So, if deliberately inflammatory statements aren't acceptable, then we can't quote from Jeremiah or Ezekiel or Paul? Or Jesus? Or pretty much anyone in Scripture?

Posted by: Ashpenaz | February 13, 2008 11:50 AM

Anything to ensure the monologue stays that way

"Some of our sharpest critics and staunchest supporters got this warning."

Posted by: Don | February 13, 2008 12:24 PM

Ashpenaz: I think the point is you shouldn't try to come up with your own deliberately inflammatory statements, unless of course you think you're Jesus or a Prophet.

Comment Moderation Team: Thanks for working to preserve God's Politic's atmosphere of hospitality.

Posted by: Scott Lenger | February 13, 2008 12:46 PM

"Ashpenaz: I think the point is you shouldn't try to come up with your own deliberately inflammatory statements, unless of course you think you're Jesus or a Prophet."

Exactly. Spend some time in the cistern for God, and I'll be happy to hear you call me a viper. Until then, keep it civil.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 13, 2008 1:10 PM

Also, I think that God's Politics should allow a sincere apology to go a long way toward clearing the air. We all blow it sometimes. At least Paul, the chief of sinners , and I ( to a much more modest and reasonable degree)do. That was supposed to be amusing.

Posted by: jonabark | February 13, 2008 1:42 PM

Hi Moderators - frankly I think you've been more than charitable to a few who troll this site obsessively. PLEASE - ban them permanately so that the rest of us (from every political stripe) can get on with a quality discussion discussion.

Posted by: splinterlog | February 13, 2008 2:12 PM

mark -- Your post is exactly what I'm talking about.

As I said, this blog has a viewpoint, and I think those of us who really do believe that the conservative agenda as it has been demonstrated over the past 30 or so years has fatal flaws should be allowed to say so without having our collective character attacked. We ought to be able to say that the current President Bush has made some serious mistakes, which I believe he has, without being labeled "anti-Bush" (although I personally did not and would not vote for him).

Simply dividing everything into left/right, as I've seen the right do for so long (the "left," on the other hand, isn't yet that well-organized), doesn't help matters in the least and leads only to the kind of ideological warfare that causes would-be believers to reject the Gospel of reconciliation.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 13, 2008 2:23 PM

Mark said: "The monologue has begun."

Every comment blog I've seen has rules of conduct. I don't understand how ensuring that people speak respectfully to one another is a "monlogue"

Martin Luther interpreted the commandment against false witness saying: We should not slander, gossip or tell lies about our neighbor. Instead, we should defend the neighbor and explan his/her actions in the kindest way possible.

Sounds like a good way to encourage dialog and understanding.

Blessings, Duh-siple Tim

Posted by: Duh-sciple | February 13, 2008 2:41 PM

"Every comment blog I've seen has rules of conduct. I don't understand how ensuring that people speak respectfully to one another is a monologue."

Someone thinks this will turn the blog into a monologue? And he (or she) takes offense at a call for civility? I think that is quite funny! Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Posted by: I and I | February 13, 2008 3:09 PM

Wolverine and Rick, I'm suprised and sorry to hear that both of you got the warnings. I for one certainly never thought that either of you were part of the problem. And I appreciate that both of you actually proofread your posts before hitting send.

Posted by: I and I | February 13, 2008 3:27 PM

At the risk of having the "moderator ban me for life" I'll once again applaud Beliefnet's 12/11/07 statement that "Disruptive behavior may include creating a disproportionate number of posts." That's always been what I've complained about, as these posts tend to get people off topic to start attacking the one posting because of his/her verbosity and redundancy. The occasional sarcastic comment or one line zinger oftentimes lightens the discussion and to me, is hardly ever offensive.

I hope that breaking my pledge again to not post until 2/20 does not offend, but since my quote led off the blog, I felt I was allowed to comment just once in response. Back to the sidelines for now, and best to all.

Posted by: Cads | February 13, 2008 4:22 PM

When I first read this post, I wondered whether I might be getting a warning e-mail myself. I didn't. But I don't think that's because I've always been Mr. Courteous, because I know I haven't. Therefore, I too was very surprised to read that Wolverine and Rick Nowlin got the warning.

Wolvie and I have certainly butted heads--sometimes aggressively--on immigration policy in particular. And though sometimes I've sensed his disgust by what I've written, he's probably felt that I reacted the same way to some of his postings. But that's the nature of give-and-take when we passionately disagree about something, isn't it?

