A Misnomer Becomes a Movement (by Jim Wallis)
That's what this Great Awakening book tour has been like. It's a book for a movement. Many of you have supported the new book and, by doing so, are supporting a movement. Enough of you bought The Great Awakening in the first two weeks to put us on The New York Times Best Seller List. This puts the book in the front of book stores across the country where, of course, more people see it, buy it, and read it. Thank you. This is a book that is helping to spark and support a revival movement that could change big things.
When you buy your own copy of The Great Awakening in these first few weeks, and then buy it for friends and family, fellow church members and neighbors, you literally help spread the message and the movement. Go to Amazon and see part of the proceeds from your book purchase go to Sojourners or to your local Barnes and Noble, Borders, or your favorite local independent book store.
Several people have already told me that they are starting book studies in their congregations and communities. They asked me if there was a downloadable study guide for small groups. I told them that we already have one—a free study guide for book study groups. Take the book to your congregation or meet up with others in your community to begin a Great Awakening Study Group. Make it a Lenten study book, or an Easter book study, or a discussion group focused on what people can practically do in their own families or congregations to influence public policy.
And while you're at it, support the other "movement books" that are out now—Tony Campolo's Red Letter Christians, Brian McLaren's Everything Must Change, Amy Sullivan's The Party Faithful, E.J. Dionne's Souled Out, and Shane Claiborne's Jesus for President (coming soon). These are all progressive Christian "movement books," and we are blessed to have so many out there now. What a change from just a few years ago! I've read them all and can heartily recommend them as very important books for a movement. Please support them all.
We see the conservative movement strategically support their movement books all the time and put their spokespeople on the best-seller lists and onto the talk shows non-stop. There is no other way to explain how people like Ann Coulter keep getting the microphone to say such outrageous things. A string of six bestsellers that all spew venom against liberals keeps Coulter on the air. So it's a good thing to see progressive Christians supporting our own movement books.
I am on the road now, visiting 22 cities in six weeks. And our Sojourners staff told me yesterday that I had just completed my 80th media interview in the past three weeks. I wasn't really tired until I heard that! So please keep me in your prayers.
Reporters used to say to me, "So you are a progressive evangelical; isn't that a misnomer?" Now the misnomer has become a movement. And just this morning, a highly rated drive-time talk show host on the East Coast asked me to tell him about this new progressive Christian movement.
Something is clearly happening across this nation and it is very exciting indeed. But your support for this new book and for these book events when we come to your city is absolutely critical. Go to the Great Awakening Web site that our staff has prepared to see what other people are saying about the book, or to download the study guide for your book study group. And follow the hopeful stories from our book tour and reports from the road on our God's Politics blog. It's a great time to start a Great Awakening study group in your church or community and bring the movement home.
I believe that a genuine revival is coming and a that new great awakening may soon be here. God is good.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Jim. I like you. I like Sojourners. But the constant flogging of your book has got to stop. We know you wrote it. We know it's important. But please, focus on the ideas in it rather than the sales of it. That's what the staff you praise are for. I know you're not in this for the money, or you'd have picked a more popular cause, but you hurt your credibility with each article like this.
I for one would really like to hear your thoughts about recent developments in the election, instead of how many showed up at the rally or how many interviews you've had. It's your ideas that I come here to read, and lately you haven't been offering much in the way of actual commentary.
Posted by: wamel-faddle | February 14, 2008 3:14 PM
Amen to that last post. I would like to hear Wallis talk about something more important than his book sales. How about talk about some of its important themes without linking to retail sites and trying to convince people to buy multiple copies. If I want an infomercial, I will turn on obscure cable channels.
Posted by: GaborikFan | February 14, 2008 4:49 PM
Yeah, I have to agree with the other two comments here. The constant self-promotion is getting a little out-of-hand. It also, in my opionion, lessens the sincerity of your message - it's beginning to feel like the message is just a marketing ploy to sell more books.
You book will sell - and "the great awakening", as you call it, will happen even if you don't hit #1 on the New York Times list. I would like to see the posts revert back to the inspiring words you are more cabable of providing.
Just my thoughts.
Posted by: lovemovement | February 14, 2008 5:39 PM
Yep, Jim's got a book, and he really really wants to sell it. That is the impression one gets from these pieces. The primary purpose is to move up the best-seller list. I might buy the book, but it will be at a garage sale, for 50 cents, in about three months or so. The advertising in the guise of op-ed pieces is growing old.
