Yeah, I've had that exact sort of thing happen to me. So...I know how you feel. Really frustrating, isn't it?

You have no opportunity to defend yourself. Your accusers won't talk to you. You're just suddenly blackballed.

But...I think you'd find - that even if they did agree to meet with you, they STILL wouldn't talk to you. At least not really. They'd just shout at you, tell you to shut up.

Ummm..."My mind is made up. Please don't confuse me with the facts."?

I don't know what you do with those kind of people. They kind of live in a world of fear.

I mean...why didn't they just insist on a having someone there to give an opposing view? Kind of point and counterpoint?

But...folks like that don't ever see it that way. It's their way or the highway.

Shrug...no real solution, is there?

Me-thinks that's where you open up the book of Psalms and re-read all those verses about the Lord knowing your heart and He will bring to light the truth.

Posted by: Amazon Creek | February 9, 2008 1:12 AM

This is the "Lighthouse Trails" self-appointed extremist-right-fundie watchdog website that makes it its business to disrupt with innuendo, rumor and general character assassination what its shadowy characters disagree with. As we all know, you can destroy innocent people's careers and reputations with this sort of evil destructive behavior, which is why "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" is one of the commandments, and why the Lord despises rumormongering.

Like the Blues Brothers (but not so innocently by any means) these people pretend they are "on a mission for God."

Posted by: Unhappy Trails | February 9, 2008 1:54 AM

I note that Shane claims to be a 'red letter
Christian'. Yet, as best I can tell, the whole purpose of that group is to silence opposition by claiming that political disagreement with them is to be spiritually defective.

What can I say? Most of these pseudo intellectual movements - like mixing religion and politics - are led by people who have agendas too complex and conflicting to realize thier fundamental incongruity. Or use it to disguise thier real agenda.

Posted by: mark | February 9, 2008 3:07 AM

Whoa now, just wait a minute!!!!!!!

"God's Politic's" wouldn't even be allowed to exist if this were a conservative or orthodox "Christian" organization. If ANY conservative, Bible-believing, Born-Again, "Christian," even wispered the word's "God's Politics" as a vehicle to present current affairs (no pun intended) in the presence of a Liberal or a Progressive, or a Democrat, or a Hollywood actor, or the Dr. Rowan Williams or John Spong, or Soulforce or CrossLeft, et al . . . they would be facing a HUGE crowd of screaming Humanists at every venue they attempted to communicate in. Including here in cyberspace at B-Net. It is Progressives that shout down any dissent of Secular Humansim on every college and university campus and anywhere else Leftist views are not agreed upon to rule.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Barry Lynn and every lawyer from the ACLU or C.A.I.R., would start a lawsuit over a conservative using "God's Politics the way that Jin Wallis has. But no one "on the Left" has ever truly desired dialogue. The monlogue of the religious Left is the same Humanist message poisoning our world from our school system. Look at the issues championed by both.

You cannot tell the difference between a "Progressive Christian" and a God-denying Humanist on anything.

"I am excited to say that these bloggers do not represent the majority of Christians -- who want to see evangelism and social justice kiss, and who know that what we believe must affect the way in which we live."

How are you not joking?

What Progressives desire to see kiss, is called abomination by scripture. It certainly has nothing in common with justice.

"Progressives live the life of a Humanist in deed and most words. You SOJOians, do not want dialogue from the Left-Right debate. Why would you even attempt to represent that. You are typical Leftists. You want to talk and distract, while secular legislators implement your worldy ways on everyone. If you wanted to dialogue AND represent the Gospel (Evangel), you would stand against the promotion of everything "The Left" (Humanism, Liberalism and Progressive ideology) holds as absolute truth.

What is happening is you are being treated the way you treat others. Like the aforementioned Rowman Williams, people ARE listening to you and they can test what you say against clear and understandable scriptural truth . . . and reject having anything to do with you.

Yet you deamnd every ear by the very rights you deny those that stand in opposition to your Humansim called Christian justice.

"Progressive" ISM, is antithetical to the Gospel AND the very witness of the Apostles.

Sorry pal, that is just provable fact. You claim to want to help the poor, but you will do nothing to show them the way OUT of their immorality that keeps them poor. In African COUNTRIES, it is vioelen Muslims and other anti-Christian ways of life that harm the poor. But you Leftists portray everything America does as bad. SO, when "American" Christians do what they always have done, and help the poor, they get attacked now.

Non-Leftist Christians will listen to you and have always listened to you. And rejected the foundation of your way of life. Progressives ARE Humanists. In every single way that Humanism presents itself. When "tested" by light of scripture, and by word and deeds you are shown for what they are.

And yet you play the victim of intolerance.

That is a purposely false representation of the truth. Just like every other claim of intolerance against Liberal and Progressives that you hear drum along wherever you are opposed.

You cannot implement abominations while claiming you are concerened about the poor. That is something King Bera represented. False care about "persons" and desiring something far more sinister.

The dialogue is not open between Christians that "hold" to scripture, and Progessives and Liberals that follow the Humanism that discards it. It is closed FROM YOUR SIDE.

Christians that are still following the Gospel and Apostolic mission called "The Church" are opposed BY Progressives and Liberals. Why lie about that? Why deny it? Let's have a dialogue about why it IS so. It IS so, because Progressives follow Darwin and Neitzsche, Marx Dewey, and not Jesus and Peter and Paul, James, John and Jude.

Let us be at least "open" in our dialogue about what is true. That would start by being honest.

Donny

Posted by: Psalm 52, me too | February 9, 2008 6:45 AM

One more comment...I find it unnecessary and distasteful that Shane chose to name Cedarville as the place he's been having problems with. He didn't need to name the college, as it served no purpose for the points he was trying to convey. His whole post clearly portrays Cedarville in a negative light. We have no idea what their reasons were for disinviting him to speak. I appreciate a lot of the work you're doing, but calling them out like this smacks of the same kind of rumor-mongering this post speaks against.

Posted by: jesse | February 9, 2008 6:55 AM

Sorry your engagement was canceled, Shane. You have made many contributions by your words and actions. In reading what has been written here, is is obvious that some of the people who post here agree with what was done. It is wise to not waste your time on them and to get on with the necessary work.

Peace,

Jim

Posted by: JamesMartin | February 9, 2008 8:41 AM

It would be nice to have a link to what the hubbub was all about.

"In fact, the obligation is not there. Like it or not, it's clearly Cedarville's prerogative to invite who they want to invite. "

Shane didn't say his rights were violated. There is a group devoted (and I mean devoted) to blogging negatively about the church movement to which I belong. They have even crafted our Wiki entry, and act as gatekeepers for any changes made to that entry. That is their right, and it does not violate our rights, but it sucks.

I find obnoxious the tendency for students at mainstream universities to throw fits whenever conservative speakers arrive. Shane seems to suggest that the tolerance ought to flow both ways, and I agree with him.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 9, 2008 12:26 PM

Shane,

I heard once that Martin Marty who used to teach at U of Chicago Divinity School was asked whether he was a Republican or a Democrat.

His response was that he doesn't see politics like that. He looks at it as whether people are nice or mean, and he strives to be nice.

I detect the same gentle spirit when I read your words. I hope this situation turns out well; may everyone learn something about themselves!

Posted by: dave | February 9, 2008 1:08 PM

I believe in Apostolic Succession. I believe that Jesus gave his 12 Apostles leadership roles in the church, and that the command "He who listens to you listens to me" has been passed down by the laying on of hands since the first church which was built on the witness of Peter.

We who are not bishops can argue all we want--but it is the charism of the bishop to discern truth and shepherd his people. My problem with a group like The Simple Way or even God's Politics is that it doesn't have episcopal oversight--no one is in submission to Jesus through His apostles. I like Brian McClaren and Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo, but I find their reluctance to be ordained by the successors to the original apostles to be suspect. I think it shows an unwillingness to submit to authority and is akin to the sin of Korah mentioned in Jude.

I don't think Jesus meant for us to argue until we were exhausted--I think He provided Apostolic Succession as a ministry whose task was to discern and make final pronouncements for the whole Church in the manner of the Apostles at the Jerusalem Council in Acts. The baptized argued and discussed, but, ultimately, the bishops made the final decision. We need episcopal oversight here.

I think the lack of episcopal oversight in the evangelical movement reflects the sin of an unwillingness to submit fully to Jesus and those He gave authority to lead.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | February 9, 2008 1:28 PM

jonabark:

I'd like you to cite for me ANY violation of the rules that doesn't spring from your own presumptions, rather than what I say. Quote the words here.

And for your enlightenment, I remind you of the following:

" When debating, express your opinion about a person's ideas, not about them personally. Do not make negative personal remarks about another's age, disability, gender, ethnicity, race, nationality, sexual orientation, intelligence, character, appearance, health, mental health, education or any other personal characteristic.

Yet this whole blog is an endless recitation of "you are going to hell for your politics" condemnation of people's character. If memory serves, even YOU have engaged in such.

I understand that my comments, and my characterization of ideas as "stupid" and "mindless" might make you mad. Too bad. Get over it. Your ideological soulmates have far too long engaged in the politics of personal destruction in every realm, from the religious, to the political, and I will not back down or be intimidated by those who consider themselves morally superior to me.

If I find offense when people assume that ++ I ++ would approve of slavery because of my politics, the argument is "isn't there a little truth to that?". Yet no calls from me to censor or ban anyone doing it. They just don't even realize the depths of thier hypocritical politics.

I'd prefer to point it out to them, than to shut them up.

So, enough of this pretentious garbage about my and others "moral inferority" justifying thier silencing. Censor yourself. When your own behavior sets you apart from any of your criticisms, I might take it seriously.

Posted by: mark | February 9, 2008 2:30 PM

Dean--please don't ever post here again.

Posted by: squeaky | February 9, 2008 2:41 PM

Trevor... You're right, Jesus tangled with the "orthodoxy" of his day.

But it wasn't "right" or "left" either.

Like it or not, those are human inventions. God isn't concerned with that.

Christ came here and showed by example, that salvation was all about doing good for other people, and that the church's million rules and regulations were of human origin, and that the weightier matters of the law concerned how we deal individually with our fellow man and with God.

Today, Christ would infuriate most established churches, because He would bypass thier long studied and carefully constructed theology, declare thier politics blashphemous and basically incite a personal revolution which would decimate the power of our leaders.