Rick Nowlin's biggest "fault" is that sometimes he reads like a broken phonograph recording. But that's hardly his fault--it's the fault of those who continue to throw the same bogus arguments at him and who refuse to believe his responses or even think he might have a point.

But I don't think these are the kinds of things the moderators were concerned about. They certainly aren't the kinds of things I've been concerned about here. They are a far cry from those postings that seem not to even read and comprehend what someone has written and then that respond with vapid one-liner denunciations, that dominate, even overwhelm, thread discussions on side issues, or that take personal offense over phantom, imagined insults. Or the hit-and-run kinds of postings that continually castigate Rev Wallis and Sojourners as liberal humanists, which one certain person is wont to write here.

Well, nobody said that monitoring an open blog is an easy job. But I'm all for vigorous debate, just so long as it remains focused on issues and ideas and not personalities.

I do commend the moderators for taking some positive steps, as imperfect as they might have been. And I hope Rick and Wolverine, and perhaps others like them who really do contribute important debate to this forum don't take too much personal offense for receiving the warning. We're still with you!

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 13, 2008 4:43 PM

Splinterlog,

Thanks for clearing that up. I can understand where you're coming from on that. Peace.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | February 13, 2008 4:56 PM

I think that when things start to deteriorate, because certain kinds of postings are allowed, they can spiral down eventually as the standards recede.

That starts to frustrate a whole lot of people into wondering just how to respond while feeling exasperated, and I'm sure translates into posts that aren't as carefully monitored for being as loving as possible before being posted.

Personally, I find it tough not to get bent out of shape when people are vitriolic while making posts that seem to support torture. In my own moral universe, that's so far beyond the pale that it's difficult not to let some outrage seep into replies made after personal attacks that are never vetted.

When you can zing back cleverly in response, you then gain some ego satisfaction of playing to the gallery, since any hope of genuine dialog at that point's been abandoned, but it's clear that hardly anyone who doesn't already agree will ever be won over by such histrionics. So that's not dialogue, it's just trying to "win."

And sometimes you can be right, but for all the wrong reasons.

Maybe some are driven by their sense of being "defenders of the faith," but that's not the primary purpose here, and so perhaps that aspect ought to be held in abeyance.

The great Martin Luther's not the best example for us here, I would propose, for his own contentions were vitriolic, insulting and demeaning to an extreme, for anyone who's read them...

I will note that I received a "last warning" as well.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 13, 2008 5:02 PM

I have been reading this blog for quite a while and have wanted to participate in the discussions but have not had a lot of extra time to do so. the last month or so I've had more down time than usual and have come back to reading the blog. Its been discouraging to see how vitriolic many of the posts have been. I've seen the same thing on another site as one individual took the decision that she was the only Christian and wasted everyones time condemning us to Hell as opposed to entering in to meaningful dialogue. Personally I think hearty disagreement and challenges are great (Something about Iron sharpening Iron) I would hope that folks here will now continue to strive to have the grace, maturity, patience sense of humor etc as we all discuss issues and when we disagree committ to being challenged to trat each other as so incredibly precious that God chose to die and make it possible for us to have a relationship with Him and renewed relationships with each other.

Posted by: Jodie | February 13, 2008 5:22 PM

actually, I'm kinda disappointed I didn't get a warning!! Makes me feel like I'm rather a caspar milquetoast.

kevin s: did you get one?? (just sheer nosiness on my part)

jonahbark: "I think that God's Politics should allow a sincere apology to go a long way toward clearing the air. We all blow it sometimes."

This makes sense to me.

I and I: "Wolverine and Rick, I'm suprised and sorry to hear that both of you got the warnings. I for one certainly never thought that either of you were part of the problem. And I appreciate that both of you actually proofread your posts before hitting send."

and

Don: "I hope Rick and Wolverine, and perhaps others like them who really do contribute important debate to this forum don't take too much personal offense for receiving the warning. We're still with you!"

Hear hear!! I agree with Don and I and I.

Posted by: carl copas | February 13, 2008 5:25 PM

What I find offensive is that apparently I'm not as offensive as Rick or Wolvie since I didn't get a letter. Bummer, cuz I've really been praying a lot about succeeding at something in my life.

Posted by: canucklehead | February 13, 2008 5:32 PM

What I find offensive is that apparently I'm not as offensive as Rick or Wolvie since I didn't get a letter. Bummer, cuz I've really been praying a lot about succeeding at something in my life.

