are incapable of this? Because they are highly confident that they are right?

Rick's defense of Rodriguez is absurd.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 27, 2008 12:20 PM

We know as a matter of constitutional law that the president WILL CHANGE. The president has served his two terms. Ergo, presidential change will happen.

Change for the sake of change is silly and juvenile. Change, brought about by careful consideration and sober judgement - that's the most likely change to be positive.

Certainly, there is nothing new under the sun that Obama is offering or promising. We have heard the endless recitation of the precisely the same mantra of "raise taxes, more handouts, soak the rich, hate the Republicans" for longer than I have been an adult, and the only thing it has brought us is the ever enlarging welfare state, more dependency as a lifestyle, worsened social ills, and all the associated misery these things have wrought on the nation.

So, do I look forward to some kind of "change" brought about by the people who have done the worst damage to this nation it has ever seen?

No.

Posted by: mark | January 27, 2008 12:54 PM

"What do liberals want, be they religious or not? Would the same list above fit? I think so. It has fit for every culture I've been in or visited."
--This actually reminds me of the essay by CS Lewis on whether there should be a "Christian Party." He cautioned against this idea by writing, "nearly all parties agree in professing ends which we admit to be desirable...what distinguishes one party from another is the championship of means."

CS Lewis understood that good Christians could differ on the means used to achieve desired ends (ends sought by all), and he knew that the issue of "means" is what distinguished political parties and ideologies. Lewis understood, but Wallis and many others here do not.

(I can already anticipate some nasty remarks about conservatives actually only wanting to kill, control, and oppress...)

BTW, I don't know if you caught Kevin's sarcasm above.

Posted by: jesse | January 27, 2008 1:10 PM

It's ironic to hear such a pietistic view - that spirituality is totally private, and has no relevance outside that private sphere - because it's precisely what certain "Catholic" politicians used to aver while saying that in their hearts they could be against abortion - for themselves (convenient when you're a man since it's irrelevant) but publicly they had to support abortion on demand.

It's also the view that was demolished philosophically by Francis Schaeffer - the false view that there is an irrational "upper story" of belief beyond logic or evaluation, which is self-contained, and a "lower story" where we live in the real world where the upper story's priinciples don't apply. Mentioning Schaeffer is apt, for the Religious Right's rise owes a great deal to his teaching that real faith is lived out in the real world and is completely relevant to that world, and actions to do good ought to be taken. Such a view is explicit in saying that some actions are consistent with true faith, while others can be evaluated as not being so.

I know that many of us were thus inspired and were given the theological underpinnings to become involved in the political sphere. For various reasons of expediency, the vehicle became the Party that seemed more congenial to pro-life views. However, over thirty years' time, we have been co-opted and our worldview syncretized as much at least as we have influenced that party. We ended up, too many of us, being captured, to the point that people I know seriously say that GOP can stand for "God's Own Party." That this is folly, one only has to say Foley.

If we really say that no one has a right to evaluate the truth of any particular religious belief (and by extension the political ideology that springs from it) - that it is such sacred ground that it is shameful to tread upon - then it's the same as a de facto belief that all religions are equally true, beacuse anyone can assert the irrefutable private validity of their own beliefs. That would extend to Christianity's many sects, Islam's, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and even the Cargo Cult.

Perhaps this is a way of placing political beliefs, which may or may not really be conservatism, conveniently beyond being able to be questioned. If I hold my political beliefs for religious reasons, but those religious reasons are so sacred that they cannot be examined except in blasphemy, then I can make my "conservative" political motivations beyond criticism. I am my own little pope speaking Ex Cathedra. They are completely sanctified by my unknowable religion which is demanded to be beyond any outside critique by anyone else.

That certainly attempts to cover a multitude of sins.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 27, 2008 2:39 PM

The quote from Theodore Dalrymple talks about lies being used to humiliate. Dalrymple, for those who aren't aware, is the British based physician columnist for the neoconservative magazine National Review.

Dalrymple, I might add, is most definitely not a Christian. He sees himself as a traditonalist, an advocate of western culture and civilization, but in no way a person of faith in God, to which he remains agnostic.

He's written things that are true and objective, but because he's identified himself so heavily with and made his conservatism a substitute for religion, he has ended up turning it into a religion. But because it's not, it's inadequate to such a transcendant task. Conservatism is not the the sum of all truth and infallible, so that despite Dalrymple's best efforts, using a political ideology in this way will lead to error.

Now I'm thinking that probably, given that it's a quote from Dalrymple, the intent is to have this quote debunk my observation that since 1492, those who invaded and conquered this land had a very large sense of entitlement, and that they used it to justify both domination and destruction of others. Rationally, though, those events can't be called into question because they are historical facts.

Moreover, the sense of entitlement was necessary to justify selfish acts to pretend they were actually moral, that the innate supposed superiority of a people and culture made genocide and theft a positive good. That is another case of a supposedly good end justifying bad means.

As to whether the end turns out to be good, because history is evolving, is not yet determined. (For a time, our leaders contemplated unleashing thousands of nuclear weapons in a first-strike pre-emption, which in the name of ideology would have destroyed more civilian lives than even the twelve million sacrificed to Nazism and the fifty million murdered for communism. The number was computed as a probablity of 300 million dead.)

It really is up to us as to whether we are a blessing or curse to the others in our world, and because we are the same as them - after all, the people here are mostly drawn from everywhere else in the world - that is an outcome always in doubt.

I think that Dalrymple's observation is one I can agree with, because the ersatz history which is contrary to what I've said is a self-serving national myth. Moreover, one could not conceive of a humiliation greater than conquering, obliterating and displacing an indigenous people in their own land, nor enslaving mass numbers of other human beings bought and sold as chattels.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 27, 2008 3:19 PM

Perhaps this is a way of placing political beliefs, which may or may not really be conservatism, conveniently beyond being able to be questioned. If I hold my political beliefs for religious reasons, but those religious reasons are so sacred that they cannot be examined except in blasphemy, then I can make my "conservative" political motivations beyond criticism. I am my own little pope speaking Ex Cathedra. They are completely sanctified by my unknowable religion which is demanded to be beyond any outside critique by anyone else.

Wow, talk about your absurd nonsense! I ever so clearly and carefully explain that an individual's spirituality is beyond human observation. It is a matter between man and God, no other party is relevant to this, and in Christian beliefs, we are forbidden from discussion, presumption, or judgement of another.

And you twist this to say that I'm trying to make political conservative ideals beyond discussion?

Since FREAKING WHEN does my relationship with God have any relevance to the proper role of government in our lives?

I follow the biblical injuction from Christ, "Render unto God, the things that are God's, render unto Ceasar, the things that are Ceasar's."

My relationship with God is my business. If I choose to share, I share. I do not force it upon anyone, nor do I often ask or pry into anyone else's. It is not my place, except when so inspired by Divine influence.