Which is what He did back then.

Christ was endlessly pursued by the leaders of the CHURCH He himself belonged to and worshipped in, as being a blasphemer and dangerous. Why? Because He was the giver of the law, and these people had injected thier own opinion as law.

Now I can just imagine the howls when I say that there's no difference between the Church of Christ's day, and the people who think that the people must have Bishops divine truth and correctness for the people under them to follow.

Christ came to free the people from both.

Posted by: mark | February 9, 2008 2:50 PM

Dean,

Your first post, besides being insulting, makes no sense. There is certainly no reason why impersonal and indirect communications can't still be influential. (Consider "Deep Throat", the informant who spilled the beans on Watergate. He remained anonymous until his deathbed. He also had a big hand in bringing down a President.) Neither is there any conflict between Claiborne's spreading the Gospel and his speaking at Cedarville.

While it is possible that Mr. Claiborne is whining over his lost opportunity to be the center of attention, it's also possible that Cedarville's administration is kowtowing to a bunch of closed-minded alumni and/or donors. Or maybe this is a mutual screw-up. We just don't know and can't even make an educated guess until Cedarville has had a chance to respond.

I would urge Dean in particular to settle down, and I would urge all of us to go easy on the criticisms, at least until monday, when hopefully Cedarville will give us their side of the story.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | February 9, 2008 3:15 PM

You are absolutely convinced that your point of view is complex and sophisticated, so anybody else's is naive and simplistic. The palpable attitude of personal superiority that radiates from your posts alienates those who read them, and you apparently don't care. It is not your positions or your arguments that people are objecting to; it is the way you present them.

I have to smile at this, because I've seen this argued by so many people about so many other people for so long.

I don't claim any "sophistication". Nor do my words. I make no nuanced or predicated arguments with complex backgrounds.

Rather, my arguments are simple, straightforward, and yes, I actually DO think and believe I am right.

I had one of those moments a good many years ago, when my father fouled up some statement so bad that everyone misunderstood him. We all argued briefly and finally it becamse clear what he meant and I restated what he had said using the proper terminology. My father flew into a rage "Can't you just let me be wrong?!" he bellowed in anger.

I said not a word, but every fiber of my soul screamed out " NOOOOOOO!!!!!". I NEVER AGAIN wanted to have been wrong.

I refuse to be wrong. I have transformed from a political and social liberal to a conservative, because I had to be fundamentally correct about things. One does not tranform thier thinking fundamentally by being closed minded. But one does not also gain anything by pretending to be only half-convinced of some truth's correctness. I have lost and regained my faith, the same is true.

And yes, I state unequivocally, I AM RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING. I set my life's mission to be RIGHT about everything of importance. If you disagree, feel free to try to prove me wrong. But please understand that I have a decade of online discussion with people who were convinced I was wrong on (insert favorite controversial topic here) and set about to educate me. I have seen all the arguments repeatedly.

Well, ok, I've seen a LOT of arguments repeatedly, but none are convincing, at least so far. I was once on the side of many of your political arguments, so don't accuse me of failing to understand them. Of c ourse, my assumptions of what you think can be wrong, too. I can't read minds. Again, enlighten me.

The biggest problem I have ever had was getting political liberals to state why they believe what they beleive. Far too few have set about challenging what they think, to change your mind if necesary, so that you could believe without doubt in the validity of what you hold as true. Few can tolerate being questioned, and few have enough of an open mind to stack thier best defense against another's.

I am the epitome of an open mind... Just one that has long ago seen the value or validity of various concepts and beliefs and isn't easily swayed. I am not offended by disagreement. Nor do I judge people for disagreeing. But long ago, I had to make judgements about the validity of many things, and trust that judgement after testing it repeatedly.

Posted by: mark | February 9, 2008 3:50 PM

The palpable attitude of personal superiority that radiates from your posts alienates those who read them, and you apparently don't care.

Let me be clear... I don't care what people think of me. My self image is not dependent upon other people's approval or disapproval. Nor is my self image easily dentable by people's commentary.

I don't have to convince you to agree with me, for me to be confident about what I think.

There, does that help?

Posted by: mark | February 9, 2008 4:02 PM

Mark -

I appreciate your honest response. I believe that you honestly think you are right about everything. Here's the problem. I'm a professional educator, and I know from a lifetime of experience that the process of education leads away from certainty, not toward it. The more education somebody gets, the more intellectual humility he/she acquires, and the less certain he/she is about being right about anything.

I will not speak for the humility or lack of it of any of the leftists who post here (they run the gamut), but I know from last week's argument that you are impervious to facts. I stated that the Greek text of Matthew 25 shows Jesus addressing the nations, or peoples - ethne - and promising to separate them according to how they treat the poor. You didn't like that, so you simply denounced my argument. However, you never responded to the substance of it, because, in your world-view, that substance had to be wrong.

That's why I repeat my statement that there is simply no point in arguing with you. You seem to think that nobody has successfully contradicted your beliefs. However, it's quite clear that there's a reason for this - you have closed yourself into a box and made it impossible for anyone to do so.

Hope you enjoy the stuffy air. When you find it gets suffocating in there, let's talk.

Posted by: Another nonymous | February 9, 2008 4:31 PM

"I now return to my self-imposed moratorium."

Squeaky -

Thanks for the assist. Me too.

Posted by: Another nonymous | February 9, 2008 4:40 PM

Cedarville College is known in these parts as a very conservative Christian institution, both theologically and socially. I think it's fair to call them "fundamentalist."

I was a bit confused about Shane's post because I didn't fully understand the background information that he gives us. He talked in the first paragraph about an "impersonal means of communication" that was imprecisely defined. Maybe Shane could have talked directly about this blog, giving some examples of what the bloggers wrote that derailed his invitation to speak at Cedarville.

another nonymous and squeaky:
You've both experienced what I also experienced re. trying to discuss things with Mark. I think I wrote in an earlier post that he doesn't let trivial matters like facts get in the way of his reasoning. Now we know that since he is right about everything, he simply doesn't need facts.

Whatever.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 9, 2008 4:58 PM

One final thought on this... the notion that nobody can be confident of being ultimately right about things is based on the presumption that there IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH about anything.

If there is, once you find it, how could it be "enlightend" to doubt it?

So, do YOU thirst to be RIGHT about everything or just to have your ideas win?

Posted by: mark | February 9, 2008 5:37 PM

another nonymous and squeaky:
You've both experienced what I also experienced re. trying to discuss things with Mark. I think I wrote in an earlier post that he doesn't let trivial matters like facts get in the way of his reasoning. Now we know that since he is right about everything, he simply doesn't need facts.Whatever.Peace, Posted by: Don

Hopefully the blog moderator will take care of the problem.

Posted by: JamesMartin | February 9, 2008 5:57 PM

JamesMartin,
"Hopefully the blog moderator will take care of the problem."

Can't say I have much hope of that--note that Dean's post (first post) still exists, and that was pretty much a no-brainer candidate for elimination.

Posted by: squeaky | February 9, 2008 6:00 PM

Interesting that in a discussion on an article titled "Don't Fear Disagreement" we have the renewed call to ban Mark.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | February 9, 2008 6:04 PM

I think Mark is actually a perfect example of the kind of person who fears disagreement above all else. I've been following these threads fairly carefully, and I don't think a single person has called him racist, pro-slavery, going to hell, or not a real Christian. He's defending himself against a bogeyman of his own creation, which, I suspect, is exactly what those who got Shane banned from Cedarville are in the habit of doing.

Oh, I came here and talk because I am afraid?

More cognitive dissonance again.

BTW, every one of those things is a repeated theme here.

Posted by: mark | February 9, 2008 6:18 PM

Another nonymous,
For a person who fears disagreement, he sure doesn't shy from it. Though I would like to see Mark be more concise in his posts, he does stay on point. He is unswayed by other points of view, but he is not the only one or even the worst offender on this sight.

Unsolicited advise to those frustrated with Mark; don't be so concerned with convincing Mark that he is wrong, instead attempt to convince us that your right.

Unsolicited advise to Mark; you could be more personable with others even when you disagree with them.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | February 9, 2008 6:29 PM

Jeff -

I beg to differ. Disagreement is exactly what Mark shies from. He shouts and postures at all and sundry. Anyone who has taken Psych 101 can tell you that this behavior stems from fear. I'm just not going to waste any more time standing in for the father he was never able to argue down.

I will, however, try to return this thread to the original subject by suggesting that Shane's title, "Don't Fear Disagreement," is right on the mark. The unity of the Body of Christ, for which I prayed here on Ash Wednesday, would be within all of our reach if we could just let go of fear.

Posted by: Another nonymous | February 9, 2008 7:05 PM

"Interesting that in a discussion on an article titled "Don't Fear Disagreement" we have the renewed call to ban Mark. "

Okay, once again, I did at one time make that call. The reason: Mark systematically refuses to conform to the posting guidelines. It's that simple. Yes, Jeff, Mark usually stays on point, but when his ideas are challenged, he make personal accusations against the challenger, some of which have been over the top. He refuses to acknowledge facts that are presented that counter his thoughts, and turns any attempt to discuss those facts as more cause for personal attacks. As one poster wrote about a week ago (I think it was Squeaky), Mark laces his comments not with grace but with acid.

Jeff, it's not a matter of trying to convince Mark he is wrong so much as it's a matter of inability to have any kind of reasonable or thoughtful discussion with him. I, like another nonymous, won't be trying to engage him any more. My discussion about the role and importance of the church on an earlier thread ended it for me.

But I haven't repeated that call to have him banned (at least not in writing on this forum) since I made it one time about two weeks ago.

I take Jim Martin's comment to mean the moderator ought to take some kind of action, such as reminding Mark of the guidelines for posting here. Because if the guidelines mean anything at all, action should certainly be taken.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 9, 2008 7:37 PM

OK, I lied. Only 5 days ago, I pledged to stay away from this site for a couple of weeks to see if the discussion could possibly turn more civil and not be dominated by one person. Since I had a half hour to kill before leaving for the evening, I broke my pledge (weakness on my part) and checked the most recent blog on sojo.net just to see if anything at all had changed. Regretably, if this one blog is any indication, it's only gotten worse. When will I learn??? If I make another comment before February 20th, please have the moderator ban me for life!

