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