Why I Wrote "The Great Awakening" (by Jim Wallis)
God's Politics called on people to take back their faith after it had been "hijacked" by the Religious Right. Millions of Christians have done just that, and now the question is what are we going to do with our faith, now that we have it back? My new book, The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith and Politics in a Post-Religious Right America, addresses that question.
My friend E.J. Dionne Jr., a Washington Post syndicated columnist, has read the new book and describes how it is different from the last one. "The Great Awakening is the perfect successor to God's Politics," Dionne says. "If the earlier book helped open our eyes to what had gone wrong, The Great Awakening ... provides an historical and theological foundation for a transformative public religion."
When I am asked what has changed since God's Politics, I reply, "Everything." The subtitle of God's Politics was "Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It." Well, the hard Right continues to get it wrong, but evangelicals are leaving the Religious Right in droves. Meanwhile the Left is starting to get the idea that politics should be about values and that religion has much to contribute to progressive politics.
Two things in particular have changed. First, we now see the "leveling of the praying field" as many Democrats are rediscovering their own religious roots, with many coming out of the closet as people of faith. And their candidates are actively reaching out to the faith community. Perceived as the "secular party" in recent years, hostile to religion and values, Democrats are becoming a much more faith-friendly party—that's a real sea change.
Second, and more important, the agenda of the faith community—especially the evangelical community—is changing dramatically to include issues such as poverty and pandemic diseases, environmental care and climate change, trafficking and human rights, genocide, war and peace.
That change could significantly impact politics in the 2008 election. The Great Awakening explores the new broader and deeper faith agenda and shows how a new spiritual "revival" could spark real social and political change. Already, in the early primaries the clear victor is "change," revealing the deep hunger in America for a new direction in politics, which many on both sides of the spectrum believe to be badly broken. All the candidates are now competing to convince voters that they are the best change agents. Hopefully, The Great Awakening will be the spiritual and movement companion book to that political hunger.
Bill Hybels, senior pastor of Willow Creek Community Church, says that many evangelicals are ready for just such a "justice revival." He says, "We are interested in the poor, in racial reconciliation, in global poverty and AIDS, in the plight of women in the developing world."
And Rich Nathan, senior pastor of the Vineyard Church of Columbus, Ohio, says that "there is a spiritual awakening across America ... on behalf of the poor and the most marginalized."
Adam Hamilton, pastor of the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection, wants to "fan the flames of the 21st-century revival within American Christianity. This revival is a reclaiming of the fullness of the gospel—a gospel that invites people into relationship with God through Jesus Christ, transforms them from the inside out, and then calls them to pursue justice, to practice radical compassion, and to both pray and work for God's kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven."
The new book traces the history of "great awakenings" of the past, in the U.S. and world history, and then points to what is occurring now. I wrote the book because I believe it's "movement time" again.
U2's Bono, in one of the book's endorsements, says, "I had always been a skeptic of the church of personal peace and prosperity ... of righteous people standing in a holy huddle while the world rages outside the stained glass. But I've learned that there are many people of the cloth who are also in the world—and, from debt cancellation to the fight against AIDS and for human rights, they are on the march."
The Great Awakening speaks of two great hungers in our world today—the hunger for spirituality and the hunger for social justice. I believe that the connection between the two is one the world, and especially a new generation, is waiting for. The Great Awakening makes that vital connection and shows how spiritual renewal will likely be a necessary part of social change, and how perhaps only genuine spiritual revival can spark social and political transformation.
As a longtime social activist, I am now convinced that we will not get to social justice without spiritual revival. The book lays out seven key commitments that—if made on the personal, communal, and public policy level—could provide the "tipping point" on many of the key moral issues that we confront today.
I am not just saying that another Great Awakening may be coming. I'm convinced that it has already begun, and the book begins to tell its stories. As I've often said, this could be a revival that calls us to find common ground by moving to higher ground. It could transcend traditional divisions and bring people together across the theological and political spectrum on the major moral issues of our time. It asserts that religion should not be a wedge to divide us, but a bridge to bring us together.
As a teenager, I went to the black churches of Detroit after being kicked out of my white evangelical church. It was in the black churches that I first encountered the explosive combination of spiritual power and social change, and I have adopted that vision as my own.
In the months of working on this book my writing, praying, and vocational discernment got nicely tangled together. So I didn't just finish a book; I also got a clearer sense than ever before of what the next steps might be and what I am supposed to be doing. We decided to organize "Justice Revivals" in cities across the country, beginning this spring in Columbus, Ohio, where I recently met with a wide variety of pastors and leaders to prepare for this three-day gathering of preaching, praise, and a call to do justice.
It's the vision of the book, and a vision we are beginning to put into practice—a Justice Revival may be coming soon to a city near you.
Visit The Great Awakening Web site for more information and exclusive bonus content.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I've realized in the process of contributing to this blog that I am not a left-wing, progressive evangelical Christian--I am a liberal Christian. While I think it's nice that Wallis, McLaren, Campolo, et. al., are rediscovering a Christian social conscience, liberal Christians have already been there for years, in fact, centuries. Evangelicals are simply re-inventing the liberal wheel with the additional problem of having to cling to creationism, inerrancy, dispensationalism, and all the baggage of evangelicalism which prevents true growth. Once I realized I was a liberal, and didn't have to deal with all that, loving my neighbor without worrying about Levitical abomination laws became a lot easier.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 18, 2008 10:46 AM
While I think it's nice that Wallis, McLaren, Campolo, et. al., are rediscovering a Christian social conscience, liberal Christians have already been there for years, in fact, centuries.
Not at all true -- indeed, there was no "liberal Christianity" until the early 20th Century; until then it was all, if you will, "evangelical." But you're right in saying that these "conservative" doctrines ("inerrancy" goes back to the 19th Century) have stunted spiritual growth and knowledge of God's Word.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 18, 2008 11:52 AM
Rick - what about Schleiermacher and Renan who both lived and worked in the 19th century. Even those regarded as the fathers of liberalism, Troeltsch and Rauschenbusch lived most of their lives in the 19th century. So I don't think "liberalism" is a product of the 20th century.
What is a product of this century is the artificial bifurcation of the "hunger for spirituality and the hunger for social justice". That they're one and the same thing is an old message - going back to the prophets.
Posted by: splinterlog | January 18, 2008 12:47 PM
"creationism, inerrancy, dispensationalism"
But I think the first and third would be more rightly called fundamentalist doctrines rather than evangelical. And Wallis has suggested that fundamentalism is not conducive to progressive Chrsitian activism. As I've said before on other threads, I don't mind seeing a revival of the "F word" to distinguish between evangelicals who are willing to think and expand their worldviews and those who are not. And in regard to Rick's comment, fundamentalism is even newer than liberalism because it came about as a reaction to it.
After saying all that, I would have to throw my hat into the "liberal" ring as well given my difficulty with the idea of inerrancy. But I still consider myself a fellow traveler with progressive evangelicals.
Posted by: I and I | January 18, 2008 12:52 PM
splinterlog -- Karl Marx never lived to see his political system reach the masses, and the same could be said for the men you mentioned.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 18, 2008 1:02 PM
Could it be that the most effective Christian movement for ministry to the poor would transcend politics, left/right, Rep/Dem? What if we get out of our political worldview and just help the poor.
William and Katherine Booth may be the best example of this.
I am conservative in philosophy and have at times disagree with some liberal friends on how to best serve the poor. Ultimately we can agree on enough to help each other help others.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 18, 2008 1:23 PM
"Evangelicals are simply re-inventing the liberal wheel with the additional problem of having to cling to creationism, inerrancy, dispensationalism, and all the baggage of evangelicalism which prevents true growth."
That is an interesting declaration. The fasting growing churches in America are the Assemblies of God and Church of Christ both basically fit your mold though A/G is not dispie. Mormons and Islam are the other fastest growing religious movements. Both are very conservative.
I'm heading out
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 18, 2008 1:35 PM
Could it be that the most effective Christian movement for ministry to the poor would transcend politics, left/right, Rep/Dem? What if we get out of our political worldview and just help the poor.
Actually helping the poor -- and by that I mean helping getting them out of poverty -- is often political in nature and, frankly, conservatives don't want that (they call it "big government" or "class warfare"). What's ultimately needed is the poor to have authority over not only their lives but also their communities, which can and often does mean activism, voting or running for office -- which is the last thing the right wants. Is it any surprise that the right has always opposed any effort to, say, extend voting rights?
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 18, 2008 1:39 PM
The fasting growing churches in America are the Assemblies of God and Church of Christ both basically fit your mold though A/G is not dispie.
I think it's the other way around. The A/G is dispensational; the Churches of Christ are not (they're usually amillennial, too).
D
Posted by: Don | January 18, 2008 3:23 PM
their focus is primarily on keeping what they have, giving only when it really doesn't cost them anything
Spot on! The recent "greening" of conservatism (e.g. David Frum's new book) shows that issues like care for the environment and the poor can't just be swept under the rug of free market fundamentalism. Frum's book (and others) demonstrate (at least) a cynical acknowledgement of these facts.