Posted by: canucklehead | February 13, 2008 5:32 PM

Ryan and company -

Thanks for all you're doing. I too am a bit surprised at some of the people who got "the email;" there are really only two who have accounted for most of the problem. I would certainly miss the others if they were banned. However, I do appreciate your efforts to keep things civil.

Posted by: Another nonymous | February 13, 2008 5:39 PM

It's hard to take offense enough to ban Canadians, because their idea of being particularly nasty is saying, "Take off, eh?"

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 13, 2008 6:04 PM

playing certain "cards" and professing "superior knowledge" does get tedious. but.....censorship is not good either. it seems like we have a lot of preachers, scholars, and experts on this blog. including the professionals who do the editorials. so us ignorant lay people who don't proof our posts sorta get "put down" by bible quoters, theological history experts and personal story tellers. but i will continue to read and write. remember, it's politics, not God's,and about immigration and race, like it or not.

Posted by: jerry | February 13, 2008 7:18 PM

As an occasional reader and one or two time poster, I find myself thinking, "Why not shut down the comments altogether?" From my reading of different blog comments it appears that there are people who sometimes misrepresent themselves as being moderate or caring who actually have a sometimes hostile ax to grind, or simply intend to clog the blog with negative feedback, and/or, having fundamental disagreements with Sojourners, probably don't belong here in the first place, and appear to have way too much time on their hands. The comments often have little or no relation to the original blog post but get bogged down in name-calling or side issues. They seem to demean or trivialize the intent of thoughtful bloggers.

Posted by: Peter W. | February 13, 2008 8:44 PM

thank you for trying to limit offenses on this blog. I had gotten in the habit of skipping certain comments that were either just too much off-topic and full of invectives towards others. I don't think it's hard to spot language that is aimed solely at demeaning others -- like calling another's comments "rot", "baloney", "nonsense", etc. Or those who string along a bunch of $10 words that totally fail to communicate a coherent idea.
I agree that Wolverine, Rick and I and I are seldom if ever offensive in thier language or response to others at worst perhaps dismissive or as someone else pointed out, repititious due to others failure to comprehend what they are saying.
I have learned from those with whom I am a polar opposite philosophically, ie: Wolverine and Kevin S, so I would be very disappointed if thier ideas were to be censored. Maybe the lesson to all is to learn to express ideas without personal attacks toward those who seem, at the moment, to be fools. After all, ad hominam attacks always look like you really don't have an idea to stand on.
And N.M.Rod being chastised -- say it isn't so. I don't recall any of his comments being demeaning or overly stated. I appreciate Rod's level headedness and insight.
When the discussion descends into a dog-fight between two or three people, just taking pot shots at each other, maybe then it is time for a moderator to step in and redirect. What happens is these kinds of verbal joustings leave everyone else out and in fact are kind of tedious.

Posted by: c kitty | February 13, 2008 9:43 PM

It could be a little like the teacher coming back from leaving the class alone, and finding them out of their seats, posters pulled from the walls, the blackboard full of caricatures of the staff and principal, and the furniture overturned and in disarray. It's difficult to determine just what happened, since so much has happened, so she just decides to hold everyone responsible who's caught out of their seat when she returned!

Well, what can you expect - we all learned, I am sure, very early, the injustice of adults in engaging in collective punishment!

Yes, I too was chastised. :-(

:-)

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 13, 2008 9:57 PM

For a Weak and not a Strong Civility

As an infrequent secular participant on this blog, I am often shocked by the lack of civil discourse among its supposedly Christian members. Some of these exchanges between participants could easily be called an “impious discourse” for its lack of humility, respect, and reverence for others and their views as reflected in a rhetoric filled with bile, false pride, and hubris. I am amazed at how sure some are that their views are absolutely the final word.

It would not appear unreasonable to censure those who traffic in unreasoned, hateful, and spiteful speech, personal attacks, and other assaults on civil discourse. I would only urge, as I have before, that the violators be sanctioned on the basis of clear and evident transgressions, for a misplaced zealotry could result in an undue restraint on open discourse.