Posted by: Cads | February 9, 2008 8:06 PM

Squeaky,
You're right, no call for a ban was issued this thread. I was assuming (maybe incorrectly)the call for moderator intervention was a renewal of an earlier call for Mark's ban (see Don's post above). Sorry, my mistake.

I stand by my earlier statement. Many of you are having a problem with disputing Mark's points.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | February 9, 2008 8:07 PM

letjusticerolldown,
Ditto
Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | February 9, 2008 8:47 PM

In light of some comments about Mark not being humble because he thinks he is right about everything, I would like to quote from G.K Chesterton's Orthodoxy ( a must-read ). It is from the chapter titled The Suicide of Thought: (This was written in 1908.)

"But what we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert -- himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt - the Divine Reason. .... For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether."

When I read Another's comment below,
"The more education somebody gets, the more intellectual humility he/she acquires, and the less certain he/she is about being right about anything" Chesterton's prophetic words are clearly seen.

Sure, the older we get the more we see there is to learn but please don't associate humility with not being certain about anything. That is a scary place for mankind to be.

Posted by: catherine | February 9, 2008 9:49 PM

PS - IIRC, the way that reason commits suicide, according to Chesterton, is by getting carried away with itself. A man who trusts entirely to reason is certifiably insane. Perhaps I did overstate the opposite case, but it was not without provocation.

Posted by: Another nonymous | February 9, 2008 10:50 PM

thanks for the clarification, Another. I'll chew on what you said about anchoring our doubt in something (I prefer "Someone") bigger.

thanks

Posted by: catherine | February 9, 2008 11:26 PM

Catherine -

You're most welcome. And "Someome" it is; that's the difference between looking for truth as an intellectual abstraction and looking for truth as a Person with whom you can interact. I'm with you 100%.

Posted by: Another nonymous | February 9, 2008 11:47 PM

It seems to me what Another is saying is that there is truth in which we can be certain but we don't always get it right. That is supremely human. We can be on the right path and get distracted by all kinds of things including our need to be right even when we're wrong.
Mark asserts he is always right because he wants to be, needs to be , his house of cards would fall down if he were to listen to anyone who disagrees with him. Hardly an objective measure of truth.
I don't disagree that there is truth out there, I just doubt that Mark is the one that has it nailed down.
It is a pity that he is denying himself the enjoyment of finding out more than he thinks he already knows. I rather appreciate finding out when I was wrong about something or someone.
A few years back, some school districts decided it was a bad idea to correct kids, since it would hurt their self-esteem. So when the kids turned 18, they couldn't spell thier own names or balance a checkbook. But they thought they were right about everything and felt really good about themselves.

Posted by: c kitty | February 10, 2008 12:43 AM

Mark asserts he is always right because he wants to be, needs to be , his house of cards would fall down if he were to listen to anyone who disagrees with him. Hardly an objective measure of truth.

My house of cards would fall if people disagree?

It's amazing that on a Christian forum, the absolute worst in everyone is assumed. I have no "house of cards". It's amazing that you'd consider someone who visits a forum of ideological opposites to be making an effort to shield himself from disagreement.

I don't disagree that there is truth out there, I just doubt that Mark is the one that has it nailed down.

So, it's you?

It is a pity that he is denying himself the enjoyment of finding out more than he thinks he already knows. I rather appreciate finding out when I was wrong about something or someone.

I should say something like "ROFL" here, because I HAVE been there. Been there a lot. But after hearing the same endless recitation of things you discovered were NOT true, and finding what WAS true about those things, carries no chance of "learning".

It was LEARNING that got me past the stunted political modern liberalism on display here. If you think I would dream of going back to it, you're mistaken.

The assumption is wrong, however. The odd man out (me) IS correct, and you're all wrong about a whole lot of things.

If ANYONE would try something other than moralizing personal condemnation over disagreement, perhaps you'd actually learn to communicate. But modern political liberalism IS NOT defensible by intellectual debate. That's why so many are now moving into the real of religion to justify it, because that affords you the "unarguable" position of claiming Divine Right to rule.

Posted by: mark | February 10, 2008 2:19 AM

"I expect the tension between the postmodern, liberal theology types and evangelical, historic Christianity types to increase more and more. The "conversation" will have to come to a head eventually, with some holding on to orthodoxy and some rejecting it as unimportant." Jesse

Coming from the other side of the aisle (where I am sympathetic McClaren and Shane) I agree with Jesse's assessment of what is happening. The truth be told, both sides have their "orthodoxies" which they will use to reject one another on some level. Shane was most likely not allowed to speak because he had departed from some of the teachings the college thought key to being Christian.

As hard as it may be, the best approach is to walk away from those situations, continue down the path that you feel God has called you, and whenever possible work with the Cedarville colleges of this world to promote the cause of Jesus.

It's a mistake to believe that many of these conservative Christian colleges allow for freedom of conscience, thought and open inquiry. They just won't. We can only hope that those of the emergent movement will not resort to the same treatment of the more conservative Christians to which Shane has been subjected.

Posted by: JamesMartin | February 10, 2008 8:10 AM

Don,

The name of this "political right-wing foghorn" is "Ken", not "Tim." :-)

Posted by: Ken Silva | February 10, 2008 9:16 AM

The name of this "political right-wing foghorn" is "Ken", not "Tim."

Sorry, Ken. My error.

I wasn't calling you a political right-winger, by the way. I was saying that you have borrowed their rhetorical style.

Peace,

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

Don,

Kewl. No problem. And peace right on back.

Posted by: Ken Silva | February 10, 2008 1:46 PM

I just checked out Ken Silva's link, and I didn't find it very persuasive. I agree that doctrine matters, and that the church should not be used to spread false teachings, but I have to wonder: what exactly is Shane Claiborne saying that is contrary to scripture?

I'm familiar with the Emerging Church, and I'll say up front I do have some reservations about it. Their theology can be sloppy at times, and they are prone to odd spiritual fetishes. ("It's Irish! It's Awesome!") But sloppiness is not the same thing as Heresy, and there's nothing inherently anti-Christian about U2 or St. Patrick.

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen anything from Shane Claiborne that contradicts scripture. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he's said, but I'm not aware of anything he's said or written that cannot be reconciled with basic Christian teaching. Until somebody can come up with something specific, we have to give him some benefit of the doubt here.

It seems to me that the Emergents need to tighten up their theology. At the same time I think Evangelicals could afford to be more daring in terms of being of service to the less fortunate. I think there's a dialogue that both sides could benefit from here, and regardless of who's at fault it's a shame that dialogue has been put off

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | February 10, 2008 2:51 PM

"Do we follow Jesus and the whole gospel? Or have we become modern day Pharisees or Sadducees?"

Posted by: Trevor | February 9, 2008 2:34 PM

///

Do we follow the Gospel or the Humanist Manifesto?

When the monlogue of the Religious Right was joined by Progressives and Liberals, then dialogue was engaged. This dialogue means that cases will be made for who and what "IS" Christian and who and what "IS NOT."

Pharisees and Saducees were just two groups that Jesus warned His followers not to follow.

When you "test all things: of the "Progressive" ideology, you see and hear the Humanist Manifesto and NOT The Gospel in whole or in part.

The question is fair to ask, "Why do Progressives call themselves 'Christians' when they are Secular Humanist in word and deed?

"You will know them by their fruit," Jesus was quoted as saying. Every word of the Apostles from Romans to Jude, was to deal with error in the Christian community, and to return them to the truth. How many words of Jesus were to warn people not to follow those in error? Maybe just about every parable?

If, by me presenting that part of the dialogue, are to be labeled as "mean" or violating the one-sided rules of Beliefnet.com, then it is the Left that needs to see who and what are acting like speech-denying Pharisees.

I haven't one problem with the snideness and holier-than-thouisms of the Liberals and Progessives that call me (my posts actually) all sorts of nastiness.

I just hold solace that Jesus said that the Sodomites would be better off on Judgment Day than for those that deny the Gospel. Jesus is the Judge of sin and sinners. I am just urged by Jesus and His Apostles to hold firmly onto the Truth.

The monologue of the Religious Right is over. Why is it that the Religious Left is more closed than the Right?

"Don't fear disagreement," unless you are an unborn child or a young person in public school. Both circumstances can be deadly.

Isn't it interesting that Jesus threatened those that would lead children into harm, and those "on the Left" disregard that scripture as well.

Indeed, it is far past time for the monologue of the Religious Right to over. Others need to hear their truth as well.

It is time to dialogue about Progressive Values for the Humanism that they truly are. Just compare the Humanist Manifesto to the Gospel . . . and see who is following what, how and why.

Posted by: Donny (Psalm 51, me too) | February 10, 2008 4:06 PM

The emergent movement does have major theological problems. If theology is important to this school, professors ought to be able to take the opportunity to discuss them in the classroom. Then, their students will be armed with the ability to confront it intelligently.

I suspect, though, that this school is interested in breeding a particular brand of cultural Christianity, rather than producing strong theologians well-heeled with a Liberal Arts education. IMO, if Christian colleges and universities were more interested in the latter, the emergent church would hold less appeal.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 10, 2008 5:08 PM

For what it's worth, I read in CT a couple years ago that Cedarville College practices "second degree separation." In the case reported, if I recall correctly, Cedarville broke off relations with another organization becasue that organization had some kind of relationship with the Southern Baptist denomination, which, in Cedarville's words, was guilty of allowing some strands of liberalism.

The policy of second-degree separation suggests that Cedarville College really has no interest in dialogue to begin with.

Posted by: I and I | February 10, 2008 5:26 PM

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen anything from Shane Claiborne that contradicts scripture.

Wolverine has called it correctly, in my view. I don't myself know much about the Emergent movement, but my suspicions of them have less to do with their theology than with the fact that so many of them are independent, unaffilliated churches. (And my reservations about independent churches are a result of some bad experiences I've had with them.)

But if they are guilty of sloppy theology, can't we trust the Holy Spirit to reveal that to them? If they're following Christ, he will lead them in the right direction, won't he?

I found Silva's criticism of lectio divino strange. He complained that it's legalism. But from what I understand, it's basically nothing more than meditating on passages of Scripture. What's the harm in that? Is it scandalous to think that God might be able to speak to them through that practice? (Further, I think it would be quite easy to point out legalisms at Cedarville College, if what I know of it is any indication. We might check out their Web site.)