Posted by: splinterlog | January 18, 2008 3:23 PM
And I think it is worth noting also that "conservatives" in power have essentially gotten meaner and more divisive than before, beginning with Reagan but really accelerating under Gingrich. Yes, I know there were always mean conservatives, i.e. in the South who fought integration tooth and nail, but remember at the time there were northern conservatives who were perfectly fine with integration, paying their fair share of taxes, and taking some steps to protect the environment even if it meant inconvenience ot industry, etc. The "me decade" of the seventies seems to have paved the way for the "mean decades" of self-centered, radically individualistic conservatism that followed.
Just wondering: as I'm typing this I'm seeing a book advertisement banner at the bottom of the GP page with a bunch of scantily-clad black women and sexual innuendo. What the heck's that all about?
Posted by: I and I | January 18, 2008 5:03 PM
I and I -- That nastiness you noticed is a direct result of the Cold War, which birthed the modern conservative movement in the first place -- it's simply easier to discern an enemy and try to defeat it rather than get together with all sides to solve a real problem. But in doing that you eventually encouter an enemy you can't simply roll, which displays your weaknesses and leads to defeat. Bill Clinton was such a person; same with militants we're fighting in Iraq. (Why else do you think Karl Rove left the White House?)
Getting back to the topic -- conventional conservative wisdom holds that government largesse destroyed the 'hood because it eliminated folks' desire to work. They don't mention, however, that when wealthier folks moved to the suburbs they ended up taking their financial heft with them -- after all, stores etc. have to have customers to stay in business. Factor in racism, which often kept black men out of good jobs, and you have one heck of a problem.
This is why I said that, when it comes to poverty, political means often must be used to cause real change. It's not so much an issue of the transfer of wealth; really, folks need access to the power structure so that they can make their own way. After all, that's how everyone else does it.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 18, 2008 5:26 PM
Don,
I'm actually an A/G pastor. We are not dispensational.
Rick, we've been down this road before. Your experience is much different than mine. I worked for the Salvation Army some years ago. I covered 20 counties and served on several United Way Boards. I worked with both conservative and liberal churches. I found congregations with remarkable commitments to serving the "least of these" on both ends of that spectrum.
But overall it was conservative churches, individuals and business people who would step up when we really needed them. My experience lines up with stats every year about who gives the most to charities. Could it be that conservative Christians have a tendency to put there money and action where there mouths are. Whereas progressives would like to put someone else's money where their (progressives) mouth's are?
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 18, 2008 5:27 PM
Could it be that conservative Christians have a tendency to put there money and action where there mouths are. Whereas progressives would like to put someone else's money where their (progressives) mouth's are?
No. My immediate past church, which was quite liberal but still active in the community, gave away more money than in most other churches' budgets (I saw the books). It's that, these days, conservative churches tend to be larger and attract a higher class of people that are more motivated to give; more "liberal" churches, on the other hand, tend to focus on keeping things going as they are.
My own church, by your standards, is both conservative and progressive; there's so much money available for diaconal ministry that when one of our deacons was busted for embezzlement last year we didn't miss a beat. But we also argue for the kind of real justice I'm talking about, which goes beyond charity -- we learned long ago to use our authority in the community to benefit others. (It really doesn't belong to us, you know!)
See, that's the real problem with the conservative agenda -- it wants to hold onto power for its own sake rather than give itself away for not only others but the glory of God. It's not an "either/or"; it's a "both/and."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 18, 2008 5:48 PM
How About a GREATER AWAKENING???
The term 'Christian' was not even coined until the days of Paul, about 3 decades after Jesus walked the earth a man.
Jesus was NEVER A CHRISTIAN!
But, he was a social justice, radical revolutionary Palestinian devout Jewish road warrior who rose up and challenged the job security of the Temple authorities by teaching the people they did NOT need to pay the priests for ritual baths or sacrificing livestock to be OK with God; for God already LOVED them just as they were:
Sinners, poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under Roman Military Occupation.
What got Jesus crucified was disturbing the status quo of the Roman Occupying Forces of his time, by teaching the subversive concept that Caesar only had power because God allowed it and that God preferred the humble sinner, the poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under Roman Occupation above the elite and arrogant !
The early followers and lovers of Jesus were called members of THE WAY-being THE WAY he taught one should be; Nonviolent, a Peacemaker and one who did the will of the Father .
"What does God require? He has told you o'man! Be just, be merciful, and walk humbly with your Lord." -Micah 6:8
2,000 years ago The Cross had NO symbolic religious meaning.
When Jesus said: "Pick up your cross and follow me."
He was issuing a POLITICAL statement, for the main roads in Jerusalem were lined with crucified agitators, rebels, dissidents and any others who disturbed the status quo of the Roman Occupying Forces.
Jesus remained NONVIOLENT and forgiving even while being mocked, whipped and nailed to a cross and he promised that it is the Peacemakers who are the children of God, not the peace-talkers.
Eileen Fleming, Reporter and Editor
Http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author "Keep Hope Alive" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"
Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu."
Posted by: Eileen Fleming | January 18, 2008 5:53 PM
Rick,
Like I said, I found great churches on both ends of the spectrum. Personal experience and giving stats show that conservatives are not holding onto there money. The rest, you lost me.
Back to my original post. I didn't say politics is not or will not be one agent of change. What I said was we as Christians need to transcend those political camps. If we throw off the labels it is much easier to give and take within the church of what works and what doesn't. I used William and Katherine Booth as examples. London had conservatives and liberals in politics and in churches. Yet child prostitution, child labor, human trafficking (literally shipping women in crates across the Channel) horrible working conditions especially in match factories, hunger, homelessness, etc.
The Booths didn't work through a party or a system. They made the parties and the system deal with them. A liberal or conservative movement to help the poor will not go far. A revival of people will change a nation.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 18, 2008 6:10 PM
Like I said, I found great churches on both ends of the spectrum. Personal experience and giving stats show that conservatives are not holding onto there money. The rest, you lost me.
These are also the same people who likely complain the most about the government "stealing" their tax money to give to the "underserving underclass." That's what I'm talking about -- the difference between "charity" and "justice."
London had conservatives and liberals in politics and in churches. Yet child prostitution, child labor, human trafficking (literally shipping women in crates across the Channel) horrible working conditions especially in match factories, hunger, homelessness, etc.
But you know well that laws were eventually changed to address those situations. To paraphrase Jim Wallis, it's not enough to fish people out of the river; we need to find out who/what is throwing them into the river in the first place
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 18, 2008 6:18 PM
Wallis is only digesting and repeatng those theologians, and he ends up saying things that Marcus Borg, Matthew Fox, and John Spong were saying 20 years ago.
Except that Wallis has been out there for over 30 years. And I'm not sure how much he actually has in common with Spong.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 18, 2008 6:27 PM
Don: "The A/G is dispensational; the Churches of Christ are not (they're usually amillennial, too)."
Don, I grew up in Church of Christ (instrumental) in Ohio. Certainly my congregation, and all the C of C/Christian churches with which I was familiar, were premillenial dispensationalist. I can recall very well seeing the dispensations laid out in charts and drawings in Wednesday nite Bible study.
Posted by: carl copas | January 18, 2008 6:56 PM
"Except that Wallis has been out there for over 30 years. And I'm not sure how much he actually has in common with Spong."
I'm not sure if Spong is even a Christian. Anything in Biblical teaching that offends his sensibilities, he simply throws out.
Posted by: carl copas | January 18, 2008 6:59 PM
Jeff and Carl:
When I said what I said about the Assemblies of God and the Churches of Christ, I spoke primarily from contacts I've had in those two groups.
Jeff:
Since you are an Assemblies of God pastor, I feel I'm not qualified to debate you; after all, you should know, but nevertheless I'm quite confused. If the Assemblies of God denomination isn't dispensational, why did my sons, when they attended Royal Rangers meetings, have to pledge their belief in the Rapture? And why, in the 1980s, the best-known A/G pastor of that era, Jimmy Swaggart, did an entire series in his bible study radio program on dispensationalism?
And from the Assemblies of God Web site, some quotes from an official position paper on the End Times:
"... The latter is referred to among evangelicals as the Rapture...Jesus said His coming will result in one individual being taken from a location while another is left. This indicates a sudden removal of believers from the earth with unbelievers left to face tribulation...
"Although God's people may endure severe trials before the Lord comes, the Church will be raptured before the period called the Great Tribulation...
"It is consistent with God's dealings with His people in the Old Testament to believe that the Church will be removed from the world before the Great Tribulation...
"The weight of Scripture supports a pre-Tribulation Rapture... To interpose other events before the Rapture does violence to such teaching."
This sounds like dispensational premillennialism to me.
Carl:
I don't know about the 'instrumental' Churches of Christ, but one of the lay leaders in my former church grew up and once served as an elder and lay pastor in the 'non-instrumental' Churches of Christ. He did his undergraduate work at a Churches of Christ Bible college. He was clearly non-dispensational and amillennial in his own thinking and further, told me on several occasions that all the Churches of Christ he was familiar with rejected dispensationalism and were for the most part amillennial. Some were even redically preterist in their interpretations of prophecy.
That's all I can say. I'm confused and don't know any more.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 18, 2008 7:34 PM
Don,
I think we may have different definitions of "dispensationalism". The A/G end time beliefs are very similar to most dispensationalist (rapture, pre-trib, pre-mil). I think because of the Left Behind series, most people identify these beliefs with dispensationalism. The key point of difference is the issue of the work of the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts. Dispies believe in specific dispensations (I think seven). The current period of time (dispensation) God reveals Himself through the Bible. Since the cannon is closed their is no need know for the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Traditionally, dispies were the harshest critics of the A/G (though not as much know).