On the other hand, my religious beliefs, the doctrines, interpretation of Divine law, etc, are freely open to discussion, if you wish. I'm certain that I disagree hugely with every other respondent here. But I make of that no issue of contention, nor have you seen me say one word of ill against any religion or faith or set of beliefs here, because of the biblical injunction to NOT judge individuals. I have my beefs with various denominations, but unless we have a good forum to in depth discuss them, I see little point, and nothing to be gained by anyone.

Which leaves US back EXACTLY where Wallis started, which is to question the political, social, and economic agenda of the "evangelicals". And my contention that evangelicals are little different from anyone else. Thier political spectrum is as broad as that of atheists, or lawyers or maybe even... women. Or men.

Obviously, there are liberal and conservative "evangelicals". Do you hate one and love the other? Is one wrong, the other right?

If so, is it actually thier "evangelical-ness" that makes them wrong or right, or is it, in your view, thier politics that makes them wrong, and you're attempting to make that political disagreement into one that implants the notion in the mind of the reader that the conservatives are spiritually and doctrinally wrong - thus making politics ABOUT RELIGION?

Or maybe it's making RELIGION about politics?

Posted by: mark | January 27, 2008 3:24 PM

While I consider myself pro-life, I don't see abortion discussed anywhere in Scripture. Like the gay theology which many say is self-serving, a position on abortion must be derived from Scriptural passages which have nothing to do with abortion. The writers of Scripture didn't know anything about genetics--they believed the sperm contained a "little man" (homunculous) which, when planted inside a woman, grew into a fully-formed human, with no contribution from the woman except a place a to grow. They didn't know that the woman contributed an egg. They didn't know any more about the process of reproduction than they knew about innate sexual orientation.

Also, there are passages in Scripture which are clearly not pro-life--the passage in Numbers in which directions are given on how to force an adulterous woman to have a miscarriage, the parts in Joshua where God commands the killing of every human, including pregnant women and children, the passages where Jesus says it will be a bad thing to be pregnant, etc. You have to interpret these anti-life passages in terms of other, foundational passages.

In fact, there are more passages where God commands the direct killing of pregnant women than there passages against abortion. How do you deal with this? Doesn't the sheer amount of anti-life "clobber passages" in Numbers and Joshua and Psalms (where God approves of bashing infants' heads against rocks) prove that God is pro-abortion?

Why do you believe your pro-life view is more Scriptural than, say, gay theology, which has to go through the same process of interpreting an ancient document in light of modern scientific discovery? It seems to me that those who find a justification for pro-life in Scripture would find a similar pro-gay, or pro-undocumented worker, or pro-universal care theology as well.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 27, 2008 3:27 PM

Remember what Jesus said -- "By their fruits you will recognize them." And James also talked about the relationship between faith and deeds. So, yes, sometimes judgment on others' walk is required, otherwise we would have an "anything goes" situation where no one is disciplined and the church atrophies.

Huh? You actually consider that a man, or men, have some role to play in DISCIPLINING OTHER PEOPLE into more acceptable spiritual life?

Just wrap the turban on your head, get the AK, point it at our heads and say "Get saved or else!"

Posted by: mark | January 27, 2008 3:46 PM

Mark,
Honestly, half of my posts (and the posts of many others here) are meant to argue that people can love Jesus and be obedient to the Bible and come to different conclusions on politics and the role of the state. Sojourners, Wallis, and even some here have rejected this claim. Politics is so intertwined with their faith that some have ceased calling themselves "Christians" and instead call themselves "Red Letter Christians," a group which explicitly rejects any conservative-leaning Christians from their fold (look up the description of RLCs elsewhere on this site).

Of course, the Bible is God's word and only IT is infallible. Political opinions and policies are fallible. Which is why it's so absurd to hear Wallis argue that attempts to privatize social security (to pick a more egregious example) is somehow ungodly.

This is a point I and many others here have been arguing again and again...don't let it frustrate you too much. Some people just do not get it.

Posted by: jesse | January 27, 2008 3:53 PM

"You wouldn't even be on this blog if you didn't believe that, because you wouldn't be arguing with us all the time."

Then it should be very easy to find where I have written in support of conservative cultural dominance.

Does advocacy of one's own political viewpoint constitute advocating dominance? If that is all you mean, then I suppose I have done that here. Moreso, I am arguing against a paradigm in which God is naturally assumed to be for any one particular party. That is how I discovered Wallis in the first place, given his claim to be above the two party's. I have found this not to be the case at all, which is why I argue here.

"I'm hardly uninformed about your ideology and the consequences thereof,"

I was referring to Rodriguez, who clearly is.

"(though Wallis has been around since the 1970s)"

When he was essentially a Marxist. His reinvention as an above-the-fray moderate is much more recent.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 27, 2008 4:40 PM

Which leaves US back EXACTLY where Wallis started, which is to question the political, social, and economic agenda of the "evangelicals". And my contention that evangelicals are little different from anyone else. Thier political spectrum is as broad as that of atheists, or lawyers or maybe even... women. Or men.

I think you are misconstruing the question which was"Choosing a president: What do evangelicals really want?" posed not specifically by Jim Wallis but by "Sojourners and Beliefnet, in collaboration with the National Association of Evangelicals Christian Student Leadership Conference". Jim was one of several participants. So your version this was Jim Wallis's personal means " to question the political, social, and economic agenda of the "evangelicals"" is really more than a bit of a stretch. Also it is Mr. Wallis's oft repeated contention that their is as you say a wide political spectrum among evangelicals. So your contention on this point is Jim's contention.

You seem to have quite a knack for putting words in other people's mouth to the point of just making stuff up.

"So, by your own words, liberals believe they must be culturally dominant - because they argue with conservatives."
Huh?

ST never said religion must dictate politics; neither was it implicit. Hear is how I read what ST is saying(Sojourner T pleas feel free to correct me if I am mischaracterizing your statements.) . The idea is that faith does not exist separated from our real lives in the world. The point was that Schaeffer's arguments along these lines persuaded ST and many Christians to participate in the public processes of self government as a valid expression of their Christian values.

After discovering that, surprise, surprise, Republicanism was not a consistently Christian enterprise many Christians are looking around for other paths of political influence.

As far as "placing conservative ideals outside the scope of what can be questioned" I personally think Sojourner was being somewhat tongue in cheek and the core idea is that you wittily label everything that challenges your version of conservatism as "dumb".

It's always so rewarding to have smart people around to ever so clearly and carefully explain everything to you. Such kindness. Such generosity, and that wonderful creamy dollop of Godly humility.
Welcome to smart conservative heaven.

Posted by: jonabark | January 27, 2008 4:55 PM

From a very conservative charismatic Christian:

One thing I want: the truth about our American/Mexican borders. I don't live near it, so all I know is what I read on blogs etc.
One news source will tell me there is almost a state of war on the border, the next news source will tell me I am racist for caring about that.
If the borders are being taken down, I would like to be told it's happening. Only then can I decide what to think about it.

The next thing I want : less involvement of government into my personal affairs. I want less paper work to fill out. I want to need fewer secretaries, and fewer accountants. I want to need to talk to fewer of their supervisors. I never again want to see a social worker tell a physician what he can or cannot do.