Posted by: joekc | February 14, 2008 7:08 PM
Yes, he's just like that pesky Paul who has an important message and wants his letters read in all the churches. Or that blowhard Luke who spent so much time gathering materials and thinks that maybe people should have access to his research. I bet you can find their books at a garage sale for even less.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | February 14, 2008 7:38 PM
The problem is you comparing Jim Wallis to Paul and Luke.
Paul was sent by God himself to be his word across the lands. The progressives have a big problem with this. This isn't the "Red Letter" stuff that you want to hear. No you would just pretend that Paul never mattered or was just a closeted homosexual or whatever the left can think of to discredit him.
What is most disturbing about Wallis' tome is how he says this is a repudiation of the "Religious Right" Yet his "study guide for discussions" is exactly what he claims the religious Right has been doing for years. It reads like a manual for radical liberals on how to use the church like REAL evangelicals for their own political purposes.
I have never seen such a bigger scam in my life.
Posted by: Paul Jamieson | February 14, 2008 9:41 PM
Paul,
Although I agree with you that Ashpenaz gives Wallis WAY too much credit by equating his book with the letters of Paul and the book of Luke, I have to ask "what the...?" when you write this:
"No you would just pretend that Paul never mattered or was just a closeted homosexual or whatever the left can think of to discredit him."
Who said this? Why do you bring it up? You had me when you pointed out the brash comparison. You lost me when you accused the "Religious Left" of doing as you describe above.
Posted by: squeaky | February 14, 2008 11:27 PM
I thought you're supposed to go to a person's blog and read it because...oh, I don't know.... you like it? Why waste the time in putting a comment about something you hate? If you don't like what he writes on his own blog, then don't waste my time by writing useless comments and then flaring some other dude's comment.
BTW, if you read Ashpenaz's comment more carefully, you'll notice they were not comparing what Wallis writes with Paul or Luke. He was comparing Wallis' passion for his message in his book just like Paul and Luke were about their message. Passion, not content. So don't bash the poor guy (or gal) ok?
And if you read the content of the blog again, you'll notice that Wallis is also trying to encourage his supporters (supposedly readers of his blog, but I guess he thought wrong) about the good results he's getting from twenty-something evangelicals.
So please, if you think his blog is a waste of your time, is it really worth it writing a comment about it?
Posted by: Matt21 | February 15, 2008 12:34 AM
Matt21,
I can hardly wait until Mr. Wallis brings his show to my town. He will have to answer to Peter, James, Jude, John and Paul for the altering of the Gospels and other scriptures he is attempting to.
For example: If ANY conservative Christian (redundancy noted) were to use the phrases "God's Politics" or "The Great Awakening" to reach out to "20-somethings" they would be facing Leftist picketers from Church to Church and from court room to court room. But a Leftist media and Humanist machine (ACLU, AU, et al) ignores leftist "religious" movements.
You need to weigh movements in light of scripture. Emotionalism causes error in judgments. The youth of today can't tell you much about the Apostles, but they can tell you who won a grammy. They are emotional wrecks. They are easy targets for a salesman or a false prophet. Who am I to say that? My wife and I have been working exclusively with youth for two-decades. I've been a Christian even longer.
The authentic Great Awakening in history, called people to repent for sins and to re-enter a holy walk in Christ. It did not look the other way to vices and abominations as the "Modern Progressive" movment does. It is not intolerant to oppose most of the things that Progressives want to inflict onto and into the Church.
Are sins to be confessed, or are they to be "rare, safe and legal?"
It is a far cry from what "Progressive theology and ideology" is doing today, to what the Gospel represents and what Christ Jesus and His followers did with it.
"Go, and sin no more." That is a hate crime now. It is hate speech because of Progressives and Liberals implementing laws that even affect the Church. I'm sorry, man, but the only sin I hear about from The Left is the sin of rejecting The Left. Circular reasoning is not Biblical. All Biblical truth occured in real time, in real history. Just because a progressive says something is true because another Leftist promotes it, doesn't make Progressive ideology valid. It just makes it another movement that will come and go. Hopefully sooner than later. Millions of lives are on the line. The Church is being stained by the "anything goes, except morality" crowd. Morally sound behavior the way that Christ Jesus and the Apostles preached it is now a hate crime in "Progressive" Western countries.