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 18, 2008 7:51 PM
Rick,
you said,
"But you know well that laws were eventually changed to address those situations."
Once again, yes, politics is a part. But politics rarely if ever initiate change. A good example of this is the current Clinton vs. Obama debate about MLK and LBJ. MLK led the way, if LBJ didn't sign the Civil Rights bill, someone else would have. But without MLK it would never have happened.
In London the change doesn't come until Booth appears on the scene.
Here is my problem with the religious right and with Wallis. They both work within their political labels. The next Booth will not come from the right or the left. He/she will smash those labels. When that happens there will be politicians from right and left trying to get ahead of the wave.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 18, 2008 9:35 PM
A good example of this is the current Clinton vs. Obama debate about MLK and LBJ. MLK led the way, if LBJ didn't sign the Civil Rights bill, someone else would have. But without MLK it would never have happened.
I don't see anyone else signing the bill. The political situation at that time was that a Democrat could not get elected without the South, but the Republicans before that time couldn't really care less about the issue of race (one way or the other). That was why Kennedy wasn't amenable to civil-rights concerns at the start.
Here is my problem with the religious right and with Wallis. They both work within their political labels. The next Booth will not come from the right or the left. He/she will smash those labels.
I disagree -- today he/she will come from the left, relatively speaking, because the right has the bucks and the mics right now. The prophet speaks truth to power and damn the consequences -- he/she will be denounced as a heretic, out of touch with reality etc. Even Booth was denounced by the "conservatives" of his day.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 18, 2008 10:14 PM
Once again, yes, politics is a part. But politics rarely if ever initiate change. A good example of this is the current Clinton vs. Obama debate about MLK and LBJ. MLK led the way, if LBJ didn't sign the Civil Rights bill, someone else would have. But without MLK it would never have happened.
Are you seriously trying to argue that MLK wasn't attempting to create political change, or that he wasn't concerned with justice in the liberal sense rather than charity in the conservative sense? Wow.
Posted by: paperwight | January 18, 2008 10:57 PM
Just in time for the election, Jim Wallis decides that the left gets it after all. Didn't see that coming.
"Wallis is only digesting and repeatng those theologians, and he ends up saying things that Marcus Borg, Matthew Fox, and John Spong were saying 20 years ago."
I want this quote on the book jacket.
"Are you seriously trying to argue that MLK wasn't attempting to create political change,"
He's arguing precisely the opposite, and crediting MLK with the change. He is correct that someone else would have authored the bill, as members of both parties were trying to capitalize on the sea change that had been written on the wall decades before.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 19, 2008 1:07 AM
The key point of difference is the issue of the work of the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts.
Jeff, I think you are describing what I have always heard called "cessationism," the idea that the charismata are no longer operative. You are right that dispensationalists were often cessationists as well and highly critical of Pentecostalism, and they used the seven dispensations as "evidence" that the gifts of the Spirit had ceased.
It is true, then, that the Assemblies of God believe and teach that God has more or less separate plans for Israel and the Church, and that God's final acts of salvation for Israel will begin after the church is Raptured? If so, then I would say that the denomination is dispensational, at least in its understanding of future or "end times" events. But what does the A/G teach about the seven dispensations, and how do they relate the gifts of the Spirit to this understanding?
By the way, I also thought the Holiness churches (e.g., the Wesleyan and Nazarene churches) were also very critical of Pentecostalism at one time.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 19, 2008 7:51 AM
He is correct that someone else would have authored the bill, as members of both parties were trying to capitalize on the sea change that had been written on the wall decades before.
Sounds like revisionist history to me. With the Democratic coalition in peril and the Republicans moving to the right, any bill that supported rights for blacks would have been radioactive, especially in the South -- and Johnson knew it. It became an issue only because, as Wallis said, King forced it.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 19, 2008 8:42 AM
Personally, I don't think we are going to get very far in a spiritual awakening if we keep dividing the body of Christ between "progressive/liberal" and "conservative/hard-right." Wallis has identified many aspects of conservative political that do not conform to Christian beliefs. He glosses over the differences with the political left. I Corinthians 1:23 says, "...but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." Take the reference to the Jews as the conservatives and the Gentiles as the progressives -- Christ is either a stumbling block or foolishness. There are many on the political (and a few on the religious) left who cannot accept Christ as the Son of God, 100% man and 100% God, crucified, buried and rose again, maker of all things (there's some foolishness for you), and the source of our salvation. Before we hitch our ride to the Democratic party, let's realize that we serve Christ first and not lose our anchor in the process.
Posted by: doc75 | January 19, 2008 11:11 AM
Thank you, Jim Wallis and Soujourners for providing a critical counter-balance to the wrong direction that evangelical church had taken. It is heartening to see that it doesn't have to be that way.
To Rick Nowlin: Your grasp of history is amazing. I always enjoy your posts.
I have not been reading the MLK posts that closely but my understanding is that Johnson may have gone on board with the Voting Rights Act with the hopes of maintaining a coalition in support of the Vietnam war. That would explain Johnson's utter disdain for MLK after he openly came out in opposition to the war. LBJ may have felt betrayed because his quid pro quo did not work. Any thoughts on this, Rick?
Peace,
James Martin
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 19, 2008 11:14 AM
Before we hitch our ride to the Democratic party, let's realize that we serve Christ first and not lose our anchor in the process.
I don't see that happening as it is. The Democrats may look good these days but only because the conservatives who run the Republican Party have exposed themselves as completely unreasonable. Rememeber the subtitle to "God's Politics": "Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It."
LBJ may have felt betrayed because his quid pro quo did not work. Any thoughts on this, Rick?
I don't entirely agree with that because King always opposed the war but went public with it only after the bills were passed (probably at Coretta's urging). Anyway, one reason LBJ decided not to run for a second term was that he knew he was caught in a no-win situation -- it has since come out that he believed the Vietnam War was unwinnable but feared the then-ascending right wing in the Republican Party then-represented by Barry Goldwater and which supported the war (because it believed in the "domino effect"). Remember, many of his fellow Southern Democrats were then making noise about joining the GOP, in large part because of the national Democratic Party supporting civil rights for blacks but also because they too feared Communism (a charge leveled at King); LBJ thus was about to lose his political base.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 19, 2008 11:46 AM
"members of both parties were trying to capitalize on the sea change that had been written on the wall decades before."
kevin s, are you saying that the actions of MLK and LBJ didn't really matter? please expand on "written on the wall decades before."
In the 1930s Northern Republicans and a few, a very few, Northern Democrat allies couldn't even get a federal anti-lynching law passed because of Southern Dem. opposition and FDR's unwillingness to challenge the South.
Then along came Hitler and WW2, which highlighted awakened millions to the evils of racism, the opportunity that the war afforded to African Americans to "prove" their worthiness, cold war dynamics--the Soviets harped on U.S. racism in the East-West propaganda war, Truman's desegregation of the armed forces--Korea was the first war in American history fought on an integrated basis, and above all, African Americans exercising their own agency through the NAACP's strategy of fighting Jim Crow in the court system and the grassroots, mass civil rights movement in the South.
None of that was fore-ordained. It involved chance, contingency, and people seizing opportunities that moment offered. Or do you feel that structure trumps agency, chance, and contingency in the making of history?
Posted by: carl copas | January 19, 2008 11:54 AM
"I don't know about the 'instrumental' Churches of Christ."
Don,
in my hometown when I was a kid in the 1960s-70s (the population was about 1500) there were two Churches of Christ, one non-instrumental and one instrumental. Incredibly, the two denominations enjoyed no fellowship whatsoever.
Obviously, there is a lot of variety within the camp of Churches of Christ/Christian Church/Disciples of Christ/Campbellites/"Restorationist movement."
Thanks for the example of the lay leader of your former church. If it makes you feel any better, the variation in beliefs on millenialism, musical instruments, etc. bewilders me too. And I grew up in that camp.
Oh, and 3 famous Americans who grew up in this branch of Xtianity: Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Buddy Holly. I guess one out of 3 ain't bad!
Posted by: carl copas | January 19, 2008 12:05 PM
Wow, we really did stray off the topic, didn't we?
The reality is that spiritual revival, while not political itself, will have political implications, and I think Jim historically has it right. I remember back in the 1980s when Pat Robertson was praying for "revival," but he was praying, really, for the Holy Spirit simply to sweep folks into the church without any effort on his part so that he didn't have to engage in any kind of spiritual warfare -- and God won't bless that.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 19, 2008 12:51 PM
The reality is that spiritual revival, while not political itself, will have political implications, and I think Jim historically has it right. I remember back in the 1980s when Pat Robertson was praying for "revival," but he was praying, really, for the Holy Spirit simply to sweep folks into the church without any effort on his part so that he didn't have to engage in any kind of spiritual warfare -- and God won't bless that.
Rick, my concern is how can we engage in spiritual warfare if we pick and choose which scriptures are from God because the Bible isn't progressive enough? I guess I'm not interested in cutting the anchor to modernize the church. We can diss believers who support "inerrancy" but there's a rich history of believers with that conviction who have helped the poor and brought social justice. There's also a history of secular individuals who have also worked for social justice but could care less about the spiritual condition of humanity. Social justice without faith will ultimately be corrupted.