One more thing: We need to talk, a lot, about the middle east. This is the new dividing line for evangelicals. It used to be speaking in tongues, now it is Israel. Even amoung ourselves, we have some talking to do. Is Israel a prophetic announcement of the soon coming of our LORD? or is Israel just ... a humanitarian problem?

Posted by: Jean | January 27, 2008 5:07 PM

But as long as they're going to post and argue thier immensely hypocritical nonsense, I might as well just stick around to pointing it out.

Except that you haven't done so. At all.

Then it should be very easy to find where I have written in support of conservative cultural dominance.

One example: Your recent response to the question about abortion -- you mentioned the old right-wing shibboleths about simply making it illegal regardless of the roots. Another is your constant carping about the schools in your city and politicians in your state while doing virtually nothing to engage or change them. And you just said that Jim Wallis was "essentially of Marxist." If those don't represent a desire for domination, which always goes hand-in-hand with the contempt you have always clearly displayed, nothing does.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 27, 2008 5:11 PM

Which leaves US back EXACTLY where Wallis started, which is to question the political, social, and economic agenda of the "evangelicals". And my contention that evangelicals are little different from anyone else. Thier political spectrum is as broad as that of atheists, or lawyers or maybe even... women. Or men.

My quote above, your response to this...

I think you are misconstruing the question which was"Choosing a president: What do evangelicals really want?" posed not specifically by Jim Wallis but by "Sojourners and Beliefnet, in collaboration with the National Association of Evangelicals Christian Student Leadership Conference". Jim was one of several participants. So your version this was Jim Wallis's personal means " to question the political, social, and economic agenda of the "evangelicals"" is really more than a bit of a stretch. Also it is Mr. Wallis's oft repeated contention that their is as you say a wide political spectrum among evangelicals. So your contention on this point is Jim's contention.

Ok, so to address this yet again. In terms of a president, what do evangelicals want?

Well, in terms of our mundane life - pretty much the same as everyone else.

The only possible divergence is... "political, social, economic agenda".

Oh, wait, I answered the question. Precisely. Wallis asks the question, and if his contention is that the answer is completely impossible to answer because "evangelicals" are a widely diverse group, then what's his point? It seems like an exercise in excruciating alaboration of the obvious.

Which brings me back full circle. Moral and spiritual judgements of people based on thier politics is a preposterous enterprise.

Posted by: mark | January 27, 2008 5:17 PM

Which brings me back full circle. Moral and spiritual judgements of people based on thier politics is a preposterous enterprise.

When those politics do more harm than good, it's hardly preposterous.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 27, 2008 5:22 PM

When those politics do more harm than good, it's hardly preposterous.

I only want to take the time to point out that anyone who takes it upon himself, and justifies himself judging others has far deeper issues than anyone he takes it upon himself to judge.

Posted by: mark | January 27, 2008 5:50 PM

Well, I thought a good point worth discussing was ST's assertion that many of the conservative leaders that many Christians have latched onto, such as Rush Limbaugh, aren't even professed Christians, thus many Christians are basing their politics on ideas that don't come from Christ, but from the secular world. I remember being rather shocked that Rush Limbaugh's books were being sold in Christian bookstores, particularly since he has never professed Christianity, to my knowledge, and exhibits nothing at all like a Christ-like demeanor. In fact, the point leads to the far larger point that maybe Christians shouldn't put nearly so much stock into any political leader's promises or ability to usher in the Kingdom of God...do you find that a question worth discussing?

"I respond to what I think is the important or fundamental wrong in the poster's comments. "

And see, this is the problem. You aren't here to discuss. You are here to pick fights rather than contribute to meaningful dialogue. The former might be fun for you, but if you try the latter, you may find that you might learn some things. And that can be fun, too. It would require, however, that you take the time to actually try to understand what someone is saying, rather than read their posts just so you can pick out what you disagree with.

Posted by: squeaky | January 27, 2008 6:18 PM

ST--I think we can, and should, question the political actions of those people and hold them accountable for their actions or inactions. However, it is not my job, thankfully, to be the ultimate judge of their spirituality. I can certainly say what I think it looks like, and judge from their fruits, but I nevertheless can never have the last word on them. To do so might put me in the position to say they are beyond redemption. We all know of stories about the redemption of Nazis and Apartheid leaders where men and women found redemption through the love of Christ--some of whom, no doubt, professed to know Him even while committing horrible atrocities. The amazing thing about Christ's love is it reaches through even the worst of our atrocities to lead us all to His redemption. We can't judge anyone person as being too far gone, even though from our perspective that is certainly what it might look like.

Posted by: squeaky | January 27, 2008 6:30 PM

I've been a part of conservative denominations for the majority of my Christian life, and I can't even begin to count how many times I have heard the good people (who I really do love) in my churches judge those who did not fall into their political idea of what Christianity is all about. One even characterized a fellow Christian as being a compromisor because he was a (gasp) Democrat. I told a student of mine I was a Democrat, and he responded "Shame on you!" And I'm not even going to start on those Christian leaders who preach politics from the pulpit. So you can come on here and rail all you want that people are judging each other's spiritual life because of their politics. I honestly haven't seen it from most of the people here, either liberal or conservative, other than the afforementioned example. And I know what it looks like. It's wrong no matter who it comes from, but it's entirely disengenuous for you to be complaining how the "liberals" do it when conservatives wrote the book on it.

I'm sitting here wondering if you're trying to argue that because one political side has character or behavior flaws, that those character flaws are acceptable for the other side?

I pretty much say "shame on you" for people who are Democrats as well. It has no religious context, however, nor is it a moral judgement. It is an intellectual judgement about one's lack of deliberation over choosing ideological stands.

This brings me to ask you if you think that bad behavior justifies more bad behavior. Case in point, I point out that many here seem to justify moral judgements of others based on political issues or ideology, yet you recognize that's wrong and mostly absurd.

I tried VERY hard to get a couple of people move the discussion away from spriritual condemnation to the more mundane discussion of practical aspects of political concerns. They won't do it. They lose that argument. The spiritual ones they get to demagogue endlessly.

Example: I am against federally funded, single payer health care. Liberal response: "You're a cold hearted, selfish, greedy cretin who wants to deny others fundamental needs."

No discussion is allowed of any alternatives to this idea. Liberal assumption: Unless you choose federal programs to solve all social ills, you are morally and spiritually defective.

What closed minded, and utterly absurd nonsense!

Yet, not a single liberal here will admit this, own up to it, and they defend it with virulent ferocity. Any discussion of alternative ideas is met with moralizing judgementalism, personal ridicule, and hate filled diatribes aimed to accomplish personal destruction in the eyes of everyone around him, with no accusation too horrible to bad to exempt, up to and including greed, racism, and so on.

I actually WOULD like to have the debate over ideas. Which is why I started this with the posted presumption that liberals are intolerant and closed minded. You have to poke people and get them out of thier comfort zone before they'll get challenged and set out to prove you wrong.