Silva's post, it seems to me, doesn't reflect the spirit of Christ (which is why I compared its rhetoric to that of Limbaugh and kind). Apparently his group is reluctant to even recognize the emergents as believing Christians, but nevertheless, their discussion of differences ought to be more charitable and less mean-spirited. We can disagree in love, can't we?

Romans 14:4, it seems to me, is a pertinent verse here.

All the complaints I've read and heard about emerging Christianity strike me as a tempest in a teapot.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 10, 2008 6:47 PM

It is ironic that Lighthouse Trails' opinion about some of the people who post on this blog first got introduced in the thread following the "Unity of Baptists" article. I suggest any newcomers to the blog read the comments below that article (and please forgive the inevitable sniping). I daresay Cedarville folks were not involved in that Baptist unity conference.

Some of us were burned early on by groups that were judgmental and divisive like Lighthouse, and for years wanted nothing to do with Christianity because of those negative experiences. To those who may be on this thread who are involved with this sort of thing, I will only ask--are you sure that such divisiveness, self-righteousness and exclusivity is pleasing to God? Or are you perhaps being misled by the Devil?

Posted by: I and I | February 10, 2008 8:10 PM

"It is time to dialogue about Progressive Values for the Humanism that they truly are. Just compare the Humanist Manifesto to the Gospel . . . and see who is following what, how and why." Donny

Thank you Donny for your expressed desire to dialogue.

So the first affirmation in the Humanist Manifesto is: " Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created."

Genesis states: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

You state you want to compare the Manifesto to the Gospel and see who is following "what, how and why."

Would you go ahead and point out in regards to the first affirmation what you see about who is following "What, how and why"??

Awaiting your response.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 10, 2008 10:49 PM

It is impossible to accuse and intercede simultaneously.

That's quite the statement. Very profound. Even simple and profound.

Posted by: mark | February 10, 2008 11:48 PM

Mr. Rick,

I am not exactly sure who you are addressing. I assume it is Mr. Clairborne. Do you believe the appeal of his piece seeks peace or division?

I believe he was invited to a public event. Disinvited to a public event. And is appealing to the people who did not want him to speak to personally converse with him about their criticisms.

I find this a refreshing and sacrificial response to his accusers. What about this does not seem like the love of Jesus to you? (This is not a rhetorical question--but one I requst you clarify)

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 11, 2008 7:43 AM

In the midst of the usual caustic verbiage Mr. Clairborne's post was refreshing and Christian. He might, though, have contacted the parties without public fanfare because as you will notice the discussions around the blogosphere will tend to take "sides".

I would have prefeered he not publicly defend himself just as I would have preferred Caederville to explain themselves in detail. This should afford Mr. Clairborne an opportunity to put forward his views on the issues with which Ceaderville found unbiblical.

We should always endeavor to avoid making ourselves the issue and present what we believe to be God's views as the only issue. Many people who are supporters of Clairborne will take up a secondary offense for him and harbor personal ill will toward Ceaderville, certain bloggers, and a number of commentors, while the underlying issues get back page notoriety.

As one who is suspicious of the Red Letter camp, I still eschew self serving and personal invectives that many times come from those with whom I might agree biblically. I am on a journey myself to find what it means to "Keep yourslves in the love of God" while still "contending for the faith" and all the major and minor issues that are connected with that generalization.

My preference? Combine the orthodoxy of Wesley with the "seasoned with salt and grace" commmunication with some of the emergent leaners. It would have been better to contact Ceaderville personally about the concerns and if they excercized their right to still have Clairborne then pray for them. This doctrinal battle seems to have no parliamentary parameters with which to effect the most genuine understandings among brethren even when strongly at odds.

Unless of course we obey the Bible which is still an option.

Posted by: Rick Frueh | February 11, 2008 8:44 AM

I understand Rick's sentiments. I occasionally post with the same request. But I really don't see the application here. Shane is attempting to work something out--he is not just airing a grievance. He obviously was in communication with Cedarville if he offered to use the honorarium to fly in those raising concerns. He is still inviting opposing voices and expressing a desire to listen. He is not saying, "Poor me, I was wronged."

Moderatelad--I have not been around this site extensively, but what contributor here praised the disinvitation of a Christian brother/sister with conservative views by a Christian institution to speak? And what does "welcome to life" have to do living/working/relating as Christ's Body?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 11, 2008 10:36 AM

If keeping silent about injustice is holy, then most people in the world are in line for canonization.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 11, 2008 11:13 AM

"If ANYONE would try something other than moralizing personal condemnation over disagreement, perhaps you'd actually learn to communicate. But modern political liberalism IS NOT defensible by intellectual debate. That's why so many are now moving into the real of religion to justify it, because that affords you the "unarguable" position of claiming Divine Right to rule."

Now who is misunderstanding something. No one is claiming Divine right. Where do you get this stuff?

LOL your funny. That's just silly.

Your entire argument is undermined because you have contributed so little to the actual discussion of modern political liberalism. I honestly don't think you know what it is. I think you stick to what you think it is and when liberals point out how we define and use it you disagree and stick to your guns.

That means you only have your arguments to understand what we do and instead of having the guts to hear how we use liberalism and understand what we are about you hide. Since you are talking about a subject you seem really ignorant about have the guts to actually listen to what we have to say. We are the ones that actually follow the tenets of the philosophy. That would make us a little bit more aware of what we actually follow and why.

p

Posted by: payshun | February 11, 2008 11:27 AM

"wasn't it Claiborne's attackers who set up the earthly judicial venue; wasn't it they who so desired things?"

Yes, indeed. And even as usually would be expected. My point was should he respond in kind? His detracters, regardless of the righteousness of their doctrinal stand, relish in the carnal badminton that passes as "dialogue".

"So how far does does someone like Claiborne allow things like this to go and still deal with them in silence, and at what point should he go public himself? Is it always easy to know?"

It is excruciatingly difficult to know and rather self depricating and perhaps there is not an absolute answer. I believe the "ground rules" for discourse have for the most part been set by my "camp" and are being blindly acknowledged as the only way by much of the evangelical world.

I am highly suspicious of the Red Letter crowd and their doctrine, however I am spiritually envious of some of their ministry to the least of these, at least it seems in the humanitarian realm. I reject and am repulsed by the caustic, prideful, hyperbole laced, and scorched earth attacks by some of my orthodox brethren which render men like Clairborne as the enemy incarnate. And even if some men's doctrinal direction deserves strong correction, why is there so little correction for ourselves who seem to have the truth in abundance existing in a dearth of spiritual power, to say nothing of the love of God.

So the question remains, does the Holy Spirit have a voice and direction in all this and if He surely does then how can we accurately discern it? Rivers of truth carried in buckets of arsenic are as poisonous as pure arsenic. Or in more Biblical parlance, the Spirit cannot be carried in words of flesh. Without God's help the "dialogue" of the church will continue mirror an ecclesiastical dog fight which the evil One will use to continue to convince the lost of our hypocrisy.

Posted by: Rick Frueh | February 11, 2008 12:04 PM

Moderatelad--Thank you for identifying as clearly as you could (which to me was not clear at all) the parallel circumstance you used to justify telling Shane "Welcome to life."

Which to me essentially is telling him to shut-up.

I don't think you have a parallel situation, let alone a pattern, let alone a norm, let alone an ethic on which to base your comeback.

It's my standard--but I've come to expect a bit more from your postings.

And I did not catch what "Welcome to life" has to do with the love of Jesus.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 11, 2008 12:32 PM

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 11, 2008 12:32 PM

'Which to me essentially is telling him to shut-up."

Not telling him or anyone to shut-up.

This is life. You have an issue or project that is near and dear to your heart. There are going to be people out there that do not want to you succeed or have a pulpit to speak from. I have had the same thing happen to me in my life. I business - church - ministry - etc. So - you find another way.

Wallis has praised people for using their freedoms and rights to acomplish their objectives wheather that is to do their thing or to stop someone from doing theirs. The sauce is the same for the goose and the gander.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: moderatelad | February 11, 2008 12:51 PM

"It was a long time ago but the author supported the dissenters of a college or university in their efforts to halt a conservative (not sure which person it was - it might have been someone like an Ann C) from speaking at their institution."

Excuse me, Moderatelad, but there is a WORLD of difference between disallowing Ann Coulter to speak and disallowing someone like Shane. That is not a parallel comparison. Ann Coulter has said that she wished terrorists would attack the New York Times office, she has called John Edwards a faggot, and so on. She would have been disinvited because of her insulting and inflammatory language, not because of her conservative views. If, say, Tucker Carlson or David Brooks had been disinvited because of their views and Sojourners cheered that, then you would have a point.

Yes, it does matter who it was. Try to remember and then let us know; otherwise the point deserves to be dropped.

Posted by: I and I | February 11, 2008 1:18 PM

I wouldn't allow Ann Coulter to comment at my dinner table. She legitimizes the "women keep silent" Scripture! ( a stab at humor - the first sentence was serious)

Posted by: Rick Frueh | February 11, 2008 1:43 PM

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 11, 2008 1:38 PM

'Welcome to life'

No - Jesus would not have said this - but it is a reality of the world that we live in. I was not trying to speak for the Almighty.

If it is going to happen to people on one side of the fence it will also happen on the other side. This site has celebrated the Camden 28 - people going into a Federal Facility and destroying gov't property. But I would never legitimize a pro-life person entering a gov't agency and destroying records and property.

Goose and Gander -

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | February 11, 2008 1:52 PM

Moderatelad--Apparently you live by an ethical standard and not based on what the Camden 28 do or do not do (who was the writer that celebrated destruction of property?). Since Jesus would not respond to Shane's experience by responding, "Welcome to life"--I am sure you would not do that either. But you did.

What is the connection of "Goose and Gander" to a Biblical ethic?

I am not looking for a counterpoint. I am looking for you to be accountable with your words. Not to me. To the standard you assert you live by.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 11, 2008 2:05 PM

Posted by: Rick Frueh | February 11, 2008 2:14 PM

So if I am to boil this down to a base issue.

I your world - conservatives are dismissed as worthless and liberals are valued above all.

I love the differences that we have in this world. God created us a unique individuals but you seem to view people as unideminsional.

Shane should be given any pulpit he desires
Ann should be silenced for the ^&*( she is.

