I wanna scream!

I really, really, really dislike this dividing humanity up generationally. I think it's counterproductive and unhelpful. Yes, I know that there's some truth in it, but constant discussion of boomers, X-ers, and Y-ers perpetuates generational division in my view. And there's a lot of stereotyping as well, such as "Theologically, these 20-somethings are abandoning a worldview that reduces the gospel of Jesus Christ to an afterlife-oriented, fire-insurance, salvation pitch." Does that mean we older folks think that's what the Gospel is all about? Excuse me, but I never thought that way!

I think this generation-talk is a sign of the fragmentation of our society and is something in need of healing, not celebrating. Can't we come up with a more productive way to discuss current trends than hanging generation labels on everything?

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 12, 2008 5:16 PM

Does that mean we older folks think that's what the Gospel is all about? Excuse me, but I never thought that way!

Nor did I but, when you're trying to build an empire, sometimes short-cuts become part of the MO. What we saw in the 1980s was primarily "trimphalist" Christianity which defeated all comers -- or at least tried to do so -- for the sake of cultural authority (not for nothing did we engage in "culture wars"). And, believe me, it was intoxicating to those believers then in their 20s and 30s looking for a cause. Not only that, but many of us grew up with material possessions and (quite obviously) wanted to keep them; that kind of theology justified us "having it all."

Well, the folks behind us got some better ideas, and for that I'm grateful.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 12, 2008 5:40 PM

Well, the folks behind us got some better ideas, and for that I'm grateful.

I agree that the ideas that Rev Wallis is hearing are better than the culture wars ideas of twenty years ago. But neither of these mindsets are exclusive to any particular generation. (And actually it wasn't the 20-somethings of the 1980s who were leading that movement anyway; it was their elders) We live in a culture that worships youth and considers age to be a burden or worse, and I don't think that dividing us generationally, even to discuss trends and developments, is healthy or helpful.

I would rather hear someone like Rev Wallis talking about how we can become a prophetic, counter-cultural voice to our youth-worshipping culture and to bring healing to generational estrangement than to succumb to the very language of that youth culture to describe what is happening in our churches.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 12, 2008 6:45 PM

what do you mean by fuller seminary generation?

tyler
manofdepravity.com

Posted by: Tyler | February 12, 2008 8:08 PM

It would be nice if we didn't have to look at a generational shift, but lets face it: The number of 'youths' who are leaving behind partisanism is (far) greater than the number of gen Xers and Baby boomers leaving the same "camps."

And I say, so what? Dividing us generationally is still counterproductive; let's find another way to discuss the trend instead of just labeling it a generational thing. Can't we see beyond the youth-culture mindset at all, or are we so culture-bound that we can't even find another way to talk about it?

D

Posted by: Don | February 12, 2008 8:32 PM

These younger evangelicals are also open to welcoming self-accepting gays in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. They understand the inclusiveness of Jesus' call. They recognize that Paul was not talking about the loving, committed same-sex relationships they see around them. I'm glad that gays will find a new, welcoming place in the church through these compassionate young people.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | February 12, 2008 9:10 PM

There is a phenomenon where thoughts harden along with arteries and change seems to become difficult even when obviously necessary. And the accumulation of "things" causes a kind of conservative creep where life is looked at in terms of keeping the status quo just where it's grown to give material comfort.

One's relationship with God certainly ought to be paramount, but an exclusive emphasis on the hereafter can become a kind of pious excuse for looking the other way at all the problems of alienation from one another that Jesus also came to reconcile - in anticipating meeting Him in the next life, we never meet Him in this life.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 12, 2008 10:35 PM

"But you evince a core assumption, which is that those who support Republicans care about none of the above items. That indicates to me that you haven't even considered what you stand for and why."

Well, she may have considered what she stands for, but is puzzling over just why others don't see it like she does.

Isn't that something that is pretty common across the gamut of human thinking generally? Conservatives are endlessly nonplussed at the self-evident stupidity of liberals, while liberals are continuously disconcerted that conservatives just don't get it. (The rest of us look on, even more perplexed at the irrelevance of most of their arguments against one another, wondering why they fiddle while our own version of a Roman republic burns.)

No doubt most of those who support Republicans don't think of themselves as heartless, nor do those who support Democrats. The reality is, though, just as the Bill Clinton campaign reminded themselves, quite successfully, "It's the economy, stupid."