One reason why due diligence should be practiced when constraining speech is that language is inherently figurative. We use metaphors, metonymies, irony, and other figures of speech in the normal course of communicating. In such cases, the assignment of a fixed meaning to a given phrase or figure is fraught with peril. To wit: when I refer to Rush Limbaugh as a “fat windbag” is this a descriptive, pejorative, or jocular usage? While I believe such phraseology is not very civil, I’m not so sure it should be censured. And this leads me to a second reason why caution should be a by-word: the purpose of much communication is not solely to impart knowledge, but to convince others that what one says is the case. This is the rhetorical function of speech and it, like the figurative, is inescapable in a world in which disagreement is commonplace. When I call Rush a “fat windbag” chances are I am trying to persuade you to accept my (clearly contestable) point of view. It is as if the 18th Century Pietistic view that an affect indwells in the interior of our words is an accurate account of our speech acts and that accordingly to speak is not just to make a statement but often it is also intended to convey a feeling. And in areas where discord prevails, these feelings, along with the facts such as they may be, are used to convince others of the validity of our viewpoints.

It would seem then that this blog needs, at times, to become more civil, but this should be a weak not a strong civility, in that if moderators are to err let it be on the side of as much openness of speech as possible. For a strong, that is rigid, civility in which communication is regulated like a too finely tuned machine could turn the site from an open-ended into a tightly wound and close-ended one and would thereby loose much of its reason for being.

Posted by: Brent | February 13, 2008 10:46 PM

I am new to blogging and this is the first and only blog to which I have posted. I have found most comments to be gracious and Christ-like with numerous polite apologies and kind fellowship. Disagreement without being disagreeable. Those who descend to personal jibes and venture onto narrow,individualistic theological planks are usually exposed.
I can relate with Rick Nowlin as I am a charismatic (evangelical),American("liberal") Baptist pastor (at least I'm not Canadian) who bristles at the hint of restricted speech. It's a soul liberty/competence thing. Beside's, what's a debate without a good foil? I fear you will have to resort to straw men. We can glean the most from our staunchest resistance.

Pastor Jeff (PJ)

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | February 13, 2008 11:00 PM

and perhaps a non-sequitor, but I LOVE the Dr. Seuss picture.

Posted by: sara | February 13, 2008 11:42 PM

Canuckle, I feel your pain.

Posted by: carl copas | February 13, 2008 5:40 PM

It's hard to take offense enough to ban Canadians, because their idea of being particularly nasty is saying, "Take off, eh?"

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 13, 2008 6:04 PM

THANK YOU both for your immoral support.

Posted by: canucklehead | February 14, 2008 12:57 AM

Hi Aaron, Abayea, Adam, Andrew, Anna, Kaitlin, Mary Beth, Michael, Robin, and Ryan,

I write from East Africa.

Until I stumbled across God's Politics I imagined (for example) that all American Christians oppose Tony Campolo's theological position.

Being a big admirer of his work I found it distressing that American televangelists and so on who we keep bumping to here seem to preach 'a different gospel'.

It was refreshing to learn from this website that Tony is not alone and, indeed, that there are American Christians who share my 'religious worldview'. That 'worldview' is, of course expressed clearly up there, in ABOUT THIS BLOG.

Sadly, however, the more sensible, sensitive, heartfelt, etc, the articles written by "Jim Wallis and friends Brian McLaren, Diana Butler Bass, Becky Garrison, Gareth Higgins, Shane Claiborne, Mary Nelson, Gabriel Salguero, Tony Campolo, and others", the more it seems, to me, that they invite the most invidious comments from the usual cast of suspects, the 'haters', for want of a better word.

I have often wondered why they do not write to all the ultra right websites and blogs that are to be found all over, instead of wasting this space and discouraging some of us from visiting. But, just maybe, that is their intention!

I welcome your move and prays that it succeeds in weeding them out.

[P.S. - I love 'The Door' too!]

God bless you!

- Alu
Dar es Salaam

Posted by: Robert Alu | February 14, 2008 1:20 AM

Congrats on the action.

There is a need to be more entertaining /creative in our writing and use much more colourful language to put down so that the edge is taken off rather than just the usual blunt disrespectful putdowns dished out in the usual Liberals / Conservatives political groupings.

Inovative language will make things some what more entertaining as well.

For example is a good humorous Aussie curse "may your chooks turn into emus and kick your dunny down".

If you need this translated, you need to look out side you own culture. When looking out side, its amazing how issues can change shape if they do not translate too well into other cultures.

Incidentally, the Liberals / Conservatives clashes often do not translate too well into my culture, too binary.

Posted by: John of Aust | February 14, 2008 8:20 AM

Hi Don,

I just had a quick look at the photos on the website.