I think that my world is a little more interesting and exciting if not stimulating as I like to hear people that I don't agree with and feel that there is still freedom of speach for all.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | February 11, 2008 2:50 PM

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 11, 2008 2:05 PM

Welcome to life has nothing to do what the Almighty might have said. I do not speek for the Almighty - politically or otherwise.

The Goose and Gander is part of an old saying - 'The sauce that is good for the Goose is good for the Gander'. Inotherwords - if Coulter can be prevented from speeking by people that do not agree with her - why can't Shane. I do not need to ask which side of the issue you are on. I believe they both should be allowed to speak - you believe that one should be gagged.

So - I believe that I am living up to a standard. Level ground for all.

Blesssings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | February 11, 2008 2:57 PM

Posted by: I and I | February 11, 2008 2:54 PM

It's not my call, bud. Point is, Sojo is not being inconsistent by taking the position that Cedarville should have engaged Shane even if not giving him a podium.

I am saying that Shane was hit by a group of people that did not want him to speak at Cedarville, regardless if they see him as offensive or not. The samething has happen to others on the other side of his issues and Sojo has lauded them.

Free speach is free speach regardless of the messager.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | February 11, 2008 3:07 PM

It was actually George W. Bush who was invited to serve as commencement speaker at Calvin College. The planned commencement speaker, who had been invited in consultation with the graduating students, was "disinvited" at the last minute in order to give GWB a platform. Many students and faculty members protested, and Sojo supported them. I would hope that the differences between this and the present situation are clear. Shane Claiborne is not the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, and he did not "bump" another speaker with very different views who had been scheduled to speak first.

Posted by: Another nonymous | February 11, 2008 3:11 PM

I am not obligated to let everyone speak at the institution over which I am given responsibility. My objection is that Ceaderville did not adequately provide some clear reasons why they asked Shane to speak in the first place and what made them change their mind. And in my opinion Shane should have just let it ride when he was cancelled.

Was Shane allowed to respond to Ceaderville's concerns? Did Ceaderville do research before he was asked? Which blogs if any did Ceaderville react to? And if the concerns about Shane were significant, shouldn't the university address the student body and dealinate their reasons Biblically?

I find the university's unexplained change to be problematic. Who invited Mr. Clairborne and who univited him and why?

Posted by: Rick Frueh | February 11, 2008 3:31 PM

There is a huge gulf in the Christian Church and this forum and the invitation extended to this gentlemen represent opportunities to brdige that gulf. In many social gatherings, I am accused of not being a "true Christian" because of the candidates and causes that I support. It is my hope and prayer that each side can be respectful and listen to what the other side has to say.

Posted by: george | February 11, 2008 3:51 PM

For what it's worth, I think it unlikely that even Francis S. Collins would get an invitation to speak Cedarville U. After all, he has come out in favor of an ancient earth and common descent. Those are also positions against which the University seeks to shelter its students.

Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | February 11, 2008 7:20 PM

Having done extensive study in the area of North American fundamentalism, I suspect, as some one up the thread earlier suggested, that when the powerbrokers and shareholders in Cedarville's constituency got wind of the controversy being generated, they prevailed upon the school's leadership to can Shane.

Fifty years ago, it was Billy Graham who was demonized by fundies and where a pastor/college president/church/college/department store/bank/zoo stood in their support of him was widely used by supporters to hold leadership hostage to their demands.

There's really nothing unique to the spiritual world about this kind of thing - it's just another example of the simple reality that if it's happened/can happen in any other community institution, it's happened/can happen/will happen in the church world too.

And guess who's going to lose out every time suspect ideology comes up against the dollars of the faithful? Praise the Lord and pass the tax refunds!

Posted by: canucklehead | February 11, 2008 8:25 PM

kevin s: "There is a group devoted (and I mean devoted) to blogging negatively about the church movement to which I belong. They have even crafted our Wiki entry, and act as gatekeepers for any changes made to that entry. That is their right, and it does not violate our rights, but it sucks."

kevin, just curious about the church movement to which you belong. If you prefer not to say, I'll understand, as there are things about myself (such as my real name) that I choose not to disclose on Sojo.

Wolverine: "It seems to me that the Emergents need to tighten up their theology. At the same time I think Evangelicals could afford to be more daring in terms of being of service to the less fortunate. I think there's a dialogue that both sides could benefit from here, and regardless of who's at fault it's a shame that dialogue has been put off.

Wolverine, this is very well-put. How can we advance the dialogue? What role can Sojo play? Worth praying about, i believe.

Posted by: carl copas | February 11, 2008 8:47 PM

Wolverine, this is very well-put. How can we advance the dialogue? What role can Sojo play? Worth praying about, i believe.M/i>

"Lord, please get those Emergents tightened up on thier theology, it's really bugging me!"

Or

"Lord please send your Holy Spirit to reach people and convict them of truth".

After all, it might be them that's right, and YOU that's wrong, theologically. But what does that matter to you?

The church is not a showcase for perfection. It is a hospital for sinners.

Posted by: mark | February 11, 2008 9:01 PM

I just want to say that
1. Bummer about Cedarville. Last minute cave-ins are no good....
2. Didn't read all the comments, but one thing I know for certain, I see in myself this one flaw, I get so judgemental of the Judgemental (notice, the capitalization of those evil ones?) The hardest thing is to forgive those who judge.

As I age, I see more and more the need for grace, and my own flaw of judging those who judge, the very thing I dislike so much.....I just wish so desperately that I could just BE more like Jesus and love SINNERS, remembering it is me that is the sinner.

Posted by: Deb | February 11, 2008 9:11 PM

Mark--I am OK with debate and disagreement.

"But modern political liberalism IS NOT defensible by intellectual debate." Mark

Was that you that posted that above or someone else?

Thank you for clarifying.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 11, 2008 10:06 PM

Mark

In your understanding, who owns the Earth??

Do you believe there is a moral order which serve as a basis for laws?

From where does your right to life and liberty flow?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 11, 2008 10:20 PM

Quote:
===============
In your understanding, who owns the Earth??

Do you believe there is a moral order which serve as a basis for laws?

From where does your right to life and liberty flow?
===============

We need to clarify your first question. I go down to the car dealer, sign a promisory note, put some money down, and drive away with the car.

Who owns the car?

The lender? Or me?

God created the planet. He gave man stewardship... who owns it, man or God?

So, before we can get anywhere in this discussion, we're going to have to establish exactly what you're asking, and in what context?

Posted by: mark | February 11, 2008 10:39 PM

"Shane was disinvited because of various reasons, some of which seem to have to do with some sloppy theology, as one person said.
Now, in this context, it appeared that you were going to pray about trying to get them more theologically correct."

No. Hadn't crossed my mind. I grew up near Cedarville, Ohio, and know that, unless the college has changed drastically, the last thing most people there would want would be for me to pray that they get more theologically correct.

"This 'dialog between Emergents and Evangelicals' is sort of... Well, to what end?"

1) Possibly to learn from each other how better to spread the Word.
2) Possibly to learn from each other how better to enrich spiritual life. For example, I have learned, and benefited, from some reading on Eastern Orthodox monastic centering prayer. I'll never be Orthodox but I can learn from that branch of Christian faith.
3) To have good fellowship.
It may be that none of these interest or make sense to you. But they do interest and make sense to some of us.

"It's like urging Luthrans and Methodists to 'dialog' because they aren't on the same page theologically."
My understanding is (I'm neither Methodist nor Lutheran so i have no first-hand experience) that Methodists and Lutherans have on occasion dialogued, with fruitful results at least in the eyes of some of the participants. You'll have to ask them about details.

"The fact is, there IS ONE TRUTH, theologically . . . . We're all progressing (hopefully) down the road toward that day when we learn our theology straight from the Lawgiver Himself."

Almost no one who posts on this blog would disagree with that statement.

"I re-read the the comments on the thread, and got the distinct impression that althought you weren't for stifling Shane's comments, his theology was going to be a subject of prayer for you."

I have and will continue to pray for Shane and the furtherance of his work. I'm not in a position to know much about his theology, but it seems sound to me (I'm a relatively new Xtian so I could be fooled).

"I don't understand ANYONE being overly concerned."
This is a fascinating statement--at least as it reads on this post, there's a lot of frustration in it. As I've read your posts over the past few weeks, I've noticed that you seem to get very angry when someone expresses concerns or beliefs that you don't hold. You often aggressively demand explanations, which of course is your right. This is, after all, a discussion forum. I just wonder what fuels that behavior.

If I have misread you, then I apologize. I am not trying to pick a fight with you--in fact, I won't fight with you. In my line of work, I argue ideas and interpretations all day, so I refuse to do so in my leisure time.

God bless you Mark.

Posted by: carl copas | February 11, 2008 11:11 PM

"Yup, I certainly said that. I believe it wholeheartedly. If it were, then I'd be a liberal. But I used to be and found it is not defensible intellectually."

Mark

Don't worry there are plenty of liberals that feel the same way as you about conservatives. There are plenty of us that laugh at your views and believe them to be sloppy intellectually, morally bankrupt, worship of the self and nothing more than egocentric drivel. But the difference is that we try not to let discussion be muddled by that. It's difficult and maybe you should try to learn from that.

I try to, I am not always perfect at it, but I do try.

p

Posted by: Payshun | February 11, 2008 11:28 PM

Don't worry there are plenty of liberals that feel the same way as you about conservatives. There are plenty of us that laugh at your views and believe them to be sloppy intellectually, morally bankrupt, worship of the self and nothing more than egocentric drivel. But the difference is that we try not to let discussion be muddled by that. It's difficult and maybe you should try to learn from that.

yes, I have commented several times about how liberals consider disagreement to be a character defect.

Thanks for explaining and demonstrating how accurate I am.

Posted by: mark | February 11, 2008 11:41 PM

"But modern political liberalism IS NOT defensible by intellectual debate." Mark

Of course.

Posted by: I said it, I believe it, that oughta settle it | February 11, 2008 11:57 PM

Mark,

Please stop using the divine right argument. It's stupid and you are better than that. We don't believe in divine right so please get that right. It will help build dialog or do you just like reading your own posts?

One more thing why is it ok for you to consider disagreement a character defect but when liberals do it? Oh and I want to fix one more ridiculous assertion we don't consider disagreement a character defect. We consider pride a character defect. There is a difference. There a plenty of conservatives on this blog I vehemently disagree w/.