Most of the Gospel and Apostolic witness is altered or rejected by Liberal and Progressive idealogues because . . . it opposes the Humanism inherent in all things Leftist. That's just the truth. It (Progressive goals) is promoting a one-world view of everything. That view is Humanist and Secular and NOT Gospel and Apostolic.
Christians are admonished to test all things and to hold fast to that which is truth. Any Gospel that differs from that of the one brought to us by the Apostles is to be rejected. In truth, the Gospel was the first progressive movement in history. Literally altering history. But the Gospel in the New Testament is strikingly differant then the one offered up for consumption by Progressives of the Twenty-First Century.
This thing that Jim Wallis is doing is just reaping new Democrat, Liberal and Progressive voters to implement a different Gospel on the populace. It is not calling sinners to repent.
Progressive ideology/theology views many things that Christ Jesus and the Apostles claimed were sins as not being wrong to engage in. I will always side with Jesus and His Apostles over any "new" idea. And really, how new is Progressive ideology when it re-engages ancient abominations with neologism?
Hopefully the youth that Progressives are attempting to indoctrinate into Humanism, will be saved from it.
This blog is obviously not a waste of time.
I hope my apologia didn't violate the new paradigm of free speech here. (I know Peter, Paul, James, John and Jude with be banned for life.)
Posted by: Donny | February 15, 2008 9:06 AM
I thought you're supposed to go to a person's blog and read it because...oh, I don't know.... you like it?
Perhaps you're referring to some formalized code of blogging of which I'm not aware?
Posted by: aaron | February 15, 2008 9:32 AM
"The Great Awakening" sounds to me like an opportunistic attempt to capitalize on the huge success of David Korten's "The Great Turning", which has become a popular and influential read among progressive Christians. Wallis lacks the academic and experiential credentials in economics that made Korten's book an essential read. Wallis appeals to us as Christians to have compassion for the poor while sidestepping the reality of an elite corporate structure that creates and perpetuates global poverty.
The REAL Great Awakening today is in mainstream Christianity, which Matthew Fox correctly named a "sleeping giant". Although we share many of the same social values as Wallis, we are NOT evangelicals. We're happy to see the evangelicals lose their political stranglehold on the Republican party. And to us, a 'progressive evangelical' is sort of like lo-fat Haagen-Dazs ice cream. If you don't eat too much of it, it's not that bad. But it's not going to nourish or sustain you, either, and should never be given as a solution to poverty in place of real food.
Posted by: nightchi | February 15, 2008 10:04 AM
he REAL Great Awakening today is in mainstream Christianity
Amen!
D
Posted by: Don | February 15, 2008 10:39 AM
Matt21, I do like this blog, and I like to read it, because there is much here that is Christ-like in its emphases - - caring for the poor (whether I agree with how some here suggest we do it), looking out for my brother/ sister, caring for the dispossessed - - these are all things that Christ spoke of, often.
But that doesn't mean that I cannot object, with appropriate respect, when the blog is used for what I discern to be crass economic advancement of the blogger. Don't misunderstand me - - I want Mr. Wallis to earn a good living, I want his writings and thoughts to be heard, but I also feel that the blog entitled "God's Politics" is not the proper place to hype a book - any book - - except the holy scriptures. That does not seem unreasonable to me, and it doesn't attack Mr. Wallis as my brother; it just says I think he is wrong in what he is doing.
Posted by: joekc | February 15, 2008 10:42 AM
Yep, Jim's got a book, and he really really wants to sell it.
Keep in mind that Rev Wallis may be required to promote his book according to an agreement he signed with his publisher. Certainly the book tour is publisher-sponsored. It's part of the deal authors often have to make in order to get their stuff published.
Whether this requirement to promote extends to blog is another question, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 15, 2008 10:57 AM
Mainstream Christianity, IS Evangelical. Something I have been criticiised for representing without altering it:
From nightchi: "Although we share many of the same social values as Wallis, we are NOT evangelicals."
We're happy to see the evangelicals lose their political stranglehold on the Republican party.
And to us, a 'progressive evangelical' is sort of like lo-fat Haagen-Dazs ice cream. If you don't eat too much of it, it's not that bad. But it's not going to nourish or sustain you, either, and should never be given as a solution to poverty in place of real food."
Posted by: nightchi
///
My dear hightchi, with your truth about "progressive" ideology, you need a little help on your history.
Evangel means "the Gospel."
If you are a follower of Christ Jesus, like the Apostles were . . . you are an "Evangelical."
"Evangelicals" were first called "Christians" in Antioch.