The only thing done so far here, is to confirm everything I've said so far.

Posted by: mark | January 27, 2008 6:37 PM

ST--I think we can, and should, question the political actions of those people and hold them accountable for their actions or inactions. However, it is not my job, thankfully, to be the ultimate judge of their spirituality. I can certainly say what I think it looks like, and judge from their fruits, but I nevertheless can never have the last word on them.

That's an interesting comment. Can we judge the validity of ideas by thier outcome? If that's the case, then should we not be OBJECTIVE about the outcome?

To comment a bit on our previous topic, we can judge the actions of others - obvious examples being Son of Sam killer, the Unabomber, Nazis who committed atrocities, etc. But like you went on to say, ultimately, we lack the insight into the soul to judge the salvation or lack thereof of another.

What if you got to Heaven, and Adolph Hitler was your neighbor? Not until we can come to the point where we can judge the actions to be truly monsterous, but at the same time realize we do not know the soul, can we actually be fit for salvation.

God help us all in that endeavor.

Posted by: mark | January 27, 2008 6:48 PM

mark, do you not understand that liberals won't own up to it because they genuinely and honestly don't believe that it's "close minded, and utterly absurd nonsense?

Well, if they don't, I'd certainly like to read the explanation of why. A straightforward, reasoned explanation. I mean, seriously, this who "pronouncements of moral and spiritual deficiency" exercise is nothing more than an effort to duck accountability for the ideas that do not accomplish the stated goals.

I see lots of disagreement on this blog, but with the exception of Donny, who's an obvious troll, there is very little dishonesty. People on all sides genuinely believe what they write, as infuriating as that might be at times.

I'm not so sure of that. As more than one philosophical wit has pointed out, lots of people really don't know themselves that well. In today's world, few have have been tested to the cores of thier souls, so that they really know themselves well. We humans are prone to lie to ourselves and not face truth.

Posted by: mark | January 27, 2008 7:01 PM

All you have to do is to look at the church in Germany today, which is virtually non-existent. As I said, for the Christian there is ultimately no "private" spirituality; what we believe, say and do does reflect on our relationship to God. The truth is, "Christianity" was blamed, rightly or wrongly, for the Holocaust and Nazism because it did not stand up for truth and justice.

Say what?

You are seriously out on on the freaky edge.

Posted by: mark | January 27, 2008 7:20 PM

"One example: Your recent response to the question about abortion -- you mentioned the old right-wing shibboleths about simply making it illegal regardless of the roots."

Right. Your definition of seeking cultural domination is simply advocating a political opinion. Incidentally, your argument only makes sense if you make a distinction between born and unborn children that God does not. Shibboleths or no shibboleths, that is the case.

"Another is your constant carping about the schools in your city and politicians in your state while doing virtually nothing to engage or change them."

How do you know what I am doing to change them? And how does this represent a desire for conservative cultural domination? It isn't just conservatives who are unhappy with Minneapolis schools.

"And you just said that Jim Wallis was "essentially of Marxist.""

He was. What does this have to do with domination? Do you know what domination means?

I think, and this was my point, that you just threw a nasty sounding phrase at me because I disagree with you. Now you are accusing me of demonstrating contempt.

I have shown Contempt for shallow and petty rhetoric, as evinced by Rodrigeuz's statement, perhaps, but simply disagreeing with you doesn't make me bad, no matter how much you endeavor to will it so.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 27, 2008 9:36 PM

I think a few people have decided to have the last word by hurling insults. That does work in terminating discussion, certainly... which was probably the intent all along.

It's a clear violation of the rules of conduct agreed to by all those posting, though.

I suppose those engaging in it genuinely feel that they are performing a public service by using these "whatever it takes" tactics to suppress the exploration of ideas they disagree with.

Father, we forgive them, and open their eyes, even if at a later date, to what they are doing. We love them. Let us not be blind to our own sins too. In Jesus' name, amen.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 27, 2008 10:25 PM

I submit to you that the whole question, the article, and the PURPOSE of the whole exercise was nothing other than to provide a platform for one political faction to make religious condemnation of another.

In my experience, evangelicals of the more conservative stripe always complain about how they're being mistreated, misunderstood and persecuted even though they have most of the money and all of the microphones. Frankly, that's getting old and it makes them look paranoid, and in truth they don't really have the courage of their convictions -- if they did they wouldn't complain about being mistreated.

Your definition of seeking cultural domination is simply advocating a political opinion. Incidentally, your argument only makes sense if you make a distinction between born and unborn children that God does not. Shibboleths or no shibboleths, that is the case.

The proof is in the pudding, Kevin, and you understand this (or you should). I put it that way because you don't even address the issues that lead to abortion in the first place -- economics, substance abuse and things like that that cause rifts in families that make women and girls emotionally vulnerable. Yet you don't even address that at all, focusing only on the unborn, and that simply doesn't work. But working on those issues simply isn't sexy; it's easier to make all these pronouncements.

How do you know what I am doing to change them? And how does this represent a desire for conservative cultural domination? It isn't just conservatives who are unhappy with Minneapolis schools.

You never talk about their positives, nor do conservatives say that anyone with whom they disagree make good points. All you bring to the table is how bad the "liberals" have made things.

And Jim Wallis being a Marxist? Please -- that's an insult beyond insults. For openers, to be a Marxist you have to reject the spiritual, which he just doesn't do, and you know this.

My description stands.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 27, 2008 11:34 PM

I think a few people have decided to have the last word

Posted by: mark | January 27, 2008 11:53 PM

Posted by: mark | January 27, 2008 11:55 PM

Posted by: mark | January 27, 2008 11:57 PM

Posted by: Bert 'n Ernie | January 28, 2008 1:12 AM

Mark,

Self suffiency is a myth for Christians. If you believe that self sufficiency is true then you really have not been studying the life of Jesus. Jesus wasn't self sufficent. Jesus did not rely on his power he relied on his father.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 28, 2008 1:36 AM

Self suffiency is a myth for Christians. If you believe that self sufficiency is true then you really have not been studying the life of Jesus. Jesus wasn't self sufficent. Jesus did not rely on his power he relied on his father.

Christ's - and our - spiritual dependency upon a higher power has never been in dispute, at least not by me.

On the other hand, financial, social, and other dependence upon the redistribution of others' wealth, as a means of continued existence is corrosive to the human soul. The very premise that you are owed all your needs, for no other reason, than you cannot or will not earn your own, is absurd.

Why do you so desperately seek to misrepresent truth?

Posted by: mark | January 28, 2008 2:53 AM

The first thing you need to learn here is what is ACTUALLY "conservative ideals", and not the made up nonsense you've been "told" by your ideological sycophants.

Some of us have heard them straight from the horse's mouth. That's why we critics of conservatism are so cynical about "conservative ideals" -- they exist only to give themselves power and authority and cut everyone else out. I saw this in 1981 when Reagan came to power; I saw it again in 1995 after Gingrich became Speaker of the House. It was always class warfare.