Posted by: doc75 | January 19, 2008 1:02 PM
We can diss believers who support "inerrancy" but there's a rich history of believers with that conviction who have helped the poor and brought social justice.
I won't argue with you on that. However, I grew up in a church that spent most of its time addressing theological issues and did virtually nothing to help those in need. It's a little hard to focus on maintaining your own authority and doing right by others at the same time, let alone knowing God's will. It's not simply what you believe that God blesses; it's what you do with that.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 19, 2008 1:27 PM
"kevin s, are you saying that the actions of MLK and LBJ didn't really matter?"
Huh? Don't know where you got that, though I would emphasize the work of MLK over LBJ.
"Sounds like revisionist history to me."
I'm sure it does, to you. Read up about LBJ, HHH and Nixon's actions during this period. As Carl Copas said, the whole process "involved chance, contingency, and people seizing opportunities that moment offered."
Posted by: kevin s. | January 19, 2008 1:40 PM
Read up about LBJ, HHH and Nixon's actions during this period. As Carl Copas said, the whole process "involved chance, contingency, and people seizing opportunities that moment offered."
Sounds fishy to me, especially considering Southern Democrats' migration to the GOP starting then and allying with right-wing Cold Warriors then.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 19, 2008 2:00 PM
We can diss believers who support "inerrancy"
doc75
Many people do , but God is Ok with it . Besides ,
Acknowledging God , reaching out to the unsaved and lifting those in Christ Up and encougaging one another is different then the ways this organization and other "religious" organizations usually cary out political goals . There is so much attention focused on scapegoating , it appears to consume the movement .
Politically I hope the secualarist left don't win , but considering what the republicans have done as of late I am not up in arms about it , spirtually , well I am sticking with God .
And as here , at least it is good to know people of Faith are welcomed in their camp, you just have to agree with the issues or ignore the ones on their side of the compass.
Maybe some of these folks will see the light and realize its not fellow conservative Christians that are the enemy , its something different .
From the hard core opinions here I know it will not be NOT through an intellectual exchange however . Pre conceived biases , I know I have some that pretty hard to over come .
Posted by: Mick | January 19, 2008 2:18 PM
Politically I hope the secualarist left don't win, but considering what the republicans have done as of late I am not up in arms about it, spirtually, well I am sticking with God.
You assume that "left" and "secular" are synonymous. Well, the secular right has caused more problems in this country over the past 30 years than any ideological force, so I'm dying to see a change.
Maybe some of these folks will see the light and realize its not fellow conservative Christians that are the enemy, its something different.
That will happen when, and only when, conservative Christians stop seeing anyone who disagrees with them as the enemy to be defeated. And that will happen when, and only when, they stop fighting the "culture war" and cease raising money for it.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 19, 2008 2:25 PM
"Could it be that conservative Christians have a tendency to put there money and action where there mouths are. Whereas progressives would like to put someone else's money where their (progressives) mouth's are?"
Jeff
No. My immediate past church, which was quite liberal but still active in the community, gave away more money than in most other churches' budgets
Rick
No Rick you are simply incorrect . This is not true . Your individual experiences do not line up with churches of today . You have a unique church may I add , and you have stated they are thoelogically based more concervative , but politically more liberal ? Hence you double speak about their giving nature .
Do you believe the politics is motivating your church to help in your community , or the message of the Bible that your members adhere to ? I suggest to you it is the bible .
Your culture , experiences , and what you think is best supports your politics. You have combined them here and appear to be attacking what has saved you .
Which bears out what Jeff is saying , why , because it is obvious if you take the Bible more literaly , we are directed by the Almighty Himself doing more to help the homeless, help those without , and preach the word . So it makes more sense if God is telling you to give rather then a George Bush or a Hillary Clinton , you will most likely listen and do more .
The problem on the right is also you have people taking or making an emphasis of certain scriptures literally . Hence , as you having the threat of homosexual activitism being almost the whole political agenda of certain organizations .
I do not deny the scriptures , but I would tend to believe some of the culturaly changes we are experiencing is not the fault of homosexual activitism , that the many changes that went before hand that appears to go un noticed have already occured . Homosexual activitism is a result , not a cause in my opinion . I was particpating in those culturally changes , so I can only point the finger at me also .
But the left is no better from my view , in fact worse . Why is tithing and giving more to God considered something that proves that one theology is better ? I give to God begrudingly at times , and at times with so much joy , and at times because I know the money is His and I am just putting in in the proper Hands . But I know it is suppose to be just another way to Praise God , and its why I believe we have such a direct missing link with the left , especially here .
I am not a better person because I give more , or does that make me right when I argue a politcal point with you . I give more because of the belief system I have , the standards that I believe God wants me to have . If I go against those standards the left may cause me a hypocrit , but actually the worse thing that happens is the people I love are hurt when I do not follow what God Intends for my life .
Helping those who can not help themselves , making sure the planet is cleaner then this generation found it , social justice to what I have understood it from your posts , hard because you attack oftem more then enligheten ,
are all things most likely we could agree on .
Its the middle man the left uses that causes confusion on the conservative side of the political and religious spectrum , and that confusion as reported here is because of the evil of the right and of the believers on the right side of the political dial . That is such a falsehood .
If Wallis is not like this , if his organization ever gets going eventually this belief will stop it .
The left wins the debate with the secualists , not their fellow believers . Huckabee is just one example that refreshes you , his numbers are hugh in the Christian Community , and he is attacked just as though he is a Reagan or Roberston by the left His religion is used as a threat to democracy . He is not a die hard conservative , he is a populist and concerned with social justice .
Was glad to see you noticed it , many in your camp do not . Our Caucus is coming up and I still have no clue who I am voting for .
The Ron Paul folks are trying to do a take over , much as the Christioan Coalition did in the 90's , some of the same people also by the way , they sure are a dedicated bunch . But I don';t think they have the numbers .
Posted by: Mick | January 19, 2008 2:59 PM
You have a unique church may I add, and you have stated they are thoelogically based more concervative, but politically more liberal? Hence you double speak about their giving nature.
If you read my words carefully, I specifically said that my immediate past church gave away more money than was in most churches' budgets, to the point that it was supporting other churches in that denomination, and that still might be true (I left 10 years ago because it had become too theologically liberal for many of my friends who also left).
Do you believe the politics is motivating your church to help in your community, or the message of the Bible that your members adhere to? I suggest to you it is the bible.
However, in helping the community the politics of my current church have changed, which was my point; it used to be pretty right-wing but not anymore. Before I came to our church our deacons put themselves through an exercise of trying to support a family on an annual income of less than $16,000 in order to "put themselves in the other person's shoes." You see, most conservatives insist that "the poor" are poor only because they don't really want to work to better themselves; from personal experience we now understand there is a real lack of opportunity plus a loss of hope that affect people mentally. And that caused us to change our thinking politically.
Huckabee is just one example that refreshes you, his numbers are hugh in the Christian Community, and he is attacked just as though he is a Reagan or Roberston by the left His religion is used as a threat to democracy. He is not a die hard conservative, he is a populist and concerned with social justice.
Excuse me, but most of Huckabee's bullets come from the right and religion has nothing to do with it -- Bob Novak and the Club for Growth (which he aptly calls the "Club for Greed") have gone after him hard. However, he has gone a little too far in trying to invoke Jesus in his campaign, for which he does deserve criticism; in Iowa he even called himself a "Christian leader."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 19, 2008 3:31 PM
I am reading James Kennedy's How Would Jesus Vote? I have never seen a book state so perfectly the opposite of what I believe. Read Kennedy's book alongside Wallis'--which book would Jesus say comes closest to His teaching?
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 19, 2008 3:40 PM
I won't argue with you on that. However, I grew up in a church that spent most of its time addressing theological issues and did virtually nothing to help those in need. It's a little hard to focus on maintaining your own authority and doing right by others at the same time, let alone knowing God's will. It's not simply what you believe that God blesses; it's what you do with that.
Rick, I hear you. It's like walking a tight rope between growing in the deep personal knowledge of God and extending the blessings of that relationship to the world around us. We can focus too much on one or the other and tip over. But that's why the Spirit guides us.
Posted by: doc75 | January 19, 2008 4:44 PM
“Second, and more important, the agenda of the faith community”
Should it be, “Second, and more importantly?”…anyway
“conventional conservative wisdom holds that government largesse destroyed the 'hood because it eliminated folks' desire to work. They don't mention, however, that when wealthier folks moved to the suburbs they ended up taking their financial heft with them -- after all, stores etc. have to have customers to stay in business.”
Wait, so rich people are good? Conventional liberal wisdom holds that poor people cannot succeed because rich people are greedy and suppress the opportunities for poor people. Why didn’t poor people rise up seize all the opportunities that were available after the hoarding ruling class moved to the suburbs?
Boy, rich people can’t win with liberals. It’s their fault when they’re there and their fault when they’re not.
“You see, most conservatives insist that "the poor" are poor only because they don't really want to work to better themselves;”
Lack of work, illegitimate children, and dropping out of high school…that just about sums it up why people are poor. To cure poverty we need to eliminate these things. As Christians we also need to help those that do make bad decisions that add to the likelihood of living in poverty. Government programs that essentially bribe the poor into making these bad decisions are certainly not the answer.
It’s not our money and property. It’s God’s money and property. I get that. But, if that means that we can involuntarily take from others as we see fit, why did he command us not to steal?