Wolverine and I disagree about a lot of political issues and you know what? I actually respect where he is coming even though I don't agree. You want to know why? (I know you don't but I will tell you anyway.) He actually takes our words seriously and rarely puts his spin on what we believe.

p

Posted by: Payshun | February 12, 2008 12:46 AM

In God's eyes that is anarchy, not freedom.

You are completely wrong.

The freedom to do this is GIVEN by God. It is the law of the universe and always will be, and always has been through eternity.

Any God who compells behavior by force... Will be the tyrant that the Devil accuses Him of being. The devil would have been right, and God would have been a tyrant, and the war in Heaven between God and Lucifer justifed.

Posted by: mark | February 12, 2008 1:15 AM

Correction:
Why is it Ok for you to think liberals view disagreement as a character defect but when you a conservative does it, it becomes virtue?

p

Posted by: Payshun | February 12, 2008 1:19 AM

This is so disappointing.

I finally got someone to say they wanted to discuss something really serious with me...

And the moment we try, they all run for the tall grass.

Posted by: mark | February 12, 2008 1:36 AM

Mark--Your premise is your starting point--or your assumption.

I consider murder to be evil because it violates the sacred dignity of humanity.

I presume God. I presume human dignity flowing out of God's creation of humanity.

Come on Mark. I ask you who in your view owns the Earth. Where you derive your rights from. etc. And you give this, "Well, I can't figure out the context........"

So I explain and ask your premise. You respond you don't know what a premise is.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 12, 2008 1:55 AM

Mr. Mark--I hold with the Psalmist that the Earth is the Lord's. I hold that we have stewardship responsibility (Genesis) to care for the Earth and manage so all humanity can justly enjoy the fruit of the Earth (a gracious gift of God) and of their good labors.

The purpose of man is not to Lord power over others nor to oppress for the sake of one's own comfort, hedonism, or power.

These are some of my premises which create a partial framework in which to think about justice.

Is there anything here you do not agree with?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 12, 2008 2:39 AM

quote:
===============
Mr. Mark--I hold with the Psalmist that the Earth is the Lord's. I hold that we have stewardship responsibility (Genesis) to care for the Earth and manage so all humanity can justly enjoy the fruit of the Earth (a gracious gift of God) and of their good labors.

The purpose of man is not to Lord power over others nor to oppress for the sake of one's own comfort, hedonism, or power.

These are some of my premises which create a partial framework in which to think about justice.

Is there anything here you do not agree with?
===============

What you said is what I would call "my obligation to God".

"he has shown you, Oh man, what is good...and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justly, love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God".
Makes a great song, good them... good philosophy to hold. Very much scripturally based.

So, where now?

Posted by: mark | February 12, 2008 3:22 AM

It will NEVER come from the mouth of a modern political liberal, that every liberal, ideologically driven idea should be measured against its actual results, and alternatives substituted. Never. That would validate people like me. That would far worse a fate than anything they could imagine. Mark

What you said is what I would call "my obligation to God".

"he has shown you, Oh man, what is good...and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justly, love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God".
Makes a great song, good them... good philosophy to hold. Very much scripturally based.
Posted by: mark

Uh, er, NASA, we have a major malfunction...uh, er "disconnect" here.

Earth to Mark...Earth to Mark... please make the connection between your lofty ideals and the manner in which you address people here.

Posted by: JamesMartin | February 12, 2008 6:45 AM

Shane, I am from the Dayton area. What is the Apex community and how can I contact them ? Thanks

Posted by: Philip R. Engle | February 12, 2008 10:03 AM

And I feel it will take twenty more posts to just turn the corner and work this back around to where you might allow the opposition the possibility of intelligent argument--or that a Biblical obligation to do justice might have some bearing on our view of government and exercise of politics (hence, theology might have a bearing on political discourse).

Why? I understand your premise. It's been shouted from the rooftops for a long time. You're not the first, I have had this same argument with both people on the left and on the right. I believe it is both a corruption of faith and a corruption of religion.

You can't seem to get past that, however. If your politics are ordained by God, then disagreeing is a spiritual flaw, right?

If they're not, then your "theological" basis isn't what you think it is.

You continue to argue as if I have to be converted to believe in God, believe in helping my fellow man, etc, etc, because I must not believe in such things, and when I convert, I will think like you. Except that I USED TO. Then someone challenged my thinking, and I was open minded enough to accept that this person was NOT evil, greedy, morally bankrupt, etc. And guess what? He, and a lot more people like him...were right. And I was wrong. And a couple decades of experience with business, economics, poverty, and wealth has very much confirmed it.

What YOU can't get past is something far more base and silly... and completely non-theological.

"If you don't believe in (insert favorite idea here) you don't want to help people."

Let's pick one at random. "If you don't believe in universal health care sponsored by and enforced by government, it's because you don't want people to have health care."

Yes, that argument has been published, REPEATEDLY, by a lot of people. The premise being, that ONLY "politically liberal" approaches can work, because everything else is driven by base and evil greed.

You think that if I agree with your premise that God owns the earth, and that I have an obligation to God that includes caring for my fellow man, I am not REALLY honoring that committment if my rational approaches to our common human problems unless I agree with YOUR way of doing it.

Except you (and I would dare say 95% of everyone else here) has never really thought that far down the path... It is just a reaction. Just take payshun's condemnation of conservative politics as being 'intellectually sloppy, morally bankrupt, etc' and then saying a few posts later that "I don't consider people morally bankrupt for disagreeing".

It's a lot easier to just assume that someone on the political opposite spectrum IS "morally bankrupt, egocentric, greedy" etc, than to engage at the level of why they disagree with your specific ideas and "solutions".

So, are you willing to drop all the pretenses and presumptions about moral bankruptcy, etc, and just dive right into what and why we disagree about things?

Or, are you going to insist that political liberalism is doctrine and theology and MUST be accepted on faith?

Posted by: mark | February 12, 2008 12:43 PM

Well, Mark, I don't think you are responding to the content of what I have written.

You do not even know my politics or policy stances.

My stance right here is that dialogue requires we grant each other the possibility of making intelligent argument and speak to each other accordingly.

Are you willing to grant that now?

Secondly, if you and I agree that human life has inherent dignity rooted in God--we have a common starting point out of which may emerge a set of common obligations we would want human society to fulfill: including the obligations of individuals, families, businesses, governments, etc. And there would be rich conversation about whether capital punishment for a mass murderer would justly uphold the dignity of humanity.

I can't have a rich dialogue with you that explores our common ethical commitments and seeks how we as Jesus' followers can live out the prayer that His rule me more prevalent on the Earth as it is in Heaven; if everytime I make a theological point you take that as proof of an unintelligent argument attempting to avoid reason and trump all your arguments.

From everything you have said I presume you to belong to Jesus and seek His Lordship and His Truth; desiring His glory be manifest throughout the Earth. That God is the starting point.

But maybe I do not understand you. Maybe your starting point is _______________?

If God is your starting point, are you willing to explore the relationship of faith and politics? Which is the point of this blog.

Restated:
Are you willing to grant opposing views can be intelligently argued?
Is God your starting point?
Are you willing to explore faith and politics?

(These are the questions I started with many posts ago)

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 12, 2008 1:23 PM

"It will NEVER come from the mouth of a modern political liberal, that every liberal, ideologically driven idea should be measured against its actual results, and alternatives substituted. Never. That would validate people like me. That would far worse a fate than anything they could imagine."

Can you say bs? I belong to the green party we examine our ideas and policies harder than any democrat or republican in office. But you can believe what you want. You will anyway regardless of what I type. Still feel a need to be right about that?

"So, let's list the evil, nasty, morally bankrupt principles I hold, so that you get to get on your high horse and REALLY tell the world how gut wrenchingly, horrifying, satanically evil I am to the core..."

Don't be a fool Mark.

Whoops too late.

This is what I wrote earlier. Did you pay attention or are you just listening to your own talking points?

"I don't have the power to condemn you to anything. So stop trying to label me as God. You are not going to hell for what you believe, nor are you spiritually united to Satan. You are God's son. That means that I can't condemn you to anything, but your politics and the way you debate them distorts the universal principles in scripture and limits God to a really small box.

he doesn't like being placed in a box at all and yet you keep doing it. God will use any tool he sees fit, whether it be governmental, ngo, individual or corporate to achieve his ends. I have to move out of the way so that I am not trampled under the awesomeness and otherness of God.

Pointing a criticism of how you write posts has nothing to do w/ your eternal state in God. But you have said in other posts that you have answers. Your words... I don't pretend to have all the solutions but I do work to find out what will solve things and implement them. The difference between you and I is that I will compliment you on yours. I will even say your methods work well for some but they are not the solution for all. You won't even pay me the same respect."

p

Posted by: Payshun | February 12, 2008 2:45 PM

1. I believe in limited government. That our federalist system was designed to allow continued and diverse political experimentation, each state being its own laboratory, allowing efforts and attempts at things to be judged by thier results against differing ideas. To that end, the federal government should be highly limited, taxing little, intruding into noone's life, and doing only those common things that we need to do collectively, such as international relations, treaties, defense, adjudication of disputes between state jurisdictions, defending the rights and liberties of all people. It should take upon itself the most weighty matters of these things... the defense of life, liberty, and respecting the pursuit of happiness of the people."

I am glad you said that. It's good to read, it's too bad American history has been very selective about which rights it protects. It protects only the few and leaves the masses in the poverty you are so strongly fighting against. It was designed that way but then you might consider that idea satanic too.

Too bad American history backs me on that. Like when the country was founded only rich land owning white men could vote... You are living in an utopian historical reference that has nothing to do w/ the reality of those this country was designed to keep in poverty.

"2. That public welfare which is "entitled" by law, that which people can just claim by demand, is corrosive to initiative and it erodes people's will to perservere in meeting life's challenges, and eventually becomes nothing more than a means of making poverty and bad decisions comfortable - at the expense of those who do not deserve to have thier means taken by force."

That's a blanket statement that really doesn't have much trust in the system you so ardently support. The human will and desire to achieve is stronger than that idea explains. Only after severe tragedy and generations in poverty does it weaken.

"3. That excessive taxation, justified as "charity" has caused people to cease considering themselves bound to be attentive and personally repsonsive to thier neighbor's needs, with the easy dodge that "I paid my taxes and that's duty enough"."

God I wish that were true. I work in the innercity w/ people that are on government assistance. I don't see their will to achieve any less than the my corporate lawyer friends will to become partner.