On the other hand, financial, social, and other dependence upon the redistribution of others' wealth, as a means of continued existence is corrosive to the human soul. The very premise that you are owed all your needs, for no other reason, than you cannot or will not earn your own, is absurd.

That is NOT what we're talking about. We're talking about changing the economics and politics so that the poor can make their own way and not have to depend on charity, whether private or government. But you expect the poor to do so without the resources that you have, which is not only unjust on your part but ridiculous, period. As the saying goes, "How can you pull yourself up by your bootstraps when you don't have any boots?"

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 28, 2008 8:57 AM

I, for one, do not follow the substance of most liberal-conservative debating points. I would gladly roll up my sleeves and figure out what those words mean if I had any sense they were being used by writers in any agreed upon and substantive manner.

I appreciate exchange between Rick and whoever:

Whoever: "The very premise that you are owed all your needs, for no other reason, than you cannot or will not earn your own, is absurd."

Rick: "We're talking about changing the economics and politics so that the poor can make their own way and not have to depend on charity, whether private or government."

Forgive my slowness--but when you drop the labels I am trying to figure out what the difference is. OK, one of you likes bootstraps; the other one does too as long as there are boots. But in public policy terms--what does that really mean?

Mark--I don't take anything for granted about you. I have read your posts. You know others here do not know you; as you don't know me. All I know about you are your posts. Persons misunderstand me based on my posts as well. But all they have are my posts. And who created my posts???

I can speculate 'til the cows come home' why others cannot understand me--and remain a helpless victim (I think your story implies you too have learned making one's self helpless is not very productive); or I can take a deep breath and try to figure out how I can listen and speak in a manner that builds clarity and nurtures love.

And that is not a liberal mantra--but and obligation of scripture. The precious Spirit of God has granted a spirit of power, love and a sound mind. When your manner of dialogue gets taken to task my good listeners like Squeaky--then it is good time to reflect on your writing.

And that does not in any way denigrate the value of your contributions or dignity of your life. It is excersing stewardship responsibility over your capacity to communicate.

People move, grown and change from the point they are at--not the point you want them to be at. Further, God often brings persons in my life not so they can be changed--but so I can be changed; not become like them, but to allow God to use them to grow me into what God wants.

The biggest contribution these conversations may make to each other is to learn how to converse about public matters so that the church might ultimately bring light to the public table. Can you see in the routines of Washington DC the consequence of people unable to constructively dialogue and love justice?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 28, 2008 10:28 AM

What it actually means is that it's very hard to advance if you don't come from a stable community where the only legal businesses that already exist are bars; pawn shops; clothing, electronics or convenience stores; and check-cashing places, because the people who work there make only minimum-wage or thereabouts. How you get higher-wage jobs in those area is a legitimate subject for debate, but when you don't see people making a solid living you're more susceptible to the siren call of the "bling-bling."

And what's liberal policy on how to fix this? Raise taxes. Raise them on "the rich". You know, the only people who have ANY solution at all for the individual to get out of thier situation. Tax everyting they do, so that they'll stop doing it.

"The rich" as every liberal here defines them, are the ONLY people who create "well paying jobs". They also create the poor paying jobs. They create the minimum wage jobs. They create EVERY JOB THERE IS.

Unless, of course, you intend to work for the government. In which case, you get your paycheck by sucking it from those who create the jobs for everyone else, and from the paychecks of those who work for them.

Rick accuses republicans - maybe it's just conservatives, of "class warfare". I dunno what that is, really. What I see the left doing is creating "class division" and "class envy" and "class hatred", by blaming "the rich" for all the evils, claiming that "the rich" cause all this lack of opportunity, and "the rich" are keeping all the poor people poor by "stealing thier wealth".

All of this idiotic rot buys them a sycophantic following for election purposes, but it does NOTHING AT ALL to help the individual who needs nothing else as desperately as for one of those hated "rich" to give him a CHANCE!

NO level of tax increases causes those who are paying those taxes to go rush out and hire people. I should know. I am an employer.

The mandated burdens of taxes, regulations, fees, paperwork, and associated costs for every employee is downright horrifying. I, and several friends of mine, all of which own our own businesses and hire someone, lament the fact that although we contract work out at 40, 50, 60, or more an hour, costs involved to hire someone for $10 an hour, and the regulatory mess involved, is too great.

There are MILLIONS of small businesses in this country. Untie thier hands, release them from the MYRIAD and STUPID "employee protections" and they'll actually hire the disadvantaged. You might have to move out of the inner city. You might have to leave the ghettos of Philly, and move to, say, Walla Walla, WA, or Flagstaff, AZ, or Farmington NM, or one of those myriad smaller farming towns in Iowa.

But a break. A chance. That's what disadvantaged kids need. They need to know what a BREAK looks like. They need to know what a CHANCE looks like, and they need someone to offer it to them.

Even in the city, there's still plenty of opportunity for that CHANCE someone will take on you, but it's harder.

All the well-meaning "programs" of support for people down on thier luck do NOT provide that opportunity. Education is good, but tell me, how do you live in the ghetto, and get a college degree straight out of high school?

All the horrifying nonsense about how "whitey" is keeping the "brothers" down, or how prejudice is the reason why people who don't have any idea how to get or hold a job, is the problem. Not that they don't know how to get or hold a job.

I know several contractors, for instance. That's one of the places people often get a chance, or thier first chance. Bid out work at $50 an hour, and you honestly cannot pay someone $12 an hour to do the job.

Why? Because to pay someone $12 for an hour, you need more like $40. There's SS, Insurance (that one is HUGE), Unemployment insurance, downtime, travel time, travel expenses, tools, a truck, all of which have to paid for to enable one guy to collect a pitiful paycheck. And you have AT LEAST 10 government agencies that hound you ENDLESSLY, wanting paperwork that takes at least 20% of your contracted time just to complete. And the fines if you make the slightest error are huge. And none of it does ANYTHING to benefit the guy you REALLY DO NEED.

Free time on my hands? Just because of the weekend and the weather. Mid day yesterday, the weather turned from warmish and raining to cold and snow. Everything is covered with ice and a layer of snow on top of it. Rather than go become a target for errant bad drivers, I'm home.

And all this is just one SMALL slice of the picture as to what it takes to promote opportunity for the people who most desperately need it.

So, you say, "let's raise the minimum wage". Right. If you can't afford to hire someone at the minimum wage, you can't afford it if they raise that, can you?

Nobody lives thier life on minimum wage! The minimum wage should low enough that employers will risk hiring almost anyone. It should be low enough that those with no history, no resume, no experience, no references can get hired. This has been proven all over the world, that the higher risk you take to hire, the more selective you are, and the more selective one has to be, the harder it is for someone at the bottom rung to get find someone to take that risk.

And as I said, nobody lives on it. It is not a permanent situation. Recently, I went into Subway nearby and the kid behind the counter was telling me he just got "a raise". The minimum wage was raised quite a bit Jan 1. How were they going to deal with it? Well, when the next person left, they were not going to replace him.