People vote mostly their perceived self-interest, just like countries act almost exclusively out of selfish motives, but both do so while dredging up the best moral mascara they can slather on the face of it - hoping no one can see, but mostly just trying to hide the sagging moral droop from themselves.

As far as the politicians, that brood of peripatetic vipers and salesmen of snake oil, aside from the bromides, nostrums and outright poisons they try to dose the voters with at election time, they maintain no such delusions about their own genuinely heartless hucksterism of the public. They shamelessly trade in it. What the public wants, the public gets. If it's change they want, we'll give it to them - but the more things change, the more they stay the same after all.

P.T. Barnum, the quintessential promoter and protypical American entrepreneur, observed twin truths of our manifest destiny: "There's a sucker born every minute" and "you can never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

Vote early, and vote often!

Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 13, 2008 12:24 AM

Donny, please spare us the cant.

It's like some left-winger in Hollywood had a bummer and dreamed up the most distorted version of a demented diatribe that he imagined that could be vented from a horror-show conservative bogeyman.

And then he put it in a movie and got an academy award for courageously exposing conservatism as some sort of backwater ranting anti-intellectualism.

Which it's not.

But stuff like this sure doesn't help spiff up the image.
It's like Michael Moore in reverse, helping him prove his points.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 13, 2008 1:02 AM

Donny - it's evident that it's late; get your blankey, tuck yourself in, turn on your favorite Odyssey program and get some shut eye now. All is well. Safely rest. God is love.

Posted by: babble on | February 13, 2008 1:12 AM

"From the conversations he and I have been having with those in attendance at book events, churches, and evangelical college campuses, it’s clear that churchgoers growing up in conservative pews are finally coming of age."

///

What theology are they learning in a world where they are indoctrianted at every phase of the education system to believe in Humanism and Secularism, and to think religion is a myth and a waste of time?

All I ask, is that anyone that still cares, compare what Jim Wallis says to that of the Humanist Manifesto.

Coming of age doesn't have to mean accepting the world and its ways. It is the ungodly that promote abortion, homosexuality and taxation. The bottom line of Progressive ideology is not the Gospel, but a perversion of it. But one needs to "study" and test ALL things to prove that. The sixties style love fest of Wallis talk, has "children coming of age," when they should be allowed to just be children.

Here's more Wallis babble replacing Biblical truth:

"Theologically, these 20-somethings are abandoning a worldview that reduces the gospel of Jesus Christ to an afterlife-oriented, fire-insurance, salvation pitch."

That's a wilfull statement of falsehood. Conservative Evangelicals have been the missionaries and reaching out to the poor and needy since missionaries went out like Jesus taught them to. Jesus also taught non-stop about hell being a real place for those denying the truth AND lying about. Salavation is literally an insurance pitch.

And:

"These are Matthew 25, Luke 4, and “Sermon on the Mount” Christians. They really believe that the kingdom of God represents God’s best hopes and dreams for this present age, not only for the life to come."

Interesting that yet again, Wallis, as a true progressive, discards the entire Gospel, for his Readers Digest version of it. Jesus said that His Kingdom was not of this world.

It didn't take long after Jerry Falwell passed, that Wallis moved in . . ., not sparing the flock.

His great awakening is more of the same Roman excesses sold in a Christian-like package. Nothing progressive about going back in time to pederasty (no limits sexuality) and slavery (taxation).

I wonder if Wallis has the version of the New Testament that still includes Jesus' warning against leading children into harm. It's part of the "red letters." It appears his editied edition is showing.

Posted by: Donny (Psalm 51, me too) | February 13, 2008 8:32 AM

Marriage is not immutable since Jesus teaches there won't be marriage in heaven. There won't be male or female either. Paul tells people not to get married and instead chooses to build a primary bond with men such as Timothy.

Jesus says that same-sex relationships are the highest form of love--no greater love, in fact. People who read what Jesus said about marriage never seem to read further down where he welcomes those without the capacity for traditional marriage into the Kingdom without requiring celibacy.

Philip, after curing many people, did not offer healing to a physically intact, non-celibate member of the Ethiopian court because it wasn't necessary--he didn't need to be "repaired." Instead, Philip baptized him and welcomed him into the the Kingdom. Jesus commended the faith and fidelity of the Centurion and his lover. Jesus also was proud of his ancestor, David, and understood the lifelong covenant David made with Jonathan which was expressed in naked embracing. I'm glad that there are those in this younger generation willing to do the same.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | February 13, 2008 9:25 AM

Conservative Evangelicals have been the missionaries and reaching out to the poor and needy since missionaries went out like Jesus taught them to.