That sure is Dar.

I'd love to meet your son. What's his name, etc?

- Alu

Posted by: Robert Alu | February 14, 2008 8:52 AM

My Dear Donny,

All they ask is that we try to be nice. And try to be fair. But you seem to be suggesting that it is impossible for an opposing viewpoint to be nice and fair?

I would imagine you don't let your kids squabble and use disparaging language toward each other. You can certainly make your points on this blog, and we are happy to hear them. Just do so without personal attacks, and remember that it is a dialogue--we actually read and respond to the substance of what others have wrote.

I do look forward to reading from a new, improved, nicer Donny on this blog. For you to just stop posting here altogether would be a copout. You may find that, whatever our faults, God's Politics posters can be quite forgiving despite our various viewpoints.

Posted by: I and I | February 14, 2008 9:25 AM

Doesn't forgiveness follow repentance or an admission of wrongdoing?

I find the lack of study by Progressives, to be shocking.

How do "I" dialog with Progressives, when they seem to be demanding that Christianity be only Progressive? And what does that mean anyway? "Progressive?"

What is being advanced in the name of progress?

Ancient pagan practices re-packaged by neologism is not progress. It is Satan doing what Satan does.

I have made the charge that "progressive" sure appears to be a going backwards in time to Greek-Roman hedonism and even further back in time. I have stated the obvious historical proof for my assertion to have merit. I am called all sorts of nasty things by "Progressives." The Progressive movement is going to spawn a better and more accurate group of real progressives. I can assure you of that. The Gospel does not lead to "anything goes."

What dialog (?), if at the end of every discussion, it is going to be this Progressive new version of morality that looks like ancient paganism, replacing the Christian Church? That is what it looks like. Molech worship sacrificed children to make the lives of parents better. That sure looks like abortion for birth control to me. The GLBT social movement sure looks like a rebirth of King Bera's world. Taxation sure looks like Marxism to me.

Prove me wrong, as a Christian. The Gospel IS God's politics. "The government will be on His shoulders."

I have never once taken offense at my position being challenged. Basically because no one "on the left" has ever offered proof for their alterations of scripture to be valid, and validated. Anyone can be a Christian, but a Christian cannot do anything they please. There are boundaries to even grace. Grace is not extended to those that reject it.

Take for example the gay thing. Why is it, that people that like homosexuality need to force their proclivities on those that reject homosexuality on a religiosu commitment to the Gospel and Apostolic witness. There is no support for homosexuality (same-gender sex) anywhere in the writings of the Apostles OR, the Gospel. Yet you hear this all the time from Progressives, with utterly no scriptural support for their assertions. Just emotionalism through and throough. Emotions do not keep you from damnation.

Dear "I and I," there is no support of same-gender sex anywhere in the New Testament, nor abortion, high taxation (or war). The "progressive" views of the Apostles is that "Christians" move beyond mere lust and wanton desires, and move toward a holy walk with Christ in truth. Not "just" Paul condemned same-gender promiscuity as immorality. "We Christians" should hold scripture as more important than the American Psycholgy Association's DSM IV. I would love to have unfettered sex with as many women as I can fit into my lifetime, but adultery and immorality needs to be jettisoned sooner or later, when "choosing" to follow Christ Jesus. There is nothing "wrong" with commiting yourself to one woman if you're a man and one man if you're a woman, or, not choosing a carnal life-partner (which Jesus immutably taught was oppositie gender).

Progressive . . . whatever . . . aligns itself with Humanism far, far, more, than it does with the New Testament. All I ever ask is that my assertion be tested. READ the Humanist Manifesto. It literally IS Progressive politics. NOT God's politics.

Do you Progressives reeeeeeaaaallllllyyyy want dialogue? Really??

I have backed up my positions with scripture and secular history. Yet even that is attacked and ridiculed. Even one gay responder threatening blood for blood in our Churches. I'll bet that his post is still up.

Where, where do you see "conservatives" shouting, protesting and screaming at progressives anywhere???? One wrong Kansas Church is not a great movement.

Not promoting homosexuality, abortion and high taxes is anything BUT the equal of how and why Progressives champion what they do. It is not moving on, we are going backwards.

I have challneged Jim Wallis many, many times on HIS BLOG. He remains behind his wall of supporters. Rod Dreher and David Kuo answer their detractors with scripture and passion.