EVERY person that works at that Subway is on thier way to somewhere else, except for the manager and assistant manager. It was the break they needed to make college, or a financial hardship, or fill in for a faltering career effort, whatever. And someone just lost that break. Multiply that by thousands of businesses that will do precisely the same thing all across the state, and what have you done? You can figure it out. Doesn't take a genius.

Posted by: mark | January 28, 2008 12:02 PM

"The rich" as every liberal here defines them, are the ONLY people who create "well paying jobs". They also create the poor paying jobs. They create the minimum wage jobs. They create EVERY JOB THERE IS.

BUT MOST RICH PEOPLE ARE NOT EMPLOYERS!!!! In fact, most of today's wealthy made their money not through "hard work" but on speculation (say, Wall Street), which means you have to have some $$$ even to get into the game in the first place.

EVERY person that works at that Subway is on thier way to somewhere else, except for the manager and assistant manager. It was the break they needed to make college, or a financial hardship, or fill in for a faltering career effort, whatever. And someone just lost that break. Multiply that by thousands of businesses that will do precisely the same thing all across the state, and what have you done? You can figure it out. Doesn't take a genius.

I was part of the "working poor" for 13 years until I finished college -- the truth be told, quite a few adults work in such places because their jobs were "outsourced" and can't find anything else (this became more the case beginning in the 1980s). I didn't have a car, so I couldn't even get to many of the places where better jobs were. I didn't have connections either, so even if I did have wheels I didn't know where those jobs were. The only reason I have my present job is through a former churchmate who was a boss.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 28, 2008 12:36 PM

Mark: "And what's liberal policy on how to fix this? Raise Taxes."

This is an example of the use of a label I wish we would set aside.

Rick and Mark go back and forth--and I can't even tell what they are really disagreeing on. I do not think it fair to assert liberalism inherently wants to raise taxes and has no concern for how regulation places a burden on business, or how healthcare costs restricts economic growth. Or, for instance, to assert conservatism does not recognize the need for capital access to build businesses.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 28, 2008 1:16 PM

It is also absolutely PREPOSTEROUS how so many of the posters here, ostensibly Christians, basically say, "Well, Joe believes X, and Joe once said Y, and you agree with X, therefore, you believe Y"
Posted by: LKB

Hmmmm,
Could All of this be because possibly Wallis talks about his book details what the bad Christians think and the what the good Christians think . The ones that agree with him are the good ones .

Nahhh , your right in what you think .

From Wallis and oringinal enlightening post

"The major difference between Latino evangelicals and white evangelicals is that many white evangelicals take their marching orders from Bishop Rush Limbaugh, Prophet Sean Hannity, and Apostle Lou Dobbs; and Latino evangelicals still listen to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John"

Posted by: Mick | January 28, 2008 1:53 PM

This actually is more germane to the topic than we realize at first glance.

What happens is that most white evangelicals are simply not aware of the historical narratives of blacks and Latinos and see things only through their own limited experience. Therefore, many of these white evangelicals notice that minorities are often not as "advanced" as they are and wonder why -- "well, they must not be working hard enough" -- when they simply didn't have the same experiences. (Mick -- thank you for your comment.) I've read a couple of books on the subject by black evangelicals, and I was surprised to find out just how much resistance to changing stereotypes always existed.

It also goes back to what I believe to be conservative white evangelicals' belief (although admittedly not universal) that they are entitled to what they get and feel put upon when called even to be considerate of others. But that sense of entitlement is so great they actually consider it justice without realizing that, hey, there are other views here.

Sam Rodriguez insulted some people with his comments; however, he was largely right with the point he was trying to make because when you have no place to go but the LORD -- you can't rely on your job, your stocks, your connections -- your faith in Him becomes much stronger. That was why, as I mentioned earlier, that the black church in the South was probably the best place to learn practical applications of the Scripture two generations ago.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 28, 2008 2:59 PM

"That's a Sam Rodriguez quote, not a Jim Wallis one. That's just the same example of X,Y and Z! Accuracy in attributing quotes please, or people will think you're more interested in prevailing by impression than through accuracy"

Right about the quote , but for the rest
You have to be kidding Rick . Wallis whole article gave the impression of one side right and one side wrong , by using quotes of others may I add . As you do , as most of us do to make a point . As you supported the bigoted statement and used your own one sided bias to support it ,

I would add that I support many of what Rodriguez says also , as I would Farenkhein, Jackson , Sharpton , Dobson , and even Pat Robertson .

Its how they take some universal truths and mix them with some pure idealogical BS that causes the problems between people of different life experiences , faith and to basically how they were brougt up .

It all goes to some universal liberal beliefs that some people are owed something by this government , a belief of entitlement instead of giving your all to get somewhere , and knowing life is unfair from all of our perspectives .

Praise God we don't get what we deserve .

Posted by: Mick | January 28, 2008 3:32 PM

Nevertheless, isn't Rodriguez' (and by his endorsement of Rodriguez) Rev. Wallis' dismissing of conservatives so casually actually distorting their perception of the true answers to that question?

Well, look at it this way. It's clear to me that that what evangelicals are looking for today is much different now than it was 25 years ago, when the "cultural issues" were more in play. Then, however, they also were relative newcomers to the political process and did so basically because they were against something -- you can sell virtually any movement that way.

That said, they now have to consider what they're for, which is much more difficult to discern and determine, let alone implement. This is why there's so much "post-Religious-Right" confusion in evangelicalism as I write, especially with the rise of the "non-conservatives," a greater concern for the poor and the presence of "people of color" having an impact. And with these factors there's bound to be some growing pains, such as we see on this blog.

Unfortunately, as much as I'd like to see this, I don't anticipate an abandonment of "labels" for at least a few years or even decades. I expect Wallis to continued to be labeled a "quasi-Marxist," even though that description doesn't really fit; and the food fights between "liberals" and "conservatives" to continue. (In my experience, the "right" always this way; over the past three or four years, the "left" decided to fight back.)

And Sojourner Truth is right -- prophetic statements recorded in the Scripture were stronger than anything Rodriguez mentioned.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 28, 2008 4:19 PM

ST--Thanks for your comments. I understand fully your experience of your internal thoughts.

All I would add is I also learned from Jesus' instruction equating the angry word in our heart to murder. Racism is simply one way in which we can make another invisible (or dead). We have many other strategies. I read comments from some posts and just shut the person down (in my mind and heart) in disgust. I have battled a very sarcastic and critical tongue.

And coming full circle back to your comments--I will say as a white evangelical guy from an all-white county; that has journeyed most my adult life predominantly with African American Christians (including my wife and children); that the Lord used some very patient Christian brothers and sisters to walk with me and teach me much through confronting my racism.

My wife and mother became so very close; and walked very near the heart of God. I was so proud of both of them. My wife passed 16 months ago. My mother passed last week. Together they taught me to see and guard the dignity of every person.