They may have been evangelicals, but you didn't have a "religious right" foucsing primarily upon cultural issues until the late 1970s. So that's a mischaracterization. I know a few missionaries on the field right now who blanch at what passes for American "evangelical Christianity" today because they're themselves engaged on the front lines of spiritual warfare, which many American Christians fear like the plague.

Jesus also taught non-stop about hell being a real place for those denying the truth AND lying about. Salavation is literally an insurance pitch.

Especially not in that culture, it wasn't -- Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God having arrived, in the midst of a religious and highly patriotic society, not unlike America today and especially in the 1980s; "salvation" as the Bible really teaches it is not simply about avoiding hell. Remember, His words weren't popular in that day, even among the "faithful."

It's not the great awakening, it's the great apostasy being promoted by liberals. Donny, in Boston you would be arrested for your views. But please keep speaking out. These libs don't play games anymore. In our schools it is their way or the highway. But there day will pass away. It always does.

Physician, heal thyself! That's just what the conservatives have been doing to everyone else since 1980, and look where it has gotten us -- a fractured, ineffective, hypocritical church unable to live the alternative lisestyle our holy God calls to because we've focused on power and authority for ourselves. God was never with the "religious right"; it's only now becoming clear.

I can't wait to see what God's going to do with this.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 13, 2008 10:41 AM

"Isn't that something that is pretty common across the gamut of human thinking generally? "

Sure. But it helps to move beyond it, as it lends more credibility to your disagreement.

"P.T. Barnum, the quintessential promoter and protypical American entrepreneur, observed twin truths of our manifest destiny: "There's a sucker born every minute" and "you can never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

P.T. Barnum certainly didn't say the first one, and I had thought the second came from a journalist or writer (Dos Passos?). If we are going to deride an entire populace, let's get our facts straight, eh?

Posted by: kevin s. | February 13, 2008 10:45 AM

"I had thought the second came from a journalist or writer"

I believe it was H.L. Mencken who said "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public"

Posted by: I and I | February 13, 2008 11:13 AM

Our prosperity is based upon fossil fuels which we are burning to our hearts content without any consideration for future generations. Our wealth is a lie. What we are doing is like taking the seed corn brewing it into moonshine and having a good time pretending to be wise. We are probably murdering untold children who will not have our advantages and likely a real mess to live with, the few who get to live. The only moral solution is conservation, we need to live simply so that others can simply live, not only now, but in the future.

Posted by: Oakley Howell | February 13, 2008 11:51 AM

It is not my gay theology--it is the gay theology Jesus started by welcoming eunuchs into the Kingdom.

I don't think so, because in that culture sex was primarily for procreation and secondarily for spiritual union -- but that's beside the point. Homosexual conduct is identified in the Scripture as "belonging to the 'world system'" that will pass away when the Kingdom of God comes, and nothing you say will change that.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 13, 2008 12:17 PM

Hey Ashpenaz,

I definitely think that gay people are invited to relationship with Jesus and to enter his kingdom. Recently, at the church that I go to, which is evangelical, I heard that a lesbian couple accepted Christ. And I have seen God deeply touch gay friends of mine.

I also think that people who have attractions to others of their same sex can walk in growing, open relationship with God.

But one thing I feel is that the Bible prohibits sexual activity outside of a Biblical marriage between one man and one woman. However, it does not say that having strong feelings for someone of the same sex and dealing with them in a Biblical way is wrong. Just like having strong feelings for someone of the opposite sex and dealing with them in a Biblical way is not wrong.

I would enjoy hearing your view on this.

Posted by: Gregg | February 13, 2008 12:19 PM

"Jesus says that same-sex relationships are the highest form of love--no greater love, in fact."

This was the end-point for the inhabitants of Sodom, too, when they demanded what they thought were Lot's male visitors be brought out to them, because they were offended at the second-best sexual offering of Lot's own daughters instead.

There's nothing wrong at all with same-sex love or people of the same sex living together as a unit and loving one another. But love is not lust and agape is not eros. If we live and love together as same-sex individuals, the texts you cite show it ought to be done as eunuchs. There are none given in marriage in heaven, neither are there male or female. Yet whatever love we enjoy here is perfected in heaven - and there it is not sexuality mixing lust and love.