"4. That a respect for the absolutes of written law is eroded when we change it for transient and selfish reasons, or reward those who break it by giving them what they want, when the law was right and just in the first place."

Which laws are those? I can think of some unjust laws.

"5. That no nation can survive unless it recognizes that it must control who comes in. This isn't xenophobia. There ARE people who wish to kill any or all of us without remorse, and we need to do everything in our power to defend our friends, neighbors, fellow citizens against them."

too bad they are not coming from Mexico. That's why some liberals call it xenophobia.

"6. That no man has ever been helped by hurting someone else. And politics that feeds our base temptation to envy or jealousy is wrong and destructive to justice and reason. (tax the rich, for instance)"

Poor rich people... Please... You know what else creates that, blind support of a system that encourages wealth over spiritual development.

"7. That although capitalism is based entirely on the notion that a person will, if given the chance, use what he has to his best benefit, it is still the most effective means of collective prosperity. But also in doing so, man will almost invariably be negaged in the process of filling other people's needs. Attempts to devise a system predicated upon voluntary selfless behavior by all humans is built on a false foundation and is destined to failure, with disastrous results to all. The Kingdom of Heaven is not sinful earth. That's in the future, and attempting to pretend it is now is folly."

I Guess I will have to ignore Jesus' own words.
Mathew 3:2
" Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
Ur right, it's not sinful earth, it's a redeemed mankind living out the standards of God in a sinful earth and the heaven that is to follow.

"8. That individual rights, freedoms, liberty, are the highest respect for the natural order of the universe. This includes freedom of speech, freedom of worship and religion, freedom of assembly and most importanlty, the freedom of self government which does not impose upon others."

I guess it's fine when corporations impose on us. they can use whatever means they want.

I don't believe corporations are evil but when some of their goal is making the shareholders more money at the expense of their consumers that says that individual rights don't matter as much as the bottom line, greed.

"9. That the greatest obligation we have collectively, is to spread this freedom to those who do not have it, to take down tyrants and to prevent them from rising."

Ah yes the beauty of imperialism, greed, and self righteousness. I am not saying we should not take down some tyrants, maybe we should, maybe we should not but what you just wrote is why many people in the world don't like our policies. Thanks for making that clearer.

"10. I believe it is the nature of government to self-corrupt. That the more wealth (money), influence, or control over the lives of people, those in it are more and more inclined to become corrupt, self serving, and manipulative. Thus, any government that becomes or is any major "provider" of our needs is simply that much more likely to become corrupt. The more it does, the worse it gets. The more power it weilds, the more it tends to wield it unjustly. "

I believe all human institutions do that. The church is a perfect example of that. Look at the crusades, slavery... All human institutions (political, and economic bodies) do harm when they have too much power. It's the curse of being human in this world.

Just to make it clearer I don't believe you are evil, just misguided.

p

Posted by: Payshun | February 12, 2008 3:06 PM

Quote:
=================
I am glad you said that. It's good to read, it's too bad American history has been very selective about which rights it protects. It protects only the few and leaves the masses in the poverty you are so strongly fighting against. It was designed that way but then you might consider that idea satanic too.

Too bad American history backs me on that. Like when the country was founded only rich land owning white men could vote... You are living in an utopian historical reference that has nothing to do w/ the reality of those this country was designed to keep in poverty.
=======================

Absolute NONSENSE.

You got that yet?

It is NONSENSE.

Posted by: mark | February 12, 2008 6:00 PM

payshun:

You will never manage to have ANY meaningful discussion about politics, because you do not understand the concept.

I stated what my fundamental beliefs were.

YOu acted as if I were making an argument about political issues of the day. This sort of "reaction" based commentary is pointless. The ONLY thing you responded to as if it were a principle, you're clueless about. This nation was NOT "designed to keep the masses in poverty".

I cannot have a civil conversation with that kind of uncivil nonsense as a "premise" for a discussion that's supposed to be about reality.

I don't know WHAT you think things should be like, but if you think there's a better way than what's laid out in black and white, you're a utopian dreamer, unconnected to reality.

You assault capitalism (the freedom to own things, conduct business, and trade with others) as evil. Yet there is NOTHING ELSE THAT WORKS.

Period.

I am prepared for armed conflict to preserve the God given liberty we enjoy, and that includes my freedom to be in business providing needed services to others and to trade freely. You will NOT get ANYWHERE pretending to be civilized if it is your intention to impose a totalitarian state.

Your choices: Capitalism, or totalitarianism. Nothing else exists in reality.

Posted by: mark | February 12, 2008 6:18 PM

Wow. The level of discourse in this thread is... kind of disturbing. Thank you to the few on either side who are trying to have real discussions from a place of mutual respect and love in Christ. Your good example is a light to me here. As for the topic at hand: I've heard Shane speak, and been blessed by it (although I don't know much about the whole 'emerging church' debate). I take Rick's point about the relative value of suffering a slight in silence and appreciate the respectful way he communicated it (although I must aswer his question of "when will someone..." with - how would we know?). Still, while I don't know anything about Cedarville, or the folks who opposed Shane speaking there, I do believe him when he said that he would have preferred a dialogue with those who disagreed with him to being disinvited, and I believe that's a rare and brave trait that sadly many of us do not share. We may sometimes relish the opportunity to scold those who oppose us (as it seems has happened in this thread several times), but it's not easy to have the humility to seek out what Shane seems to have been seeking. I admit I would have gone the route that Rick suggests, but for the much less noble reason that it would allow me to lick my wounds and pout in private and avoid the embarassment of admitting I wasn't wanted.

Posted by: kimberly | February 12, 2008 6:52 PM

hey bud... I'm prepared to defend your freedom of speech as well.

Even if you disagree with me.

Posted by: mark | February 12, 2008 7:14 PM

"I don't have the power to condemn you to anything. So stop trying to label me as God. You are not going to hell for what you believe, nor are you spiritually united to Satan. You are God's son. That means that I can't condemn you to anything, but your politics and the way you debate them distorts the universal principles in scripture and limits God to a really small box.

So, God really has specific political ideology and a role of government mandated somewhere deep in the dark bowells of some unknown book?

Baloney.

Politics has NOTHING to do with the principles of scripture... But listen carefully...

If we are influenced by God, our view of others, and what we want for others WILL be different. We turn from being narcissists into people who genuinely care about other people. Thus, we may have a somewhat different view of politics, than someone who is solely focused on selfish pursuit.

That all being said, even the most pragmatic of atheists understands that people are better off, live happier and more peaceful lives if the environment they live in has just laws, economic opportunity, legal equality, and so on.

Being a Christian changes nothing about that. We still believe that justice should prevail, that equality under the law is essential, and that we want these things for everyone, no matter who, where, what, or in what circumstance.

There's nothing "blessed" about your politics compared to mine. We all want the same OUTCOME. Yours are just based on emotional knee jerk reactions and envy, mine aren't. I don't believe in stealing from one to give to another. Nor do I believe in inequality of ANY kind under the law.

Nor do I have ANY faith in govenrment to create "social or economic justice". I have little faith in it to establish "legal justice", and that's the only one it accomplishes in any fashion at all.

Besides, by definition, economic justice is to be even handed and treat all with equal respect and integrity, not to take what belongs to someone, nor to give what does NOT belong to them, either.

Posted by: mark | February 12, 2008 7:30 PM

Carl,

I would be inclined to think that after some time for prayer and meditation some of us conservative types might want to visit Philadelphia and see in person what all the fuss is about.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | February 12, 2008 8:30 PM

My apologies to readers of blog.

I am sorry for posting so many comments; particularly about matter other than this article.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 12, 2008 9:26 PM

Nor do I have ANY faith in govenrment to create "social or economic justice". I have little faith in it to establish "legal justice", and that's the only one it accomplishes in any fashion at all."

Brown vs Board of Education
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting Rights Act of 1965
24'th Amendment
Civil Rights Act of 1968
The Constitution

If you can't see that this country's government can create justice for it's citizens than you should not be in government at all. All you are doing is undermining all the work, blood, sweat and tears of Americans that believe differently than you.

"Besides, by definition, economic justice is to be even handed and treat all with equal respect and integrity, not to take what belongs to someone, nor to give what does NOT belong to them, either."

Capitalism is a system designed to perpetuate economic inequality. It has a series of blocks to wealth that make it extremely difficult for whole classes to get out of being poor. But you will say that's nonsense too. Too bad history backs me up on that too. But then you like ignoring history and have nothing, and I do mean nothing to back up any point you make except for ridiculous assertions.

p

Posted by: Payshun | February 12, 2008 10:41 PM

I am really bored. I should be prepping for tomorrow's lesson. I should really stop but on some level I really think there is a person underneath that rhetoric.

"You mock the notion that it's wrong to incite envy and jealousy via political machinations like "tax the rich". IN other words, you dont' really care about justice... just "getting yours"."

There is your foolish assumptions again. I believe in living simply and living frugally. If I wanted what you said I wanted I would be doing a few things differently. I believe that many of the rich build their empires off of the backs of the poor and do very little to uplift the janitors... I have a problem w/ that level of injustice and all I am asking is that they pay their fair share to support the people that make their wealth possible.

p

Posted by: Payshun | February 12, 2008 10:55 PM

quote:
I got that you have never read the Articles of Confederation. Read it and then you will see how much non-sense you believe.

I live under the articles of confederation?

When did someone sneak this in?

Posted by: mark | February 13, 2008 1:45 AM

"Hmmm... So, I said that modern political liberalism cannot be intellectually defended.

When you respond to THAT, perhaps we have something to talk about.

When you seek to misquote and twist what I said, you don't wish to talk to me, you want to preach about me to others.

Of course, this does make you superior to me, doesn't it?" Mark

Ya' know, Mark. After my last post I realized you said "intellectually defended" instead of "intelligently defended."

I was going to make ANOTHER post to correct the mistake. I thought you might be gracious enough to answer without the precision. You chose not to. OK, my mistake.

So with the correction: "You now contend liberalism can be debated intellectually but not defended intelligently."

Please explain how one intellectually debates a position that by definition cannot be defended intelligently.

Should I ask for your answer again. Or give it myself? OK. I'll try, and not ask you think for me. Answer: I could use my best reasoning capacity (intellect) to defend liberalism. But I lose. Because it cannot be defended intelligently.