Wallis uses the typical "intolerance and bigotry" accusations to silence "dialogue."

I have a very difficult time calling a liar a liar in nice and comfy ways.

"God's Politics" wanted this dialogue. It is Jim Wallis and his followers that claimed to be in a discussion with Evangelical Christians.

Then let us talk.

"Come let us reason together," says the Lord.

If God is not afraid of the word "why" then why are Progressives in such opposition of it?

Heresy and false teachers are not a joke. The letters of the Apostles were written to combat "progressive" views of Christian faith that went too far. The Gospel was written to combat strictness and liberalism, that went too far. But the Gospels were written foremost to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, and that the Messiah is God manifested in the flesh. I have never challenged anyone's position there. If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, your salvation is between you and He.

I only challenge words and deeds that contradict the Gospel and Apostolic witness. I am called - as a Christian - to do that. Supposedly, that is what Jim Wallis is doing. He has yet to prove his position is valid. He just peoves that knee-jerk emotionalism is still standard fair of Leftist ideology.

I repeat, I find the lack of study of Progressives to be shocking.

May God Bless those seeking Him, through His Son Jesus.

Posted by: Donny | February 14, 2008 10:24 AM

Is the following hate speech?"

(The sin and doom of Godless men.)

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

(Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day."

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. (Even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!")

Yet these men, speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them.

These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

(Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.")

These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.

(A call to persevere)

But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires." These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.

But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy,

mixed with fear,

hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.

Jude,

A servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James.

To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ.

Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.

Posted by: From another guy, to me and to you. | February 14, 2008 11:02 AM

Alu-

His name is Matthew. I don't know exactly where he's staying--the students board with families--but the Kiswahili classes have been held in the Salvation Army building. I think they're also taking classes at the University.

But like I said, they are leaving Dar this weekend or early next week to begin the service phase of their stay in Tanzania. So tomorrow might be their last day of lessons.

Peace,

Don

Posted by: Don | February 14, 2008 11:24 AM

Don,

If it's "OK" as a matter of Christian discourse to call Rush Limbaugh "a fat windbag" then would it also be "OK" to call Jim Wallis a "fat windbag"?

Or for any of us to become so agitated when we can't reason well enough, but still want to express opposition, to contemptuously call each other "fat windbags" or similar insults?

I think it's because of your personal distaste for Rush's politics that you feel it's OK to disparage him personally instead of arguing the merits or lack thereof of his discourse.

But Rush is a human being too, and like any of us, not beyond redemption or unworthy of love.

This is the kind of thing that clearly is not allowed.

The purpose of this dialog isn't to see who can make the most cutting remarks, the cleverest insults. In such a way, we will become exactly what we describe.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 14, 2008 11:52 AM

I think it's because of your personal distaste for Rush's politics that you feel it's OK to disparage him personally.

In my mind at least, I wasn't making a personally disparaging remark by calling right-wing media "foghorns" (and in fact I didn't single out Rush or any other individual, either, when I originally wrote that). I was using a metaphor that I thought was descriptive of the nature of that type of media discourse--hard to ignore, persistent, and, yes, especially when one gets close, loud.

I agree with you that calling Rush or anyone a fat windbag (or a big fat idiot as Al Franken did--thanks for the reminder Another nonymous) is personally disparaging and I wouldn't argue against any point Rush made by using similar terminology--I would, as you suggest, try to base my argument on the merits of his point and the examples, reasons, etc. that he gave to back it up (if he gave any).

But sometimes the distinction between figurative language and personal insult might be a bit fuzzy. As I mentioned, some fans of right-wing media might not like "foghorn" and might consider it an attack, even though I didn't intend it as such. I was only asking where the distinction lies and how does one know? Because I and other writers aren't about to abandon the use of figurative language. I'm sure you use it as well.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 14, 2008 12:10 PM

Don,

Thanks for the link you provided above. I've bookmarked it in My Favorites. I can't say I'll check it all that frequently, but I sure appreciate the opportunity to hear about the mission.

Those photographs make me homesick!

Your son's name is Matthew? That's a good name (it happens to be mine as well).

Peace!

Posted by: neuro_nurse | February 14, 2008 1:08 PM

George wrote... "I'm reminded of a comment made by then Senator Daniel Inouye during the Watertgate Hearings..."