I support domestic partnership laws - for any people who decide to live together in love and share resources, including the ability to get insurance, medical care and bequeath without being subject to taxation. But such laws should remain absolutely neutral on the question of sexual relationships, for regardless of those, regardless of deep affection, they cannot be marriage between a man and woman.

Guilt and unjust persecution have often been heaped upon homosexuals to the point where the torment suffered is laid exclusively at the feet of the non-homosexual judgmental society, and is considered to be the solely external source of internal guilt experienced. No matter how external society accomodates however, people still experience intrinsic sensations of guilt and angst, leading them to insist, in the end, upon participation by everyone else - celebration if you will - to attempt exorcism of the remaining sense of alienation.

My own experience and knowing others has confirmed to me that there is an internal sense of right that is being violated that produces much of the conflict, and everyone I have met has experienced it at least initially.

It is true, too, that much of the visceral overreaction by non-homosexuals is due to the fear that the same impulses are within them as well, and so they attempt to externalize these hated latent impulses by assigning them to others and then demonizing those others. Think of National Association of Evangelicals president Ted Haggard.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 13, 2008 12:26 PM

If two people are committed friends, willing to lay down their lives for each other, and they have vowed a covenant with each other, as David and Jonathan did, shouldn't they have the final decision about how they express their love in private? Don't the best heterosexual marriages start as friends?

If two adults of whatever gender have the kind of faithfulness that Jesus saw the Centurion having for his lover, or Ruth had for Naomi, or Ashpenaz for Daniel, or Abraham for Sarah, or Solomon for his beloved, why is it wrong for that couple to determine, based on their understanding of the relationship, how their love is best expressed?

I can't prove whether any of the couples I've mentioned had sex. I can prove that they were all in the sort of loving, lifelong, covenanted relationships where God intends sex to happen. So if they had sex, it was to express the love they had for each other in a way that both agreed was the best, most meaningful way. That's not sin. Forbidding marriage to covenanted couples is sin.

We are not going to be able to evangelize the generation discussed in Unchristian if we tell them something is a sin which is not a sin. You might be a vegetarian for your own spiritual reasons, but you can't say people who eat meat are sinful. It is not what goes into a man which makes him sinful, but what comes out of him; therefore, gay sex is not sinful, but preaching against your Christian brothers is. The tongue is a flame which leads to destruction--not the sexual organs.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | February 13, 2008 1:13 PM

[S]houldn't they have the final decision about how they express their love in private?

Well, God has the final decision. It is not always easy to follow him and we often don't even desire what he desires, but he calls us to follow his ways even if they seem to go against ours.

I think that the love that is expressed between God the Father and God the Son is a much greater depth than the love any human has ever expressed. I do think that we in the west bottle up love a little bit because of free of social awkwardness. In east Africa, close friends of the same sex will often hold hands while talking or walking as an expression of their closeness. That would be considered weird for the most part in the west. But while we can grow in learning to love wuite a bit, we still have to submit ourselves, even when it is hard, to God's ways if it is our desire to follow after him and his kingdom.

So that's my view, Ashpenaz. Do you agree or disagree with what I feel God has called us to as far as limits of love? Why?

Posted by: Gregg | February 13, 2008 1:26 PM

Ashpenaz' comments could as equally "prove" that "the disciple Jesus loved" meant that the Son of God and the apostle John engaged in sexual relations, much like others have theorized the heterosexual version of that of the Savior with Mary Magdalene. I think you'll have to agree to trod down that path, to be consistent, since Jesus' example is our ultimate authority for how love is to be lived out.

But you can't extrapolate possibility to probability against all odds when the evidence is thoroughly underwhelming. You can only believe this based upon what you wish to be true for powerful reasons outside scripture.

Unlike Freud and some of those who draw inspiration from his theories that all relationships are at base rooted in sexuality, I don't believe that sexual identity is our primal identity. Freud regarded homosexuality as deviance, a disturbance of the psyche. As much as anything else, it's a choice open to any of us, and like most choices, the influences don't leave one completely neutral or free to choose the best of all possible worlds. We are both victims and responsible at the same time because of original sin and our intimate connections to one another.