Like I have said so many times before, there is a tremendous lack of knowledge in the Church body, in the 21st Century. That is why "20-somethings" are falling for anything, and we have so much anti-Christian voices claiming they are part of the Christian community. Read Jude and see that that is nothing new.
[ e·van·gel (-vnjl)
n.
1. The Christian gospel.
2. An evangelist.
[Middle English evaungel, from Late Latin vangelium, from Greek euangelion, good news, from euangelos, bringing good news : eu-, eu- + angelos, messenger.]
Posted by: Donny | February 15, 2008 11:04 AM
Donny, we're mainstream AND evangelical both. Lutherans have been evangelical for almost five hundred years. We were evangelical before most other Christians ever heard the word.
You need more than a little help with your history.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 15, 2008 11:12 AM
I don't see anything wrong with a minority of postings announcing what's happening with an author's book publication.
I think the source of all the mean-spirited and misdirected criticism is that the posters want to see Jim's message thwarted because they don't like it.
And I notice some of the same posters who were contributors to the vitriol problem are self-assuredly unrepentant about that, too, bringing it up in an "I dare you!" manner within their complaints that Jim Wallis has written a book of ideas that he's excited about getting before people's eyes, minds and hearts.
They seem to loathe what they think Jim stands for so much that they want to tear him down as much as possible. No spirit of love or respect there!
You know, I don't think Jim is insisting you have to agree with him or that you have to buy his book. He's excited about his work - any writer has to be so inspired to write something they consider worthy of the thoughtful attention of others - and he hopes others will be similarly excited about the larger issues he brings to attention.
I personally do not surround myself with the narrowest possible spectrum of views that simply confirm myself in my own sense of being self-assuredly correct.
So am I going to agree with Jim Wallis, or any other author 100%, or even if I largely do, will I be afraid to consider new thoughts that arise as a result of considering others' views? Of course not! It is only through prayerfully questioning and being open that we can hope to avoid error while we live.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 15, 2008 11:26 AM
I'm glad most of you were nicer to me than that other guy and I appreciate your following comments. However, I want to address something Donny was referring to. Not all youth in this country are brainwashed MTV robots. Your handful of experiences (yes, handful because I doubt you've taught every youth on this planet, much less this country) does not create an accurate representation of an entire younger generation, even if you have been working with them for 20 years. Now I appreciate the work you've done, God knows we need more diligent workers like you. But being apart of that generation, maybe I relate better to them and see things that you don't.
But I call for repentance when Jesus used the word, did not mean the "turn or burn" attitude that our Western, Americanized version of Christianity has turned into being. It was a call for people to be liberated from their state of oppression and that there is a better hope following Christ Jesus, than being under submission to the oppressing Roman Empire at the time. It was Good News, not bad news. When we call people to repent from their sins (which Jesus didn't necessarily do, but I believe sin was included: he just said "repent," for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand), we have focused too much on the sin and not enough on what Christ can do through us if we accept Him as Lord and Savior.
Through Christ (if we are doing His will) we can do all things. Through Christ we can do something about Darfur. Through Christ we can do something about poverty. We can do something about AIDS. We can do something help our homosexual brothers and sisters with the confusion they must be dealing with. We can do something about abortion as well. We can love our enemies. And through Christ we can overcome our personal transgressions and sins.
I agree that repentance is not emphasized enough, but that's only because the correct perspective of repentance is not being taught. Now, I don't assume Jim Wallis is right on everything he teaches, but can it be ok for him to advertise his book just a little bit on his own blog without people going down his throat? My last post was an attempt to point out that it is common sense that Wallis will advertise on his own blog, why is that shocking to some of you?
Posted by: Matt21 | February 15, 2008 1:04 PM
from Donny:
Evangel means "the Gospel."
If you are a follower of Christ Jesus, like the Apostles were . . . you are an "Evangelical."
I'm sure that you've had this "discussion" before, and simply failed to note that contemporary 21st C usage of the term 'evangelical Christian' is not synonymous with being a follower of Christ. Popularity of identifying with the evangelical movement is falling off. 1997 surveys showed that 47% of christians identified as "evangelical", which has fallen to 19% in recent polls.
So if you want a discussion that is relevant to actual living people, then the root word usage from the 1st C is a straw dog argument.
And Don, not all Lutherans identify themselves nor their congregation as 'evangelical.' A lot less than a decade ago, fortunately.