Daniel Inouye is still a Senator today, believe it or not, so no need for the "then". :)

Posted by: Eric | February 14, 2008 1:36 PM

Don,

I agree that trying to engage Donny in a dialog can be extremely frustrating, especially because he tends to blame all of the world's problems on liberals and put us all in the same box, but to some degree, I'm guilty of wanting to blame the current administration for many of the world's problems.

We can only assume that if Donny (or any of us) breaks the rules he will be notified, and if he persists, blocked from God's Politics. I just don't think Donny does break the rules with any frequency.

Peace!

Posted by: neuro_nurse | February 14, 2008 2:04 PM

"To boot, check out their record on getting along with one another within their own ranks."

Reminds me of that famous Emo Philips joke. http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1580529,00.html

Funny though, first time I heard that was from my own pastor back in the 80's, in a sermon about unity.

Posted by: I and I | February 14, 2008 3:26 PM

Re: FYI "Come let us reason together," says the Lord. This was reportedly a favorite of Lyndon Johnson. As nice a sentiment as it is in this conxtet, it is, unfortunately, at best a mistranslation. A better reading is "Come now, let us argue it out,says the LORD..." (NRSV). It is the language of court (the city gate) and litigation

Posted by: Peter W. | February 14, 2008 4:19 PM

Eileen,
Many of us have issues that we hold dear to our hearts, for me it is Africa. The issue is we are having discussions on specific topics presented in an article. It gets old when the same people are shoe horning their pet tangents (no matter how important) into each conversation. Whether its "secular humanism", gay theology or Israel. Your issue does come up occasional, if you wait till then and write something original (not paste articles from your web site) I think you would be fine.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | February 14, 2008 5:32 PM

I appreciate all the votes of support, but right now I think I need to step back and re-evaluate my participation in this community. I am quite disappointed in the way that this thing is being handled.

While I don't think Sojo is being biased here I honestly have no way of knowing what is acceptable or not and if the email I received is to be believed I have no margin for error. At a minimum it seems wise to back out until things settle down.

And with all due respect to Beiler et al, providing specifics is not "hand-holding", it's a basic principle of Christian discipline: "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault". (Matt 18:15 -- red letters, by the way)

I may come back, or I may start my own blog. I really don't know. If its the latter I'll try to let you know where it is.

Left and Right, Sages and Knuckleheads, I'm glad we had the chance to talk.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | February 14, 2008 6:48 PM

Wolverine--sorry you are going to take a break. Honestly, I don't think you or many others, like Rick, I and I, Canucklehead should have even received such letters. You are some who keep the discussion lively and thought-provoking.

Moderators--the problem needs to be handled in some way that is effective, and I think you can see from several posts here that many of us don't agree with your choice of who received the letters. It's pretty clear who is being disruptive on here, and it isn't these guys.

I appreciate your efforts at trying to fix the problems, and I know it isn't easy. I do, however, hope you listen to those of us who have posted here for some time--we have some insights into the situation because we---ummmmm---live here....probably more than we should, actually.

Thanks

Posted by: Squeaky | February 14, 2008 9:26 PM

Wolverine and Canuck, don't go away!

Canucklehead wrote:
In any event, like Wolvie, I'm gonna take a powder w/ a suggestion to the moderators that had they not allowed a certain contributor to virtually take over several threads on the blog, perhaps some of us wouldn't have had to get so pointed in registering our disgust.

Squeaky wrote:
Moderators--the problem needs to be handled in some way that is effective, and I think you can see from several posts here that many of us don't agree with your choice of who received the letters. It's pretty clear who is being disruptive on here, and it isn't these guys.

Squeaky and Canucklehead, you might want to express your concerns directly to the moderator through the email link found on the Rules of Conduct page. Especially mention the one whom you believe hijacked several threads and the fact that Wolvie, Canucklehead, I and I, and Rick were not the culprits and shoulddn't have been singled out.

I will do the same thing myself. And I'll suggest that anyone else who feels inclined to say so, should.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 15, 2008 7:43 AM

Don: "and the fact that Wolvie, Canucklehead, I and I, and Rick were not the culprits and shoulddn't have been singled out."

Just to correct a misunderstanding, I did not receive a warning. Sorry if one of my previous posts made it sound like I did; my purpose was simply to encourage Rick and Wolverine by saying that I never saw them as part of the problem. In general, I support wholeheartedly what the moderators are doing. I agree with many of you that the problems were coming from primarily two or three people who repeatedly used character assassination, wrote carelessly, overposted, and didn't seem to be that interested in dialogue.