And even he recognized the practical absurdity of reducing everything to sexual desires, when he retorted, "Madam, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

There are people, heterosexual and homosexual, who make sexual identity and sexual desire (orientation) the essential and primal basis of one's being. Yet it is not. Instead, such a pervasion of one's identity can turn to perversion, culminating in immersion and often the profligacy of promiscuity. This is not freedom.

Our deep alienation from one another and ourselves, which Jesus came to heal, in addition to that with the Father, leads to longings of love that we can be tempted to requite and unite through sexual pleasure with one another, but it is only an attempt to substitute with something that can never satisfy for it was not meant for that purpose.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 13, 2008 2:01 PM

I am a 20 something evangelical, missionary kid who also grew up in the former Soviet Union. My concern for this generation, the Fuller Seminary generation as Wallis describes it, is that we don't follow in the footsteps of another movement, The Jesus Movement, and later settle for comfortable, upper-middle class complacency. All of this excitement, this talk of emerging reformation, this Great Awakening (a bold statement for sure but one that I pray is true) must translate into ACTION and TRANSFORMATIONAL change in culture AND in lives. That is the Gospel, hope for the world collectively but also hope for people themselves, to change and pursue righteousness and social justice. Those are inseparable.

Posted by: Ryan Townsend | February 13, 2008 2:35 PM

I can't prove whether any of the couples I've mentioned had sex.

The reason is that they didn't. Remember, it was taboo in Jewish culture (which is why Jesus never mentioned it -- he didn't have to) and would never have been tolerated, let alone celebrated. Ruth and Naomi were daughter-in-law and mother-in-law, so in one sense they actually were related, and when they went back to her home of Israel Naomi worked the system to hook Ruth up with a wealthy single man named Boaz; they later became great-grandparents of David. Also, Jonathan and David were brothers-in-law -- David was married to Michal, Jonathan's sister -- and Jonathan also had children as well.

Ryan -- God be with you; from what you say you have it exactly right. May we "older folks" begin to learn from you.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 13, 2008 2:54 PM

I guess the thing is, Ashpenaz, where is God in this for you? You have used a lot of Bible stories in an attempt justify two people of the same sex having sex with each other. But the Bible isn't full of perfect people.

I don't think most of the people you mention had sex with each other, but suppose they had? Would that make it okay? Abraham lied to protect his own skin. Does that make lying okay? David slept with a married woman and had her husband killed because he wanted to and he could. Does that make these things okay? The answer of course is no because God desires for us to not lie, committ adultery or murder.

If you truly want to live for God, first and foremost in your life, then you have to do what he wants you to do even when you don't want to do it.

Do you truly believe that God wants you to have sex outside of a marriage between one man and one woman or do you just want to be left to do what you want to do and you are throwing up stories from the Bible to get people to back off?

Posted by: Gregg | February 13, 2008 3:10 PM

Ashpenaz,
"Centurion and his lover"
That is a new one. In Matthew's telling of the story the Centurion asks Jesus to heal his servant the Greek word used is the word for "servant" or "son"(though seldom is it used for "son"). In Luke's telling the word used is "doulos" which is the word for slave. The story doesn't call them lovers (as you do), and the story never refers to a lifetime commitment.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | February 13, 2008 4:01 PM

Ugh... Jim posts about his book tour and now we're talking about gay centurians again. Why Ashpenaz, why do you always bring this up regardless of what the original post is about?

As for the topic... I'd be more worried about 20-somethings falling for the materialism, self-centeredness, hyper-sexualization of our secular culture than either a left or right-leaning perspective of Christianity. I honestly believe the efforts of leaders who are Christians (such as Jim) would be better served trying to win the young (and old, as Don points out) back from that culture than from the clutches of the supposedly misguided Christianity of the generation that came before them.

I also wonder why there is such an emphasis on what "the youth" think. Some people think that if "the youth" support a particular cause then it lends that cause some extra validity. Why is that? And why is it that so many people, usually in the media, think that "the youth" all think alike? In general, the thoughts of the youth are usually as diverse as that of their parents.

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

I also wonder why there is such an emphasis on what "the youth" think. Some people think that if "the youth" support a particular cause then it lends that cause some extra validity. Why is that?

Two reasons. One, they have the energy and the time to set things in motion -- in fact, many, many revolutions were started and/or led by people of that age group or just a bit older. The Montgomery bus boycott, to give one example, began the month before Martin Luther King Jr.'s 27th birthday.