But if you want to use 'evangelical' in your own way, just substitute 'Fundamentalist' in my prior post. Mainstream Protestant churches are increasingly less fundamentalist, and the majority have never been Fundies.
Posted by: nightchi | February 15, 2008 3:14 PM
And Don, not all Lutherans identify themselves nor their congregation as 'evangelical.' A lot less than a decade ago, fortunately.
I'm puzzled and saddened by your comment, nghtchi. Why would you consider diminished Lutheran use of 'evangelical' to be a fortunate thing? But maybe you and I aren't using the term the way we Lutherans understand it. Allow me to try and explain.
But please keep in mind that my original comment was in response to Donny's implication that only evangelicals as HE understands them are true Christians.
All Lutherans are evangelical by definition. That's because Luther and the other Reformers considered the Gospel (evangelion) to be the central teaching of Scripture. The Gospel for Lutherans is the lens through which the Scriptures are to be interpreted. That makes us all evangelicals. The Lutheran churches in Germany are today known as--and always have been known as--die evangelische Kirchen.
There are theologically conservative and liberal Lutherans, just as there are same in all Mainstream confessions. I happen to belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA--please note the term 'Evangelical' in our title!), which is normally considered the most liberal Lutheran group in the USA, though one can find individual congregations that are very liberal to very conservative. The two largest conservative groups are the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS). Note that the LCMS does not have the word 'evangelical' in their title, even though they are theologically conservative.
I hope this make sense. Write again if my comments here didn't.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 15, 2008 4:25 PM
Wow. If only we were as passionate about reaching people with the love of Christ as we are about examining this book...
Posted by: chad | February 16, 2008 1:12 AM
Its simple - Wallis is a hypocrite and needs to be shouted down.
He is all about Politics. Ever since the Right came to dominate politics in the 90's people have been trying to tear them down
Wallis is one of these. He wraps himself in newspeak and wants to change the conversation.
""No you would just pretend that Paul never mattered or was just a closeted homosexual or whatever the left can think of to discredit him."
Who said this? Why do you bring it up? You had me when you pointed out the brash comparison. You lost me when you accused the "Religious Left" of doing as you describe above.
The left has tried to discredit many of Paul's writings on homosexuality - that he isn't Jesus, or that he was really a closeted gay man. I am surprised you never heard this drivel in an argument
My other point is Wallis is obviously doing exactly what the religious right did so successfully - selling books - trying to get his agenda out there - he is a hypocrite
Posted by: Paul Jamieson | February 16, 2008 9:30 AM
Paul--the point is--no one in the conversation said anything like that, so why bring it up?
People who post here represent a broad range of political ideologies, but your comment reveals that you paint anyone who thinks even just slightly to the left with a huge, monstrous, broad brush. I am to the left in my politics, so in your mind, I must believe all that Paul is gay--truth is, I have never even heard that argument, nor do I support it. You are trying to discredit the politics on the left by equating it with a fringe belief that is probably not shared by most Christians with left-leaning politics.
I'm not at all sure why the comment that Paul isn't Jesus offends you. It's true. Paul wasn't Jesus.
Posted by: squeaky | February 16, 2008 11:08 AM
Please don't play ignorant with me
The left has tried to discredit Paul and his teachings on homosexuality by saying it doesn't matter what Paul says. But Paul was sent by Jesus to deliver his message
"Paul, an Apostle sent not from men nor by any man, but by Jesus Christ and by God the Father, who raised Jesus from among the dead"
Posted by: Paul Jamieson | February 16, 2008 1:21 PM
Paul Jamieson, what is really bothering you? Crisis of conscience, my brother?
Repent. Don't direct your frustrations toward fellow Xtians on this blog.
Posted by: lloyd crump | February 16, 2008 3:11 PM
Paul,
"Please don't play ignorant with me"
So now you are calling my a liar.
Black and white views of the world are convenient, but incorrect. How do you explain a left-leaning Christian who does not think Paul was gay nor unimportant?
Posted by: squeaky | February 16, 2008 4:09 PM
Don, I see you're having to explain "Lutheranism in America" again. I believe this is at least the third time in the past few months, becasue one of the previous times was in response to a question from me. Either way, I admire your patience, and wonder why the Methodists aren't always having to explain Methodism, etc.
Paul J., you're not turning into one of those meanies, are you?
Posted by: I and I | February 16, 2008 4:33 PM
He is all about Politics. Ever since the Right came to dominate politics in the 90's people have been trying to tear them down.