God is so trustworthy to redeem that which is broken.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 28, 2008 7:54 PM

I am a low paid worker and I like it this way, living simply. Jesus said my heart lies with my treasure. I want it in heaven with God and not here with my comfort and stuff.
Oak

Posted by: Oakley Howell | January 28, 2008 10:13 PM

Jerry--I fundamentally agree with Jim Wallis but believe he is exercising means that confuse and cripple the message. And as one comment on one of these lines recently, "The means are the end."

If it was about marketing and selling books, I really wouldn't care. But I see him shaping and positioning a message for the purpose of increasing influence to the point of dishonesty.

It is very tempting and I do not mistrust his motivations. But it saddens me that I hear these kinds of concerns being raised and addressed in different ways by multiple voices. I see persons like myself trying to wave the flags.

But if I'm concerned--I guess I would be laying my heart out before the Lord on Jim's behalf. I can do that.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 29, 2008 12:21 PM

Prophets, Doors, Walls: MLK, X, Lennon, Gaza and U 2

"Prophets have authority and also the call, to speak to the great and the small
They call down kings and lift up the poor: Behold there's one at the door."-Pastor Gary Vance

In the '60's two black men in America; one a Christian and one a Muslim shared a similar dream with different philosophies and means to achieve them.

Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. had "a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed... that all men are created equal."

Malcolm X's radical creed was, "Anything you can think of that you want to change right now, the only way you can do it is with a ballot or a bullet. And if you're not ready to get involved with either one of those, you are satisfied with the status quo. That means we'll have to change you."

Both men dreamed of a world freed from the bondage of prejudice and racism, a world in which their children would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. While King consistently advocated for a brotherhood of all peoples and persisted in only nonviolent actions to achieve it; not until after a pilgrimage to Mecca, did X evolve in his spirituality and thus reject his separatist beliefs and begin to advocate for unity and a world wide brotherhood.

Both can be said to have fully understood that there are "truths that are self-evident: That all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights;…[and] that, to secure [those] rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; and, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it."- The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776,

Both men engaged in the struggle to wake up good people whose ears were not ready to hear, whose eyes were not ready to see and whose hearts were not yet pierced to bleed for the least and oppressed of humanity. Both men were shot dead before either could see any of their dreams realized.

A few weeks before Rev. King bled to death on a patch of pavement in Memphis, he said: "Peace for Israel means security, and we stand with all our might to protect its right to exist…I see Israel as one of the greatest outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy."

King died ten months after the 40 years of Israel's Military occupation of Palestine began.

On May 14, 1948, The Declaration of the establishment of Israel proclaimed: "On the day of the termination of the British mandate and on the strength of the United Nations General Assembly declare The State of Israel will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel: it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion it will guarantee freedom of religion [and] conscience and will be faithful to the Charter of the United Nations."

The Hebrew prophet Amos prayed:

"Let JUSTICE roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream."

I contend that if King and X had lived, they would have followed the call of Amos and would be at the front of the line in next Saturday's convoy to Gaza that begins in Tel Aviv.

I believe this because it has been said that the Palestinians have become the 'N's' of the world, while in the '70's it was women:

We insult her every day on TV
And wonder why she has no guts or confidence
When she's young we kill her will to be free
While telling her not to be so smart we put her down for being so dumb-John Lennon, "Woman is the "N" of the World"

The governments of Israel and America contend that they cannot speak to the democratically elected members of the Hamas government and thus they have sanctioned atrocities and abominations upon the 1.5 million innocent civilians [approximately 2,000 are Christian] who endure in the largest open air prison in the word.

In November 2006, I read an article written by Father Manuel, the parish priest at the Latin Church and school in Gaza who wrote:

"Gaza cannot sleep! The people are suffering unbelievably. They are hungry, thirsty, have no electricity or clean water. They are suffering constant bombardments and sonic booms from low flying aircraft. They need food: bread and water. Children and babies are hungry...people have no money to buy food. The price of food has doubled and tripled due to the situation. We cannot drink water from the ground here as it is salty and not hygienic. People must buy water to drink. They have no income, no opportunities to get food and water from outside and no opportunities to secure money inside of Gaza. They have no hope...Without electricity children are afraid. No light at night. No oil or candles...Thirsty children are crying, afraid and desperate...Many children have been violently thrown from their beds at night from the sonic booms. Many arms and legs have been broken. These planes fly low over Gaza and then reach the speed of sound. This shakes the ground and creates shock waves like an earthquake that causes people to be thrown from their bed. I, myself weigh 120 kilos and was almost thrown from my bed due to the shock wave produced by a low flying jet that made a sonic boom...Gaza cannot sleep...the cries of hungry children, the sullen faces of broken men and women who are just sitting in their hungry emptiness with no light, no hope, no love. These actions are War Crimes!"

I shudder as I imagine the facts on the ground in 2008, which are that: "The occupation of the Strip did not end with the "Disengagement"; on the contrary: the passage of persons and goods, in and out of the Strip, was made far more difficult by the Israeli authorities, no one can get in or out, by land, sea or air, except with the permission of the Israeli Security Service. As far as Gazans are concerned, Disengagement did not bring any liberty, but just made occupation that much worse!

"However bad the suffering is of the inhabitants of Sderot, Ashkelon and the Kibbutzim and Moshavim in the area under the barrage of Qassam missiles, mortar shells and sniper bullets, it is in no way a justification for a cruel siege which severely damages a million and half civilians - men, women and children. The siege is an immoral act and a violation of International Law - and from the practical point of view, increasing the bitterness and suffering in Gaza leads to an intensification of attacks towards the Israeli side, not to their end."
http://gush-shalom.org.toibillboard.info/ConvJan08.htm

As a Christian of The Beatitudes, a global citizen of the world and patriotic American, I grieve that the inhabitants of Sderot and the inhabitants of Gaza are seen as enemies of the other, for both are the victims of the brutal and vicious policy by the empire: the government of Israel aided and abetted by my American tax dollars!

But being one to always make lemonade out of lemons, I herald the good news that the day before my 54th birthday, good people are doing something in the spirit of a sister and brotherhood and heeding the call of the ancient prophets to WAKE UP the world that only JUSTICE and EQUALITY for all people can lead to security and peace for any and all.

The very good news is that not the religious, but secular society have become the prophetic voice that has risen up in the Holy Land and we truly do "have it in our power to begin the world again" [Tom Paine] and next Saturday, on the border of the Gaza Strip it begins with a protest rally on both sides of The Wall!

People of good will are coming together this Saturday to demand the Government of Israel end the siege of Gaza and have united Israeli, Palestinian and Internationals that will illuminate to our political leaders THE WAY they must go: if there is ever to be security for Israel and peace in the world.

Israeli participating organizations are being led by the good works and altruism of Gush Shalom, Combatants for Peace, Coalition of Women for Peace, ICAHD - The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, Bat Shalom, Bat Tzafon for Peace & Equality, Balad, Hadash, Adalah, Tarabut-Hithabrut, Physicians for Human Rights, Alternative Information Center, Psychoactive - Mental Health Professionals for Human Rights, ActiveStills, Student Coalition (Tel-Aviv University), New Profile, Machsom Watch, PCATI (Public Committee Against Torture), will be joined on the other side of The Wall by Palestinian human rights activists, intellectuals, academics and business people from Gaza and the West Bank.