When Jesus talks about helping the poor he doesn’t threaten the use of force if we don’t. Why would he promote a government to do so? If God wanted charity and justice to be involuntary, he could have made it so. God certainly values the freedom of choice. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that free market economies do a far better job at helping the poor
Posted by: DontImmanentizeTheEschaton | January 19, 2008 5:05 PM
Conventional liberal wisdom holds that poor people cannot succeed because rich people are greedy and suppress the opportunities for poor people. Why didn’t poor people rise up seize all the opportunities that were available after the hoarding ruling class moved to the suburbs?
Such opportunities went with them.
Lack of work, illegitimate children, and dropping out of high school…that just about sums it up why people are poor. To cure poverty we need to eliminate these things.
In fact, it's just the opposite -- cure poverty and you eliminate those things. First, folks, especially men, need good paying jobs that take them off the street so that they can keep marriages together and raise children. (It's an accepted fact that financial issues sabotage the majority of marriages.)
But, if that means that we can involuntarily take from others as we see fit, why did he command us not to steal?
You mischaracterize the problem. I don't live in the best neighborhood myself, but I don't mind taxation if it actually helps people survive -- because I know it will help me down the road. What do you think it should be? "I got mine and to hell with you?" Since when does that attitude represent Christ?
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 19, 2008 5:29 PM
Rick:
You actually validated DITE's point: it isn't that the wealthy are all that much more virtuous or more evil than the poor. The point is that in the real world a community that drives the wealthy away by violence or confiscatory taxation always winds up poorer for it, with fewer opportunities for all.
As far as the relationship between poverty on one hand and illegitimacy, high-school dropout rates, and unemployment, the fact is that all of these exploded in the sixties and seventies in inner cities -- in the wake of government-run entitlement programs. So either your causation pattern is all backwards, or entitlement programs do not, in fact cure poverty.
Which leads to your final thought: if taxation doesn't help people survive -- if the programs it funds actually enable self-destructive behaviour, as we know was the case with much of the "Great Society" -- then is the Christian response to just play along because the politicians who set it all up meant well?
Wolverine
PS: No need to answer this, but as a self-described expert on conservatism, you should be familiar with "immanentizing the eschaton". You do know what that refers to, don't you?
Posted by: Wolverine | January 19, 2008 5:52 PM
Rick Nowlin wrote:
You see, most conservatives insist that "the poor" are poor only because they don't really want to work to better themselves; from personal experience we now understand there is a real lack of opportunity plus a loss of hope that affect people mentally. And that caused us to change our thinking politically.
Rick,
Perhaps you could give a couple of examples of responsible conservative spokesmen who have expressed that opinion?
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | January 19, 2008 5:56 PM
The point is that in the real world a community that drives the wealthy away by violence or confiscatory taxation always winds up poorer for it, with fewer opportunities for all.
You know full well that's not what really happens. Those with means go to greener pastures and begin to look down upon those who are "left behind." Eventually, because a certain area is no longer considered "desirable" property values decrease, which often means taxes go up to maintain the same services and poorer people with fewer options move in. (That's precisely what happened in the area where I grew up.)
As far as the relationship between poverty on one hand and illegitimacy, high-school dropout rates, and unemployment, the fact is that all of these exploded in the sixties and seventies in inner cities -- in the wake of government-run entitlement programs. So either your causation pattern is all backwards, or entitlement programs do not, in fact cure poverty.
For openers, the 'hood already was like that; because of the situations I've already mentioned government welfare programs would have made little, if any, difference in actual behavior (and that's something the political right just won't deal with). Besides, such government programs also included job-training and grants for college, which worked like a charm. But I noticed their was virtually no homeless problem until 1981. I don't think that was a coincidence.
Which leads to your final thought: if taxation doesn't help people survive -- if the programs it funds actually enable self-destructive behaviour, as we know was the case with much of the "Great Society" -- then is the Christian response to just play along because the politicians who set it all up meant well?
The Christian response is to go back to the root of the problem, which is exactly as I've always said but that no one seems to want to address: Lack of access. All the conservative talk about "morality" and "hard work" doesn't mean a hill of beans if it doesn't actually lead to tangible results, and with the history of racism in this country -- of course, a disproportionate share of the poor is African-American -- that community understands from painful experience that factors other than personal character come into play. If you go back to school to get a degree but can't find work with it, what good is it?
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 19, 2008 6:15 PM
Perhaps you could give a couple of examples of responsible conservative spokesmen who have expressed that opinion?
Well, to be specific I used to see that a lot in World magazine, for starters. But that was a common theme restated in the conservative literature I used to read in the 1980s and '90s.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 19, 2008 6:20 PM
Getting back to the subject of Jim Wallis' blog, I've read a portion of his book, The Great Awakening. I myself am a liberal Christian & while I don't share all of Jim's views, I am always inspired when I read his books - enough to motivate me to change careers (into nonprofit). And it's paying off.
I would encourage anyone else relatively interested (or judgmental) to visit the book's website. It has a lot of interesting info: www.sojo.net/greatawakening
Posted by: Megan | January 19, 2008 6:25 PM
Publisher's Weekly (following a link originally provided by Sojo, no less) wrote:
As a cohesive book, however, this has a rough and clunky sensibility, with considerable repetition of ideas, examples and even phrasing. It has the feel of discrete essays and speeches that have been knocked together and too lightly edited.
Assuming the reviewer is correct, then I predict that this book will fail to do what Wallis wants it to do. Financially the book may do tolerably well, but in terms of "changing the wind" this is not what Sojo needs.
Jim Wallis sees dissatisfaction with conservatism among a lot of evangelicals. I think he sees something real although we interpret it differently: Wallis anticipates a sharp move to the left, I expect a move towards less political activism.
If Jim is right then at some point someone is going to have to draw up what might be thought of as a manifesto, a broad, well-thought-out agenda for an evangelical left. This manifesto should describe a new approach to governing that is both liberal and consistent with scripture, and at the same time does not duck tough moral issues like gay marriage and abortion.
This manifesto will involve serious thought about principles and careful application to current issues. I don't think that's an impossible task, but it's not something that can be done simply by stringing a bunch of speeches and essays together.
Of course, this reviewer could be wrong, but otherwise it looks to me like the Rise of the Christian Left will have to wait.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | January 19, 2008 7:08 PM
“Such opportunities went with them.”
So you agree that rich people are a good and necessary part of society?
“In fact, it's just the opposite -- cure poverty and you eliminate those things. First, folks, especially men, need good paying jobs that take them off the street so that they can keep marriages together and raise children. (It's an accepted fact that financial issues sabotage the majority of marriages.)”
Teenagers having children doesn’t have anything to do with keeping marriages together or men having good jobs. The reality is if a person doesn’t have children out of wedlock, graduate high school, and work a job, ANY JOB, fulltime for a year; it is nearly statistically impossible for them to be poor. I have seen these statistics in my personal experiences. I have been volunteering to do poor people’s taxes for a number of years now. Even the ones I work with that have children out of wedlock that work fulltime aren’t poor for more than a couple of years. They get promoted from cashier to supervisor and then I don’t see them anymore presumably because they make too much money to take advantage of the free service. The ones that keep coming back because they are always going to be poor are the ones with the same structural-barriers-victimization mindset that you have. Don’t tell the Somali immigrants in my neighborhood that there are no good jobs and they can’t get ahead.
“What do you think it should be? "I got mine and to hell with you?" Since when does that attitude represent Christ?”
Christ never talked about government solutions to poverty. Would you ask him that same question? I’m not against taxation or even some government programs. Just because government isn’t doing something doesn’t mean nothing is getting done.
Posted by: DontImmanentizeTheEschaton | January 19, 2008 7:18 PM
"The liberal churches are dying and the conservative churches are exploding"
That's not what I see happening. The liberal churches used to be "mainstream," and they became complacent. Then the conservative churches became mainstream, and they too got complacent. That's why I chuckle when I see the conservative churches described as those that "refuse to compromise with the broader world." That's exactly what they've been doing, in droves.
I teach young people, many of whom are evangelical, and their politics aren't really either liberal or conservative in the terms still widely taken for granted. They are, however, the wave of the future, and the church of the future will recognize that.
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 19, 2008 7:22 PM
Rick Nowlin wrote:
You know full well that's not what really happens.
Actually, I stand by what I wrote quite firmly: it happened in Detroit with white flight and the later departure of the black middle class. (I can give you more examples if you like.)
Those with means go to greener pastures and begin to look down upon those who are "left behind." Eventually, because a certain area is no longer considered "desirable" property values decrease, which often means taxes go up to maintain the same services and poorer people with fewer options move in. (That's precisely what happened in the area where I grew up.)
Rick sees the problem entirely as one of lost tax revenue, but that's only part of the problem. What he neglects to mention is closed businesses. All those awful shops and restaurants and industries that the rich (hiss, boo) used to accumulate filthy lucre also provided jobs.
He also forgets to mention the stability that the wealthy help to maintain through such things as contributions to local churches.
A doctor living in Detroit during the seventies was more than a source for tax revenues: he probably employed a nurse and a receptionist. And then there's that whole medicine thing. It's better to see a doctor nearby than have to drive to the other side of town.
The bottom line is, in several ways that doctor -- almost guaranteed to be a wealthy man by the standards of that community -- improved the quality of life in Detroit even if he never paid a nickel in taxes. The residents of that city were better off when he was around, regardless of why he eventually left or what political party he preferred.