Paul -- Jim Wallis predates the "religious right" by almost a decade. He's been doing this since the early 1970s, so to say he's doing the same thing as his "adversaries" is a bit off.
The left has tried to discredit Paul and his teachings on homosexuality by saying it doesn't matter what Paul says. But Paul was sent by Jesus to deliver his message.
It was Paul who actually delivered what I believe to be the definitive word on homosexuality -- it is something that Christians should not practice because everyone else did.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 16, 2008 11:21 PM
I and I:
I just wanted to clarify the Lutherans' use of 'evangelical' and distinguish it from what is apparently a negative view that equates 'evangelical' from 'fundamentalist.' Maybe I wrote too much, but I have those notes...
:-)
D
Posted by: Don | February 17, 2008 6:59 AM
That should have been "equates 'evangelical' WITH 'fundamentalist.'"
D
Posted by: Don | February 17, 2008 7:01 AM
Don, actually, I've always found your explanations informative and interesting.
Posted by: I and I | February 17, 2008 3:43 PM
I and I: "Don, actually, I've always found your explanations informative and interesting."
Me too.
Posted by: carl copas | February 17, 2008 5:04 PM
"It was Paul who actually delivered what I believe to be the definitive word on homosexuality -- it is something that Christians should not practice because everyone else did."
True and yet Paul did not kick out the members in Romans that were still having homosexual sex. If anything all he did was call them out and remind the entire Roman congregation to not judge because if they did they were hypocrites.
p
Posted by: Payshun | February 18, 2008 1:49 AM
'...the book in the front of book stores across the country where, of course, more people see it...'
Not always - there have been several times that I have gone into a store (B&N) to purchase a book that was on the list only to have some person have to direct me to the back of the store where they have selved it. Of course these were books written by conservative thinkers and people so I believe that is why the book was located where it was in the store.
Not sure which is more interesting. Your constant promoting of your book(s) and of others that you are in agreement with on this site. Or - and this is good. The compairing or personal accessment of your personality or movement to that of Finney and Garrison.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | February 18, 2008 11:23 AM
"Paul Jamieson, what is really bothering you? Crisis of conscience, my brother?"
I was waiting for this. This is another tool of hate used by the left to demonize anyone standing up to the "red letter" christians
No Lloyd, I don't have a crisis of conscience. I am just a father who has had it up to here with liberals like you trying to tell me and my family what the Bible means.
You should be ashamed of your hate speech.
Posted by: Paul Jamieson | February 18, 2008 12:55 PM
Paul, you apparently missed Lloyd's second sentence:
Don't direct your frustrations toward fellow Xtians on this blog.
I didn't see any hate speech whatever in what Lloyd wrote. But I do read it in some of your writings:
1. You called Jim Wallis a hypocrite and should be silenced. I call that something close to hate speech.
2. You ignored Squeaky's comment about left-leaning Christians who think Paul was very important and who don't think he was gay. Your hatred of the "left" allowed you to ignore the reality that they don't all fit into the box you described. You created that box yourself so you could dismiss what people like Wallis are saying.
3. You think the "red-letter" Christians need to be stood up to. That doesn't sound like a Christ-like attitude to me. Forget about trying to understand them, even if that means continuing to disagree with them.
4. Now you say so-called "liberals" are trying to tell you how to read the Bible. Where? Give us some specific examples.
Sorry, Paul, your own words have demonstrated your own attitudes. Don't try to squirm out of it.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 18, 2008 1:15 PM
Calling Wallis a hypocrite is hate speech? You have got to be kidding me. Oh you mean the shouting him down part? Well I guess that is pretty hateful.
Wallis came to my church and I spoke with him directly about his agenda. We had gay marriage and still speaking shoved down our throats until half of the congregation left and the church was ruined. So much for diversity. He didn't have time to speak with me. He was too busy telling everyone how he had met Bono.
Well I told him how I had met Bono too. In 1979 at the Paradise in Boston when U2 was playing to 50 people on their first tour of the USA. I also related to Jim how Bono works BOTH sides of the isle to get things done. He is a conservative Christian believe it or not, and is not the type of person to just willy nilly jump on the left's bandwagon - although they have tried to get him many times. I asked Wallis why the Right had it wrong but the left just "didn't get it" He gave me the smug smile and said "read the book"
Am I the only one here dismissing Wallis? I think not.