ALL are united by a commitment to peace, human dignity and human rights for all people and are guided by ethical and moral responsibility and international law which affirms that all people are equal and justice must be served.

The children of Sderot are not served when the children of Gaza are forced to drink polluted water, but current reality is that hundreds of commodities needed for the maintaining of a normal daily life are not being allowed into the Gaza Strip, by order of the Government of Israel. Even the entry of water filters - vital for purifying the water drawn from Gazan wells, which are heavily polluted by brine, oil and sewage have been prevented for more than half a year because of the sanctions imposed upon the innocent for daring to democratically elect a party deemed as a "terrorist organization" for rising up against the occupation of their land.

Gaza has become the largest ghetto in the world, a regional disaster, and an abomination unto God that also puts innocent Israelis in danger because of the actions of their government.

But the good news is that on January 26, 2008 a convoy of justice will roll down like waters in a righteous and mighty stream as Israeli's in the forefront are delivering massive quantities of water filters and basic foodstuffs such as flour, rice, oil, salt, lentils, beans to be freely given as gifts for distribution to Gaza inhabitants who have been driven by the siege to extreme poverty, despair and hopelessness because the leaders of the world have failed to see, hear and feel in their hearts that they are just human beings!

Civil secular society is leading and guiding the religious and atheists alike-as did Rev. King in the battle for civil rights –as sisters and brothers committed to peace in respect for human dignity, and driven by ethical and moral standards.

If you have ears to hear; hear!

If you have eyes to see; see!

If you have a heart of flesh may it bleed for the least among us, who have become the "N's" of the world for we truly do "have it in our power to begin the world again"-Tom Paine

If we all DO SOMETHING!

Be a part of "the change you want to see in the world" [Gandhi] in this righteous flowing stream of justice, peace and nonviolent action by following the lead of the good Jews at Gush Shalom http://zope.gush-shalom.org/

And may the Mystery of the Universe fill you with PEACE: Shalom, Salaam that you did something for the least among us. In celebration and in honor of Reverend Martin Luther King's Birthday I offer this paraphrase from Luke 4:14:22:

May the Spirit of the Lord be upon you. May He/She/? Anoint you to bring glad tidings to the poor. May He/She/? Use you to proclaim LIBERTY to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and that in the offering of a drink of clean water to the least of all, that we may in sister and brotherhood proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord; for all are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; such as clean water and food.

Prophets have authority and also the call, to speak to the great and the small
They call down kings and lift up the poor:
Behold there's one at the door
And many will be at THE WALL 01/26/08

Amen and amen.
And amen means: So Be It!

Posted by: eileen fleming | January 29, 2008 4:57 PM

"You never talk about their positives,"

Nobody does. There are none to discuss. We have three teachers on our block (and they are not even close to conservative) who have yet to say anything postive about the system. What does this have to do with conservative domination?

"nor do conservatives say that anyone with whom they disagree make good points."

Sure they do. The National Review does all the time, if you'd ever bother to read it (I know, I know... You know what it says. Richard Viguerie and all that...)

"And Jim Wallis being a Marxist? Please -- that's an insult beyond insults."

He said that he hoped Christians would see the world through Marxist eyes. What do you suppose he meant by that?

"My description stands."

You are fond of saying this. Mount a proper defense that is unassailable. Otherwise, it is empty rhetoric.

(three, two, one...)

Posted by: kevin s. | January 29, 2008 11:49 PM

I am 'signing off' activity on blog. I decided the structure of the whole thing (or lack thereof) just makes it inherently non-productive (i.e. for me).

I would gladly commit with 20 Christian brothers and sisters from a range of views to hammer out a productive dialogue. But there is more structure to a street corner verbal brawl than there is here.

My suggestion to Sojo would be to keep one open line of discussion up at all times for those who wish the present format. But for most of the articles, to design a richer, and moderated format. e.g. Jim Wallis posts article and at close of post outlines three questions he has interest in hearing a response to. Then Sojo requests one or two of its contributors to make a response within 24 hrs. Anyone else could comment but would be restricted to the topic at hand. Within 48 hrs. Jim Wallis would revist conversation with an additional reflection/clarification/question.

Thanks to many for listening and contributing.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 30, 2008 12:19 AM

Much as the tolerance has been liberal it's in my humble opinion going to take a bit more conservative insistence on adherence to the posting guidelines of respect than is done currently, in order to restore a forum that's productive for those of differing perspectives who are willing to genuinely interact and learn from one another.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 30, 2008 3:06 AM

"nor do conservatives say that anyone with whom they disagree make good points."

Sure they do. The National Review does all the time, if you'd ever bother to read it (I know, I know... You know what it says. Richard Viguerie and all that...)

I'm not simply talking about National Review, which not that many people read. I'm talking about conservatives in general when they become part of the greater discourse.

He said that he hoped Christians would see the world through Marxist eyes. What do you suppose he meant by that?

I took a college course in media analysis which referred to a "Marxist" perspective, and if you've actually read Marx you'd know just what he was talking about. Was it talking about "statism"? Hardly -- the collusion of government and private institutions that became a de facto aristrocracy and ruled for the sake of ruling, not to administer justice. I read the Communist Manifesto about 20 years ago, and parts of it seemed as though they came straight from the Minor Prophets! (In other words, he had some things right!)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 30, 2008 8:22 AM

If so, you're way off-base.

Rick, you're being kind. Paul J. is giving us a list of false choices and expects to know our hearts by how we respond.

To me, a simple yes or no on any one of his listed choices is not possible. And besides, supporting the military (for example) might not even mean the same thing to you or me as it does to Paul.

I do not believe the labels liberal or conservative are adequate to describe the ideology of someone who is truly in Christ. I'll just leave it there for now.

Paul: Are you teaching others to fish?

Peace,

Posted by: Don | January 30, 2008 10:44 AM

Mick,

U are absolutely right.

Paul,

why would I want to be part of a dead or dying religion that serves as nothing more than a cancer on Jesus' butt?

Maybe not a cancer but at the very least an annoying rash.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 30, 2008 4:00 PM

"Fascinating discussion.

I am a progressive, liberal Christian. I believe Jesus lived, died and rose again. I believe he sent his holy spirit to bring me into union w/ the Father. I believe that God is one in three persons...."
Payshun: I agree with you, this is fascinating. And I'm curious as to why you believe "Jesus lived, died and rose again...."
Blessings,

Posted by: Witness for Peace | January 31, 2008 11:51 PM

I am deeply saddened by the experiences it seems you've had with Christians or those calling themselves such. God's love is offered to all people, period. I pray that some Christlike individuals will come into your life, soon.
I also hope you're able to make the distinction between things like misunderstanding or honest disagreement and actual "hatred"

Posted by: Witness for Peace | February 2, 2008 9:05 PM