But yes, when the wealthy leave one effect is that it becomes harder for government to fund itself and provide needed services. If anything, this only proves my point: there are reasons why a healthy society will want to keep its wealthy people around.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | January 19, 2008 7:37 PM
So you agree that rich people are a good and necessary part of society?
I don't have a problem with rich people. My problem is when they jimmy the system to benefit them at the expense of everyone else, which is what we've seen over the past three decades (and also which Scripture condemns.
Teenagers having children doesn’t have anything to do with keeping marriages together or men having good jobs.
OH, YES, IT CERTAINLY DOES!!!
What happens is that because Dad often can't find a good job to support the family Mom has to, and that causes discord in the marriage because he's not pulling his weight. That also affects his relationship with the kids, who lose respect for him; he especially cannot "cover" his daughters, leaving them vulnerable to the leches down the street. (With most girls who get pregnant the father is considerably older; thus, they're seeking a "father figure.")
Christ never talked about government solutions to poverty.
That is not germane to this discussion because the issue whether we create a culture/society which gives opportunity to all. At least the "liberals" that you so despise were willing to give it a shot. I have never seen the conservatives do so.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 19, 2008 7:58 PM
"As a cohesive book, however, this has a rough and clunky sensibility, with considerable repetition of ideas, examples and even phrasing. It has the feel of discrete essays and speeches that have been knocked together and too lightly edited."
There's a blurb for the jacket.
"a cohesive book."
-Publisher's Weekly
Posted by: kevin s. | January 19, 2008 8:00 PM
What he neglects to mention is closed businesses. All those awful shops and restaurants and industries that the rich (hiss, boo) used to accumulate filthy lucre also provided jobs.
Many of the bedroom communities around here don't have those shops -- they in many cases were put out of business by big-box stores located in the shopping malls that won't even locate anywhere near cities.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 19, 2008 8:02 PM
"Many of the bedroom communities around here don't have those shops -- they in many cases were put out of business by big-box stores located in the shopping malls that won't even locate anywhere near cities."
Did you intend to reinforce Wolverine's point? Because that was his point.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 20, 2008 12:17 AM
Did you intend to reinforce Wolverine's point? Because that was his point.
I don't see how. Some years ago (and you may remember this), I was covering a story about a fight over a Wal-Mart; an activist group didn't want the store because it would kill the "mon-and-pop" stores in that area because they couldn't match their prices -- they won the fight because of a landslide on the site.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 20, 2008 8:51 AM
"Evangelicals are simply re-inventing the liberal wheel with the additional problem of having to cling to creationism, inerrancy, dispensationalism, and all the baggage of evangelicalism which prevents true growth."
Christ Jesus preached creationism (in fact He IS the Creator), inerrancy of scripture and preached against "liberal" theology. Evangelical was what every Apostle was. Not a one espoused "liberal" theology and in fact, opposes what liberal theology touts "today." And Progressives are even worse theologically than Liberals.
Posted by: Donny | January 20, 2008 8:56 AM
Jesus couldn't have known whether creationism was true or not since He didn't know the earth was round, or that the sun was the center of the solar system, or that the earth was billions of years old. He didn't know anything about genetics. He was a man who grew in wisdom and stature 2000 years ago before any of this was known. He was fully God in the way the bread and wine of the sacrament are fully God--they are the presence of God without being personally aware of it. Jesus was an icon of God, as Colossians puts it. The wood of the icon does not know it is making God present--it simply exists as God's presence. Jesus didn't have to know He was God in order to be fully God and fully human. That would be Monophysitism in its purest form.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 20, 2008 12:41 PM
That's why I chuckle when I see the conservative churches described as those that "refuse to compromise with the broader world." That's exactly what they've been doing, in droves.
Posted by: Another nonymous
Yes I see that also , too much world in the church . I am a Christian though , and I fail to see the humor . What faith grouip do you belong to ?
What happens is that because Dad often can't find a good job to support the family Mom has to, and that causes discord in the marriage
Posted by: Rick Nowlin
Yes I can see that , Native American Culture was almost totally wiped clean of the male contributions because of a similiar problem .
"I don't have a problem with rich people. My problem is when they jimmy the system to benefit them at the expense of everyone else, which is what we've seen over the past three decades (and also which Scripture condemns."
Posted by Rick
I don't have a problem with what you say here , but its the redistribution of wealth that I believe democrats promote that stops the right from supporting their methods . The left is champion at putting one group against another ,
that gains votes and political power , but it really does not effect change .
Not because the poor is not always helped , but because socialism takes opportunity away . The people on the bottom have opportunites that are taken away , socialism is always used as a carrot to those who feel helpless, powerless and without hope .
Corporate welfare needs to be addressed , and conservatives need to be involved in it . But that won't happen in this generation , corporate economics and such is solidly in the GOP , and don't fool yourself , planted in the democratic party also .
Wallis anticipates a sharp move to the left, I expect a move towards less political activism.
Posted by Wolverine
This is spot on .
Posted by: Mick | January 20, 2008 3:13 PM
"The wood of the icon does not know it is making God present"
The scriptures state that Jesus was fully aware of who he was and what he represented. I don't know where you get this stuff. Well, I guess I know where you get it. I just don't know why you don't examine the texts to confirm its veracity.
"I don't see how."
Retailers, big box or otherwise, set up shop close to where shoppers are, for rather obvious reasons. This is part of the downward spiral that occurs when wealthy people abandon areas of a city. It is also why class warfare arguments don't really work.
The big box retailers do operate in cities, if there is space and interest (Minneapolis has them). Wealthy loft-owners downtown don't shop at Walmart and Best Buy, as a rule, and certainly not in the numbers that would justify the massive cost of renting or purchasing retail space. I'm not sure where you are going with that argument.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 20, 2008 3:31 PM
You might want to read N.T. Wright on the Incarnation. Jesus was not an all-powerful, all-knowing superbeing winking at us through the eyeholes of a mansuit. The human brain has only so much capacity for information. Jesus had a human brain. Human muscles are only so strong. Jesus had human muscles. Jesus was like me in all things, except without sin. It doesn't require omnipotence or omniscience to be sinless.
Jesus didn't do anything in His human life which spiritually adept humans have not done. There were healers before. Followers of Dionysus changed water into wine. Tibetan monks can levitate over water. Native American Shamans can calm storms. Any fully human person in relationship with God can do what Jesus did--in fact, they can do more than He did, since He had to go back to His Father.
Jesus is the Word of God made flesh, the purpose of God lived in a human life. He was the image of God the same way Adam was the image of God, except Jesus restored that image to its original perfection. He took manhood into God, as the Athanasian Creed says. He didn't know He was the second Person of the Trinity any more than the bread and wine knows it is His Body and Blood. Jesus is the Sacrament of God--a sacrament fully partakes in the reality of that which it represents. But a sacrament doesn't know it's a sacrament.
It's important to begin these discussions of social issues with a truly orthodox understanding of Jesus, not tainted by Monophysitism, Modalism, or Docetism. Giving Jesus the qualities of divinity which only belong to God the Father is heresy and idolatry. We only know how to live in this world and what should be important to society by looking at the human life of Jesus--in which we see God.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 20, 2008 4:16 PM
"Yes I see that also , too much world in the church . I am a Christian though , and I fail to see the humor ."
Well, it's rather ironic humor, I suppose. It comes of having been accused of selling out because of being a liberal, and then seeing the accusers sell out themselves. I may laugh at the commentary, but as to the situation, I don't think it's funny so much as sad. A conservative church that genuinely refuses to compromise with the world, e.g. the Amish, is one I can respect.
"What faith grouip do you belong to ?"
I belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which is well known for avoiding taking clear positions on issues by carefully staking out both sides. Again I speak ironically, but there is something to be said for that approach. It keeps us out of the kind of political hot water that the Episcopal Church has gotten into - but, more importantly, it leaves room open for the Holy Spirit to do its work. (Notice I didn't say her work...)
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 20, 2008 4:24 PM
"You might want to read N.T. Wright on the Incarnation. Jesus was not an all-powerful, all-knowing superbeing winking at us through the eyeholes of a mansuit."
Thanks for taking that straw man to pieces. He still knew that he was the way, truth and life. Wright would not deny that Jesus knew who he was.
"Jesus didn't do anything in His human life which spiritually adept humans have not done."
Here is just a short list of counterexamples.
1) He did not sin. No other human can say this, no matter how spiritually "adept".
2) He died for our sins.
3) He came back to life.
"Giving Jesus the qualities of divinity which only belong to God the Father is heresy and IDOLATRY."
You are the first person I have ever heard suggest that worshipping Jesus constitutes idolatry. The notion that Jesus did not know that God was present in him directly contradicsts scripture. Period. I don't care what your favorite theologians have to say about it.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 20, 2008 5:35 PM
"You are the first person I have ever heard suggest that worshipping Jesus constitutes idolatry. " Kevin S.
I guess that you've never met any Jehovah's Witnesses then.
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 20, 2008 6:08 PM
Rick,
So you concede then that a healthy community will seek to keep its wealthier members from fleeing?
I only ask because I have yet to figure out where you are going with the example of big-box retailers.
Since you see them as a definite evil (I'm not especially fond of them, but I don't see them as a huge problem) then anything that would bring in big-box retailers is a big problem.