And please, don't give me the "Christ-like attitude" slur. I have heard that enough to make me puke. Like you are so "Christ like"
And do I really have to give examples of liberal political correctness in the UCC and other denominations. Where oh where do we start? With gay marriage? How about my old ministers support of Palestine? Or the Thanksgiving sermon about measles in blankets to the Indians akin to WMD's? Or Eugene Robinson who has selfishly singlehandedly split an entire denomination? Or the English Archbishop's proposal to let Muslims decide which law they would like to be tried under?
Peace as well
Posted by: Paul Jamieson | February 18, 2008 2:20 PM
Talking about a Christ-like attitude is a slur? Well, that's the first time I heard anyone who claimed to be a Christian assert that taking on Christ's attitude was something not desirable.
The problem isn't that you disagree with Rev. Wallis, or the "red letter" group. It's how you are doing it.
Your own words are condemning you, Paul. You better quit before you dig your hole deeper.
D
Posted by: Don | February 18, 2008 2:58 PM
Paul: "And do I really have to give examples of liberal political correctness in the UCC and other denominations. Where oh where do we start? With gay marriage? How about my old ministers support of Palestine? Or the Thanksgiving sermon about measles in blankets to the Indians akin to WMD's? Or Eugene Robinson who has selfishly singlehandedly split an entire denomination? Or the English Archbishop's proposal to let Muslims decide which law they would like to be tried under?"
Paul, you take these issues up with your denomination and stop throwing them on the folks who post here, many of whom do not agree and had no part in these things of which you complain.
Posted by: I and I | February 18, 2008 3:09 PM
Calling someone un Christian is a typical response from anyone who cannot handle the truth about what is going on in Christianity today
Its just another way of demoralizing the opposition
Jesus got mad
Jesus was human
Jesus said Go and sin no more
Posted by: Paul Jamieson | February 18, 2008 3:56 PM
typical response from anyone who cannot handle the truth
So I can't handle the truth, is that what you think? You think I'm ignorant of what's going on? You think, as I and I put it, that I had a part in all the things that are going on and that I approve of every one of them?
You'd better think again. You're just putting me and others who are defending Rev. Wallis from your unfounded accusations in a box. That's as unjustified as your accusations against Wallis.
And I never called you unchristian. I just said that your words don't display a Christ-like attitude. I'm still going to say that.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 18, 2008 6:54 PM
But I'm not a liberal. I support Ron Paul
LOL
"Pray for guidance. I'll be praying for you, poor tortured soul, that the Lord may deliver you relief in the form of cooling showers of the peace that passeth all understanding."
Please Lloyd, you can torture your own soul but leave mine alone. I need your prayers like I need a whole in the head.
"You're just putting me and others who are defending Rev. Wallis from your unfounded accusations in a box"
Yes Don, just like you and Wallis like to put the Religious Right in a box. How does it feel?
The smugness on this blog is incredible. You and Wallis have made a career of bashing conservatives and yet now you are on such a high horse with your awakening. You wanted a battle and you got it. Just don't be surprised when people stand up to hypocrisy.
"And I never called you unchristian. I just said that your words don't display a Christ-like attitude."
ok - I don't see a difference, but, hey, I will try to be more Christ-like like you, Don.
Posted by: Paul Jamieson | February 18, 2008 10:18 PM
Yes Don, just like you and Wallis like to put the Religious Right in a box. How does it feel?
Did I ever say that I agreed with Wallis 100% of the time? All I said was that I think your criticisms of him are unjustified, and the language you used to express those criticisms was not very charitable.
Apparently in your mind refusal to accept your criticisms of Wallis must mean I'm in lock step with Wallis. Sorry, it ain't so.
Lloyd is right. You are being tortured by demons, mostly demons of your own creation. I'll be praying, too.
Signing off (and letting you have the last word if you have to have it),
Posted by: Don | February 19, 2008 6:29 AM
Paul--it's astounding you can say the things you do and think you are being Christ-like. Speak the truth in love.
You would do well to recognize that, as many have tried to tell you, Christians' political ideologies span the spectrum. Please stop lumping everyone who is even a millimeter to the left of center together with those who are on the far left. If you think liberal Christians do that to conservative Christians, then you know how it feels, and you should stop it.
Why did you assume Don was calling you un-Christian? He said no such thing. You assume the worst of those who disagree with you. Too bad you hold your brothers and sisters in Christ in such low regard for the trivial reason of politics.
Posted by: squeaky | February 19, 2008 9:36 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?