So I yield Mark. You assign many of the commenters here to holding a political viewpoint (i.e. modern political liberalism), post extensively to prove that position wrong, and will not grant the possibility someone might make an intelligent defense. Saying, "You can disagree with me but you lose" is either a stance of non-dialogue or street-corner verbal brawling. I don't find it helpful.

No I am not a modern political liberal and not a modern political conservative. I would gladly side with you on many points. I (and others) have repeatedly indicated my difficulty is with your style of dialogue (not content). My interest is in valuable conversation with persons willing to base the content and style of what we say in the love of Jesus; a love that encommpasses our relationships and provides a unity, a theology, and an ethic which we try to flesh out in the full-range of our lives (including politics).

I am sorry you felt my misuse of the word "intellectually" vs. "intelligent" was an attempt to misquote and twist your words to preach to others about you. It has been my desire to establish a basis of conversation with you so all here could have, develop, and enjoy dialogue we all value.

I have not wanted to repeatedly ask you questions as my attitude is that it is insulting to do so. I apologize if my repetition communicates to you that I believe I am superior to you.

I have tried to engage you, Mark. I am not trying to pin you into a corner. I am trying to establish bridges to dialogue.

I would be happy to hear if there is anything else in my words to you that are not consistent with the love of Jesus.

If you would be so gracious, I still think it would be helpful if you would explain why you post on a blog about faith and politics if you contend there is no connection between faith and politics.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 13, 2008 5:50 AM

Why do some of you continue to engage Mark? If none of us responded to his comments, perhaps he wouldn't be given the opportunity to dominate a thread like this with his profound statements like, "absolute nonesense," "What a load of baloney. Pure baloney," "What a load of rot," or, the most insightful one of all here, "Please try... real hard. I say precisely what I mean. I mean what I say."

If nobody responded to Mark's comments, maybe we could just let him revel in them by himself. Then the rest of the blogging community here would be freed up to have a real discussion.

My two pennies worth.

Peace,

D

Posted by: Don | February 13, 2008 10:25 AM

Letjustice:

I understand your concern about willingness to speak, and I believe you're heart is in the right place here as you've tried to open up some kind of real discussion here, something I know I don't have the patience for myself.

But I wonder if we haven't reached an impasse, or a point of diminishing returns. Maybe I'm all too pessimistic, but I just can't foresee that chance for real discussion ever opening. I'm reminded of a similar effort on the part of neuro_nurse to try and open a dialogue with Donny, to no avail.

Your wisdom is certainly not being questioned. But for the sake of other readers, maybe it's time to end the attempt. What do some other readers think? I defer to them.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 13, 2008 11:35 AM

"I live under the articles of confederation?

When did someone sneak this in?"

Our country has values. They did not just come out of a no where. They originally started in the Articles of Confederation. They were part of the basis for the founding of the thirteen colonies and the nation. When the nation decided it would exist they had a series of meetings that upheld many of the principles and evil business practices found in the articles, heck the constitution would not even exist w/o slavery. The 3/5'ths compromise united the fledgling country into one whole strong enough to slow down the British. Do you know any of this?

p

Posted by: Payshun | February 13, 2008 12:17 PM

Shane,

I had never heard of you. Ever. I was actually buying "Velvet Elvis" over the holidays (I think I'm the last person on the planet to read it), and your book was packed across the entire shelf above it. I scanned the back and I was sold (yes, at full price - I know, I know!). So, home with me came you and Rob Bell.

Rob's book is still by the toilet, very lonely. I have read your story forward and backward, and have lent it out, and quoted it and hijacked it, and, and, and. God has used your story to pull me to the Jesus I haven't been really following. I even offered up my "mad money" I had been saving to my husband if he would read it while I was gone on a trip.

I've been thinking of emailing you for awhile now, just to thank you for writing it all down. No one else in my life is saying the things you say, and reflecting Jesus the Christ in the way that you do (not even my husband - the Southern Baptist pastor *wink*). My husband and I needed to hear and absorb it. God is working us over.

So, why email, when my puny message can get lost in the middle of 200 fiery comments?!? :)

Thanks, Shane. Not everyone will give you a platform, but know that at least northern Oklahoma is hearing your story, being drawn back into the red letters of scripture and being challenged to serve and share by an annoying little pastor's wife.

Christine

of "Welcome to my Brain"
www.christinemoers.blogspot.com

Posted by: christine | February 13, 2008 2:30 PM

Shane,
As a '96 grad of Cedarville, who has been involved in the CCDA since graduation, living life on the west side of Chicago - I would like to apologize for how you were treated by CU.

Although even I personally sometimes disagree with some of your theology, you faithful service to God and to the disenfranchised are an encouragement to me and countless others who seek to follow the Great Commandment and the Great Commission. Keep running the race.

Posted by: KG | February 13, 2008 7:56 PM

wow. This is insane. Don't all of you have jobs and families and other stuff to do?

Posted by: Todd | February 16, 2008 7:45 AM

Wow this has sparked quite the conversation! It really boggles my mind the way these blogging Christians can be so negative and unwilling to listen to Shane's ideas (which I do not in anyway see as away from the Holy Scripture) It seems like they've never really experienced the true love and grace of God. The work that Shane has done and his book honestly changed my life and I really admire it. Thanks for doing what you're doing and good luck with everything Shane. Peace&Blessings

Posted by: Alicia | March 11, 2008 7:32 AM

Cedarville has been quite open to discussing various viewpoints. The school has received a lot of flack for the handling of a termination and not a theological position.

Posted by: Lloyd | April 15, 2008 1:34 AM

GOD and LOVE
GRACE AND TRUTH
PEACE AND JUSTICE
This is God
Love God first, your questions will be answered
Be weary of fast thoughts and tongues
Embrace others with care and love
What do you represent, and who are you?

God, Christianity, politics, religion, spirit, revolution, etc. all are related/interconnected in some manner, but not the same. Break assumptions and judgment. Don't utilize God as a way for attention, marketing, or personal gain. Don't distort Bible verses to claim triumph for an argument. Love God (first) and love others. Loving God is love of the divine, righteous, and simply the 'right'. We have so many people out there without 'credible' credentials other than the fact that they are silver tongued with words, and we need to be aware of what we believe, and what is right. I don't know the history, credentials, or past of anyone on this blog, so I pass no judgment, yet guidance and awareness to you all. I seek to inspire you to learn more, absorb what is really going on, and not digest stale fruit that others feed you, but discover on your own before you pass quick judgment and disagreement with anyone or thing.

I am not saying anyone is right or wrong on this blog comment, nor anything related to Shane. I saw him speak with his co speaker/band in Cincinnati last night, and he provided an inspirational message, and energy related to Jesus, His story, and bringing light to wonderful subjects. In today's society filled with greed, pride, and other negative forces, we need others to amplify their voices for God, what's right, and instill values where they are lacking in so many places such as the family unit (whatever that nebulous dynamic may be anymore), schools, education, politics, and other areas of life. Look at our leadership, economic disparity and pseudo 'class system', how civil engineers map out the East and West sides of our own communities. We separate ourselves, don't even see it, are blinded by our own pride, and need to remove the barriers to truth. Discover who you are, what you believe, be leaders by example and not blaming/complaining; yet shift change, not blame. Unite with shared values.

In a way it's great to have these 'underground' disagreements because it sheds light on 'the movement' and awareness/'free marketing' of these types of causes. It is ironic that folks are spouting judgmental words about each other, and we're speaking of God/Jesus/Christianity... where's the love? Seems glory, ego, and negative thoughts are becoming ever so prominent vs. uniting for a spiritual revolution. One doesn't not have to be loud to create change, but do so with fruitful action and careful dissection of what they know/feel is right. We surgically manicure how we perceive reality, when reality is more than perception. We have been cloaked with media, evil, being told what we should believe, consumers, and fallen victim to being self absorbed ego driven societies. It's now human nature and normal/accepted behavior to be the best, richest, biggest, best looking, and right no matter the cost. We take pills for everything, our youth is at risk more for so much, it's accepted to make moral mistakes as political leaders, church is not accepted in education, we deny Christ in too many areas of our decisions/life, we're at war physically and economically around the world, diseases are more rampant than ever… not to be apocalyptical, but we're not doing so well globally. We need to change, and inspire change. Utilize the tools, voice, and actions for the power of good, and I give kudos to those courageous enough to dedicate their lives to this mission, inspire goodness in others lives, and folks who connect (from what I am aware, like Shane and others) with our communities / people to better our world, and awareness of God.

I urge you to listen vs. shout with loudness. I suggest learning more about what you believe, seek truth beyond face value, and stop judgment before disagreeing with others. I am learning about Shane and his group, so I have not decided which end of the spectrum I am on. What I do know is that they're inspiring a movement and awareness about Christian values, Jesus, and to create change for the better with faith. If I feel and decide otherwise, my support will change. We cannot pass judgment, utilize the coolness of Jesus and Christianity to disguise our agendas or messages. God is not a marketing tool, or way to 'use' our faith/hope for personal gain. Be careful, be strong, and believe in what is true/right. Listen to those who support God, support them, and learn.

Evil thrives on creating obstacles between you and love (or God/what is right). The internet, blogs, consumer generated media, and other channels such as social networking are now global connecting tools for good and evil. What you believe, you decide, but I will be praying that your words, thoughts, and actions are for the power of good. I will pray for you, if you don't pray - then you will be in my thoughts, if you don't think, well, we have more problems than you realize, ha. Utilize your intelligence as a tool, not something to distract you with distorted ideas and fancy language.

We need to unite, respect each other, amplify voices that need to be heard, and make positive impact to create opportunities for youth/families, improve our society, and this may sound 'hippy-like', but truly love on each other, pour into our communities, and get back on the paths we should be on during our journey with our short time on this planet. What you believe is up to you, but I urge you to be good, improve your life, improve your family dynamic, make positive impact, and do so with positive driven energy of selflessness. I hope you do so with God in your heart, and if you don't know God, He (he, she, ... God is not a 'person', but out of respect and what I know, referring to God as "He) knows you, and awaits you to pray, speak to Him, is listening, and can improve your path, heart, spirit, and journey. You workout to improve your body, you learn to improve your mind (and there's a lot of intellectual/knowledge economy I can tell with the info posted), but what are you doing to workout your spirit?

Posted by: Brian Siegel | June 26, 2008 6:39 PM