Now you also seem to understand that well-off families are less likely to patronize the big box stores.
Fine. So having wealthy people around is a good thing, but apparently only when they do precisely what you want them to do?
What if they don't want to do what you want them to do?
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | January 20, 2008 6:46 PM
Jesus nowhere asks anyone to worship Him--He says, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." The worship given to Jesus by the Magi or anyone else was the same worship given to any ruler--David, for instance, was worshipped. I worship God. Jesus is the Incarnation of God, the Word and purpose of God made flesh. So, I worship Jesus. My prayers, to be accurate, are to God, through Jesus Christ your Son, Amen. I suspect you pray to God through Jesus, too, the way the Church has always done.
Many people in Scripture died and came back to life-Lazarus, the widow's son through Elijah, the bones in Ezekiel, Jairus' daughter--coming back to life was the sort of thing happened around holy people. Sinlessness was not unheard of. Elijah was taken into heaven because of his holiness. Mary was born without sin and lived without sinning, so that wasn't technially a new thing.
What makes Jesus different is not any superhuman power, but how His human life and death reconciled the world to God. Because of the way He lived His life, God raised Him up--He didn't raise Himself from the dead. God did. God directly intervened when Jesus couldn't raise Himself. That perfect submission to God in which each act is utterly in tune with God is one way of saying Jesus is God--Jesus and God are one the way Jesus says man and wife are one, though marriage isn't on the same level of oneness.
He wasn't superhuman or all knowing--Jesus lived out God's purpose so perfectly that He and His Father were one in their very being. When you see Jesus, you see the Father because Jesus always does what His father would do. Jesus is the only perfect icon of the Father. Jesus is the sacrament of God, and I give Jesus the same worship I give the sacrament of His Body and Blood.
And that's why I believe in universal health insurance. That worship calls me to act as Jesus would act in the world, or why would I bother to feed on His Body and Blood?
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 20, 2008 8:09 PM
Now you also seem to understand that well-off families are less likely to patronize the big box stores.
Not necessarily -- in fact, they're the ones who complain when things cost "too much." (And by "rich," I'm not talking about the $200,000 or more range, just your basic typical suburbanite.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 20, 2008 9:28 PM
I don't have a problem with what you say here, but its the redistribution of wealth that I believe democrats promote that stops the right from supporting their methods. The left is champion at putting one group against another,
that gains votes and political power, but it really does not effect change.
That's an oversimplification, and an inaccurate one at that -- the right says that because it wants to maintain power and authority at any cost. No one is actually talking about "redistribution of wealth"; rather it's about equalizing opportunities, and there's nothing wrong with that -- unless you as a "rich" person believe that you are entitled to what you have (and many really do). But those that believe the true Christian gospel will make sure that the culture is adjusted so that those that have can make their own way. I believe that, Wallis believes that and more and more evangelical Christians believe that.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 20, 2008 9:45 PM
Jesus nowhere asks anyone to worship Him--He says, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." The worship given to Jesus by the Magi or anyone else was the same worship given to any ruler--David, for instance, was worshipped.
I don't think so. For openers, Jesus was actually worshipped -- if He didn't believe He was worthy of worship He would have stopped people from doing so. (Contrast that with Paul and Barnabas tearing their clothes after some Greeks wanted to build a shrine to them.)
As for the Magi coming to worship Jesus, they were acting in response to a prophecy given by Daniel in Babylon several hundred years previously. Considering how tenaciously he clung to God even in a pagan culture but also how deeply respected he was, they knew what to look for.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 20, 2008 9:50 PM
"I guess that you've never met any Jehovah's Witnesses then."
Well, yeah, other religions would consider it idolatry.
"He says, "Why do you call me good? "
Do you know what a rhetorical question is? Jesus does not deny being good, he simply asks why he is called good. What do you think Christ meant when he said he was the way, the truth and the life?
"So, I worship Jesus."
Now I am completely confused as to what you believe.
"Sinlessness was not unheard of. Elijah was taken into heaven because of his holiness. Mary was born without sin and lived without sinning, so that wasn't technially a new thing. "
Where in the Bible does it say that Mary was born without sin? She was a virgin when she bore Jesus, not borne of a virgin. Either way, the Gospels document an instance of her sin, and Jesus rebukes her. There is no text that claims that Elijah was without sin.
"He wasn't superhuman or all knowing--Jesus lived out God's purpose so perfectly that He and His Father were one in their very being. "
Again, I am completely confused as to what you believe.
"And that's why I believe in universal health insurance."
Um, what?
Posted by: kevin s. | January 20, 2008 10:55 PM
"(And by "rich," I'm not talking about the $200,000 or more range, just your basic typical suburbanite.)"
Just to clarify, then, what income level spells rich to you?
Posted by: kevin s. | January 20, 2008 10:59 PM
kevin s. -- I'm talking not about income levels but class/culture/lifestyle -- the "cul-de-sac" crowd, if you will, that often can't see past its own nose. You know, the kind that's mortgaged to the hilt and living in a house they can't really afford so that they can enjoy the status of living in the "right" neighborhood.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 20, 2008 11:14 PM
I believe the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian Creed. I believe these are accurate summaries of the truths of Scripture.
Snow is one in being with water. You can say snow is water, but you can't say water is snow. You can say Jesus is God, but you can't say God is Jesus. Saying "God is Jesus" is a heresy--Docetism or Modalism. Many evangelicals say God is Jesus which makes much of evangelicalsm heretical. Look, for instance, at the Oneness theology of T. D. Jakes.
The Psalms promise that if you are sinless, your body won't see corruption. Because Enoch and Elijah were without sin, they were taken bodily into heaven without having to die.
If Mary had sinned, she would not have been the perfect tabernacle for the Messiah. Also, there is no grave recorded for Mary--which is odd, considering her prominence among the apostles. Therefore, tradition suggests that she, like Elijah and Enoch were taken into heaven.
Jesus was sinless, but so were others. His sinlessness is not proof of His divinity. Nor was His Resurrection--all humans will be resurrected one day, like the bones in Ezekiel. Jesus was just the first.
If I worship Jesus, I am called to work toward His goals--He healed, so I work to help society become a place where healing is a priority and available to all--hence, universal health care.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 20, 2008 11:55 PM
"If Mary had sinned, she would not have been the perfect tabernacle for the Messiah."
So? Where do the scriptures say she was perfect?
Posted by: kevin s. | January 21, 2008 9:48 AM
Jesus was sinless, but so were others.
Then what do you do with Isaiah 53:6?
We all, [emphasis mine] like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 21, 2008 10:08 AM
Ashpenaz,
The Immaculate Conception of Mary is a perfectly reasonable doctrine. It is, however, a Roman Catholic teaching (and to a lesser extent, an Eastern Orthodox one) and has never been widely accepted among Protestants.
(The one exception is "Anglo-Catholic" Anglicans -- but as the name suggests this is a minority position among a church that itself occupies a rather unique position in Western Christianity.)
You are free to accept this doctrine, I doubt anyone is going to declare you anathema over this, but understand that among Evangelicals and other Protestants appeals to the Immaculate Conception are likely to be no more persuasive than any other appeal to distinctively Roman Catholic teachings.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | January 21, 2008 11:27 AM
"Wallis anticipates a sharp move to the left, I expect a move towards less political activism."
Either one would be fantastic. I'm feeling hopeful about politics in this country for the first time in decades.
"Wright would not deny that Jesus knew who he was."
Agreed, though I recall reading passages in Wright that suggest that it took time for Jesus to come to a full realization. That makes sense to me, at least if we are to believe that Jesus was both divine and fully human.
Posted by: carl copas | January 21, 2008 12:03 PM
Ashpenaz,
"Jesus was sinless, but so were others."
Have you changed your mind about Jesus sinlessness.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 21, 2008 12:10 PM
Paperwight,
"Are you seriously trying to argue that MLK wasn't attempting to create political change, or that he wasn't concerned with justice in the liberal sense rather than charity in the conservative sense? Wow."
I have no idea how you could take my comments and come up with the above statement. What I said was great change is usually initiated by someone outside of politics, ie. politicians running for office. In other words politics are influenced more by outside forces and not the other way around.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 21, 2008 12:21 PM
Perhaps one may want to reflect, instead, on the real reasons
why we reject Christ as one with the Father- as well as the
actual Gospel teachings. Doing so- does not 'somehow' make
what we want any more legitimate or false. In the end, if we
claimed to follow Christ- then what was our point?
John 8:58
"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, BEFORE
Abraham was, I am."
John 10:38
"But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that
ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, AND I in him."
John 10:30
"I and my Father ARE one."
John 20:28
"And Thomas answered and said unto Jesus,
My LORD and My God."
If we claim to follow Christ, but reject the Gospels- isn't that an oxymoron- not to mention hypocrisy? With all due respect- now
there's a tough sell.
Elizabeth Daniele
Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | January 21, 2008 12:41 PM
"rather it's about equalizing opportunities, and there's nothing wrong with that -- "
No not at all , its a conservative principle . Its people who promote a belief that equalizing opportunites means equalizing results as the same thing . AffimitiveAction is a good in regards to getting out the message of opportunity to others . But the aspect of quotas , nope . Admission to colleges based on quotas , nope .