Posted by: I and I | February 15, 2008 9:14 AM

Wolverine and Canuck, don't go away!

Ditto!

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | February 15, 2008 10:03 AM

You're right, Don. I have to admit I wonder how in tune moderators really are with what goes on here, judging from some of the posts that have been removed, and from the far more vitriolic ones that have remained. They do respond to the e-mail, however, and it is the best way to express our concerns to them.

Posted by: squeaky | February 15, 2008 1:46 PM

although i ususally post about keeping things "loving", and i applaud the redoubled efforts by the moderators to do so, IMO, let 'em all in...let's govern this with a very light hand.

i am sincerely learning a great deal about both sides of the "aisle" and the grey area in between.

i am learning that i (mostly moderate) am just as inclined to generalization, arrogance and, yes, angry frustration as those on the fringes; that my ability to remain calm and "open-minded" is just as flawed as those i accuse of being reactionary and narrow. which all leads me to be more vigilent about checking and rechecking that plank in my own eye.

also, seeing (to my continuing amazement) the lack of awareness some have with regard to the true genesis and continuing causes of discrimination and poverty in this country and globally. perplexed that the fundamentalists on this blog don't mention "sins of the fathers", don't understand that Jesus hated the tax-collectors not because they collected taxes, but because they exploited the poor. it was greed and pride and self-righteousness that made Jesus angry, not taxes. it was twisting the Word of God to fit our personal agenda that he hated, not immorality.

before i started reading the sojo blogs, i was naive in thinking that most Christians care about justice work but don't get involved because of lack of time or fear of confrontation with authority, etc. (same reasons they don't get involved in other ministries). this blog has helped (although it shocks, alarms, disappoints)me to realize that there are Christians who don't get involved because they actually think justice work is un-Godly and immoral.

this knowledge helps me in shaping the message for my local faith-based justice organization.

iron does sharpen iron. so even though some may not allow themselves to be sharpened by my particular brand of iron, i can still be sharpened by theirs.

Posted by: seeker-finder | February 15, 2008 2:57 PM

This blog has helped (although it shocks, alarms, disappoints)me to realize that there are Christians who don't get involved because they actually think justice work is un-Godly and immoral.

seeker-finder -- Welcome to reality, and a lot of that can be blamed on dispensational theology, which doesn't believe it's necesary. Anyway, that's precisely why I always fought the "religious right" almost from Day One.

My home church in those days was quite liberal theologically -- so much so that I ended up having to leave -- but did get a lot of things right. Even then I was thinking, "If we can bring this into evangelicalism ..." Now, thank God, it's actually happening all over the country, and I'm privileged to attend an evangelical church that actually recognizes "justice for the poor" as part of the Gospel.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 15, 2008 3:30 PM

Wolverine,

You are one of the people I was talking about in my previous post - someone with whom I have had disagreements in the past, but consider to be an asset to this milieu.

I too took a couple of months away from God's Politics. I can understand your frustration and sympathize. I'll be glad to see you here when you come back.

canucklehead, well, you know how I feel about you.

Seek peace and pursue it.

Posted by: neuro_nurse | February 15, 2008 6:08 PM

Just took your quiz on the founders of the U.S. in relation to religion. Curious to know where you got evangelicals at the time of the founding as the group who most supported separation of church/state and that Washington "refused" communion?
Thanx

Posted by: craig | February 19, 2008 12:53 PM

To the moderators,

You have a tough job. I only wish these same standards of conduct you are enforcing were consistent throughout all of Beleifnet. (A certain 'semi-hard conservative' blog comes to mind.)

To mark, who said: "Everyone knows that politics... and especially mixing politics and religion... is going to create controversy."

Controversy is one thing. Being personally demeaned, diminished, debased and maligned is an entirely different thing. As one who is consistently so diminished, demeaned, debased etc. (as an openly gay man), I have had to repeatedly put up with people comparing my relationship with beastiality, rape, child-molestation, abuse, cannabalism, necrophilia, "marrying a plant, a child or an animal", etc. I have been called "Satan's minon" and a "Son of Moloch". This is not mere "controversy", it is a personal, vitriolic attack on a person, not on an idea (and it's also likely slander). Not to mention un-charitable. That they say these things in the name of Christ is revolting.

I can see the difference. Sorry that you can't.

Posted by: recovering ex-Pentecostal | February 26, 2008 1:46 PM