Extra dollars to provide education , yep . Extra dollars to provide avenues of opportunity , yep , and in my view we should drop programs that are not working or more willing to tweak them by using those folks in the communities as part of the solution . In my area , the three largest minority groups in Seattle supported the last Charter school bill that was actually brought to the state by a liberal . Shot down , the same old it will hurt public education by taking resources away . The liberal NEA mantra.
.
Well , another generation of city kids have slipped behind . And as we speak , another one is getting ready .
Education is liberally directed and run by liberals . We fund it at a higher level then other industrailzed nations , and our kids score lower . The schools where minorities go mainly are the worse .
Your solution is more money ? Ok , nothing stops that from the right in my state ,
Actually I have never heard a liberal give any solutions for inner city schools .
But blame conservatives .
Posted by: Mick | January 21, 2008 4:37 PM
No not at all, its a conservative principle. Its people who promote a belief that equalizing opportunites means equalizing results as the same thing. Affimitive Action is a good in regards to getting out the message of opportunity to others. But the aspect of quotas, nope. Admission to colleges based on quotas, nope.
"Quotas," really, represent an excuse -- and a poor one at that -- for denying people those opportunities because affirmative action opponents believe that they, and only they, are entitled to opportunity. In other words, it's beside the point, not to mention unconstitutional.
Education is liberally directed and run by liberals. We fund it at a higher level then other industrailzed nations, and our kids score lower. The schools where minorities go mainly are the worse.
Balderdash; my mom and late stepdad travelled to other nations to check out other educational systems. Most countries we compete against are far more "liberal" politically and spend more money per capita -- their teachers are actually paid far, far more -- than we, and on top of that their national governments shoulder that responsibility. So blaming the "liberal establishment" won't fly.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 21, 2008 4:48 PM
"Most countries we compete against are far more "liberal" politically and spend more money per capita -"
Not really. We spend about the same as Britain, Australia, Germany and Italy as a function of our GDP. Not sure if the link below is the MOST accurate, but you get the gist.
http://www.oclc.org/reports/escan/images/edpercent.swf
You are correct that they are more liberal politically, and they are much less concerned with special education, which represents a major chunk of education spending here. But there are systemic flaws here that are not present there that have nothing to do with money.
I'd be curious to know whether teachers are required to earn masters degrees in Europe with the frequency they are here. It seems a frivolity that the British, in particular, wouldn't tolerate.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 21, 2008 6:08 PM
"Because, frankly, you come across as quite ignorant."
I think he comes across as fairly knowledgable, and not just because I agree with him. There are a number of conservatives here who know nothing.
If he is ignorant, then correct him. You should be able to do that without showing your cards, clever as you are.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 21, 2008 8:35 PM
When we see Jesus as fully human, dealing with the human predicament, we come to a different sense of how society should work. When Jesus sees a world that needs healing, we should see the need for universal health care. When we see Jesus welcoming the stranger, we should care for undocumented workers. When Jesus sees the hungry crowds and feeds them, we should work to end poverty. When we see Jesus call us to lend without any hope of return, we should tear up our credit cards and throw away our Dave Ramsey books. When Jesus calls us all to sell all we have and give to the poor, we should fight against consumerism and stop advising people on the stock market. When we see Jesus welcome the eunuch, we should be aware that not everyone is born with an orientation toward traditional marriage.
When we see a fully human Jesus responding to fully human problems, we see the gospel more clearly than when we see Jesus as an all-powerful, all-knowing superbeing who is only here for some kind of legal transaction with His bloodthirsty Father.
This is not a denial of the divinity of Jesus. I believe Jesus is fully God and fully man. But we seldom see Him as a human among humans, sharing the weight of the corrupt system with us, and offering us an alternative Way.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 21, 2008 10:34 PM
Per capita? Maybe if your suggesting how is spent by each individual into the system, not per student though. We pay much more per student then other industrialized nations, that's a fact, not debatable on your perceptions.
Uh -- that also includes higher ed, which is free or paid for with nominal tuition in Europe.
Great teachers are treated the same as lousy teachers by the stablishment. I am in a Union, glad of it , but don't even suggest my Union or the Teachers' Union has the good of the folks we serve as its focus point.
Any public school teacher, which includes both my parents, will tell you that it's not simply a system problem. They have to deal with the kids -- and their parents -- as they are, not as they would like them to be. Besides, there's no real measuring stick to determine "great" teachers. What most people are looking for politically is a "Pied Piper" who will make kids learn without as little effort as possible; however, the best teacher I ever had worked me the hardest. I can tell you from personal experience that sometimes it doesn't show up until years later.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 21, 2008 10:51 PM
"Uh -- that also includes higher ed, which is free or paid for with nominal tuition in Europe."
It's a loan-based system in Australia, which again spends the same amount on the system with far better results. I don't know what it is in Europe, though I would gladly welcome a shift to three year undergrads.
Can you provide an apples-to-apples comparison (statistical, not anecdotal... This isn't a travelogue) that demonstrates that the United States spends substantially less than most "top-tier" nations?
Posted by: kevin s. | January 21, 2008 11:37 PM
My comment is in relation to the original article rather than in response to the other comments:
I want to point out that there is a reason that the LDS (Mormon) church is the fastest growing "Religious Movement" in the United States. That is because it is a "moving" force for good in this world. It seems that most of you in these comments are seeking for the same thing, finding solutions to social problems by following the teachings of Jesus Christ.
If you look into to doctrines and practices of the LDS Church, that is exactly what we do in our Church. We study together the words of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, then we use those teachings to strengthen ourselves, our families and our communities.
Take a closer look - whenever a natural disaster occurs, any ideas which church is ready to roll the trucks of supplies in, or send the plane fulls of humanitarian goods? If you've never explored it before, check out the website www.providentliving.org to see the humanitarian efforts of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS. Even if you think we are somewhat erronous in our doctrinal beliefs, you can not deny that we are practicing Christians in every meaning of the word when it comes to humanitarian efforts. Thanks for reading, to the few of you who actually read my entire comment.
Posted by: Jean Moffitt | January 22, 2008 2:56 AM
"Jesus remained NONVIOLENT and forgiving even while being mocked, whipped and nailed to a cross and he promised that it is the Peacemakers who are the children of God, not the peace-talkers."
And we Christians are being NONVIOLENT even though "Progressives" are calling themseleves "followers of Christ" and approving and implementing abominations in what they call Churches.
"By their fruits you will know them," said Jesus.
When waking up to Progressive actions, you see they are n o different than God-denying Humanists in religious clothing. Abortion gay sex, Marxist level taxation, crime, perversion, divorce, porn, fatherless families, promiscuity, etc., etc., etc.. You see all of these behaviors and actions literally OK and OK'd by people calling themselves "Progressives." You see no call to repentance as presented by Christ Jesus and the Apostles. The only "sin" argued against by Progressive ideology, is having to apologize for not wanting to be involved in the abominations of Progressive life.
The Great Awakening. Another authentic Christian movement ripped off by Liberal-Progressives.
I wish Jim Wallis knew how easy it is to see through his Democrat political action fundraising machine. His kind has fooled many people, but if God so desires, He will save America from the abominations promoted by these hedonists in religious garb known as Progressives.
A repentant people and a contrite heart will see this happen. But the haughty and "proud" under the label of "Progressive" have siezed control of our political, education and and media machine and the minds and lives of the populace show the outcome of it. Only God can save us from the evils inflicted on our land by progressive values.
Posted by: Donny | January 22, 2008 7:28 AM
Jean,
Doctrine is essential to being a Christian. Otherwise, the Apostles wouldn't have written so many times to so many people warning them in dire terms that they were following bad doctrine. I pray that you can escape LDS heresy before it's too late.
The Good Samaritan was only one Samaritan. I've known many policemen as my father was a cop. Many of them were adulterers. Many of them did fine things for other people. All of the men that committed adultery, still need to repent of it.
I fear that the intense grip that Progressive pride has on those that embrace it, will not only destroy them, but many innocent people as well.
Posted by: Donny | January 22, 2008 7:38 AM
Can anyone list the things that "The Religious Right" do wrong as Christians?
Jesus opposed gay marriage too.
And so on.
Posted by: Me | January 22, 2008 7:51 AM
OK, one more time--Jesus did NOT oppose gay marriage. After making His statement about marriage, He goes on to talk about those who were born without the inclination for traditional marriage. The word He used, Eunuch, was a catchall term for all those who were disinclined to marry and procreate. You will find nothing in Scripture which suggests eunuchs were castrated or celibate. Roman law had different categories of eunuchs, the first of which had nothing to do with castration.
http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/cardiff.htm
(Please read this link before responding to this post--I'm not crazy. I'm right about the definition of eunuch.)
Eunuchs were not castrated or celibate--if the Ethiopian eunuch had been castrated, he wouldn't have been worshipping in Jerusalem, and Phillip would have healed him. Being an undamaged member of the royal court, it is unlikely the Ethiopian eunuch was celibate. Phillip baptized him without saying he needed healing or celibacy to enter the Kingdom.
Jesus commended the Centurion and his beloved slave, who were likely in that society to have been sexual partners. "Pais" is used in other literature to describe a sexual partner. Just like Achilles and Patroclus or Alexander and Hephastion or David and Jonathan, it is likely that the Centurion and his slave were lovers.
Jesus says sell all you have and give to the poor--yet there is prosperity theology. Jesus says no one knows the day or hour--and yet there is dispensationalis