Two, about two or three decades from now they will be the pastors, lay leaders and seminary presidents/professors, and what they do today will affect what the church will be.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 13, 2008 4:53 PM

I just thought of something.

The leaders of the "religious right," with only a few exceptions, in the 1980s were already middle-aged men who had already sold out to the culture and were by that time building their own "empires." They were already tied to a certain way of doing things and thus did not have the flexibility to adjust their ministries to changing realities. That's the reason it's on its way out.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 13, 2008 5:00 PM

What you call awakening I call brainwashing. I, like LaTondresse, am a Bethel grad, and even there at a Swedish Baptist conservative Midwest college the staff is full of liberals. Brainwashing is a strong word, but there is certainly a liberal agenda with a few of the Profs. A liberal agenda can be appealing for 20 somethings that want to appease the guilt of being a privileged upper-class college student. Give money to the poor… healthcare for everyone…rich people are bad…they all sound great as long as you don’t have to learn about economics in college.

“I would think the party that helps the poor (instead of the rich), feeds the hungry,”

Transferring wealth doesn’t help the poor. Wealth creation helps the poor. Free markets do that. Liberals just try to take the credit.

“finds cures for diseases”

Wow…really? And invents the internet, right?

“and makes sure people can afford the cures”

Free market innovation and trade do that. Artificially setting prices does not. It causes shortages.

“protects the earth that God gave us”

Well, you are at least louder about it

“and finds value in all humans (even if they're gay) is more in line with Jesus' teachings than the republican party.”

Does the Democratic Party value all humans (even the rich). You don’t seem real big on helping them. Republicans value gays, polygamists, and incestuous persons. We just don’t want to give them the government benefits of marriage because we feel those incentives should go to the most desirable family for a society, one man and one woman. Also, a gay man has just as much of a right to marry a woman as I do.

Posted by: DontImmanentizeTheEschaton | February 13, 2008 5:10 PM

As a twenty something evangelical, you are dead on with my generation of Christians. Even the conservatives care about the left of center issues like poverty, environment, and health care. Even listen to what Huckabee says (even the candidate of the religious right isnt an old school stereotype). Living in Denver, I am fed up with the religious right telling me how to vote. Cant wait to hear you at Pathways!

Posted by: Kenny | February 13, 2008 5:33 PM

But Don, when I look in the mirror these days, I can't help but consider myself a burden to myself.

In what way?

Time was when people looked to the elders of their communities as fonts of wisdom, knowledge, and experience. Certainly, biblical culture was rooted in these ideas.

Now we send the old folks off to nursing homes and shut the door. We treat them like they're expendable. And we focus on youth--they're the movers and shakers. But do they really have all the wisdom?

Not all older people are stubborn and inflexible.

I just wonder if God really approves of the way we treat the older among us. And it saddens me that Jim Wallis touts generational stereotypes as if this were the wisdom of the ages to do so.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 13, 2008 5:51 PM

The guy who mentioned the invention of the internet ought to realize that it was entirely invented by the government using public funds and a mix of contractors, not private enterprise. It was opened up to the public and for-profit access only beginning in 1994. At its inception, it was known as ARPANET, and was funded largely by the military using defense contractors. Eventually it encompassed private contractors, reserachers, scientists, universities and individuals engaged wholly in not-for-profit work.

Gore didn't invent it, but he can take credit for advancing and voting for the legislation that funded and built it.

The private networks that had been built were proprietary and closed, not open like the internet, which mimics a public commons. Before that, it was Compuserve, AOL and other closed newtorks and BBS systems. Companies like Microsoft did not readily embrace a paradigm of openness and interconnectivity - Bill Gates' seminal book, "The Road Ahead" reveals how he just didn't see any value for his company in it, as compared to one that would lock in his customers to one run by his own company for his own benefit.

Since private enterprise has gotten involved, we now have the joys of 95% email spam, with crude offers for sexual enhancement aids making up most of the volume.

Naturally, we also have the joys of communicating in these venues.

No one at a young age, can possibly have the knowledge to make simplistic critiques claiming economic omniscience, and certainly not using reductionist "liberal" vs. "conservative" shibboleths of "evil" vs. "good."

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 13, 2008 8:20 PM

How often am I going to bring up the gay thing?

1Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. 2He said: "In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared about men. 3And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, 'Grant me justice against my adversary.'
4"For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, 'Even though I don't fear God or care about men, 5yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won't eventually wear me out with her coming!' "

6And the Lord said, "Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

Until I get justice.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | February 13, 2008 11:05 PM

Nobody here is depriving Ash of living anyway he chooses to.

But I think all of us would be better off asking for mercy instead of justice.

When we ask for justice, that's a demand that we want to stand and be judged on our own merits. It's not an examination that any adult can pass.

So we ought to avoid judging, for we'll be judged just the same, and we share the propensity for just the same failings. Jesus said we're condemned by thoughts as well as overt actions.

Mercy is in order for all by all. We ought to think of the effects of our choices on our brother first of all.

We are all our brothers' keepers.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 14, 2008 12:53 AM

The simple truth is that GOD is love and that no matter what your personal view, we should love and nuture our brothers and sisters in Christ. All people sin and fall short of GOD's glory.
If you are Christian looking for political choice, you should avail yourself w/ info about all of the candidates and openly discuss decisions with your loved ones and your faith. Not all politicians are bad and not all conservatives are Christians. It is important to seek your faith and find those that share it. Additionaly your role as a citizen never ends at the voting booth, you should petition your government and voice your concerns.

Posted by: Brya | February 14, 2008 6:23 AM

Ashpenaz - I understand your motivation for justice, but the point I'm trying to make is that if, for example, everytime Sojo posted something I started talking about the plight of people in Darfur regardless of the topic at hand it would be disruptive. Add to that the very controversial nature of your particular subject and it becomes very disruptive. I'm not asking you to abandon your cause, I'm asking you to be respectful of the purpose of this blog. Part of being an effective messenger for a cause is prudence, knowing when to make your case and when not to. Do you see what I mean?

Posted by: Eric | February 14, 2008 9:02 AM

Donny,

My belief, in which I am convinced betond doubt, is that marriage can only be a covenant between a man and a woman.

Marriage may or may not have the ideal amount of love, may be troubled, may be selfish, may be cruel. It may fall far short of its intended sacramental nature.

There may be people of the same sex who live out love for one another fully - deep and abiding - but in a nonsexual way. That is not marriage, though, nor does adding erotic pleasures (eros) to that love (agape) make it marriage.

Given that our society has a major problem with people taking care of one another and receiving love and caring - things the government does not really help us with, being alienated from us instead of an expression of true community, concerned more with dominance, money, special interests and warmaking than expressing help for one another - then it is a practical positive to allow people to enter into communal arrangements to better care for each other with the legal status to do so. It does not, nor should it, have to depend upon sexual orientation or the practice of sexual acts, only a stated conviction to be part of a communal arrangement. This is a secular and organisational arrangement that has nothing to say about how people govern their relationships except in a purely legal arrangement to pool resources and offer one another protection and community that government does not. It is not sacramental in nature.

There is no precedent in the New Testament for Christians dominating those, who like themselves formerly, do things outside God's will. Whatever is shown to be a more perfect way, is lived out by example and in love, and not in condemnation or by force. This is not approval, it is compassion. The appeal to the Holy Spirit and surrender will convict the hearts of those who are moved to follow Him.

It is said in scripture that each Christian was guilty of each one of those things that keep us separate from God before we knew Him. So we move towards separating ourselves from those things - holiness - setting ourselves aside instead for Him.

There is no other convincing way, no other effective way, to accomplish required changes in human hearts - all of our hearts. For all of us are on a journey not yet completed and we need to be helping one another - our fellow human beings, all individuals, to which each of us is inextricably linked - to arrive.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 14, 2008 11:26 AM

Sojourner Truth,

I could no longer help you in sponsoring same-gender marriages than I could work in a Molech temple. I wish the gay thing would disappear from every word of liberal and progressive social goals, but it simply will not. And even worse it has entered the Evangelical world and attempts to link to it. Sorry, promoting wrongdoing is not the Gospel. Repenting and forgiveness is the message. If gay theologians want to force me to accept gay sex, why can't we force them to adhere to the Apostolic and Gospel messaqe on marriage?

I do not care what anti- and non-Christians do, unless it harms my Christian brothers and sisters. The cause of non-believers is in God's hands not mine. People are free to reject the Gospel. That is ALSO a teaching of Jesus. It is when people claim to be Christian and attempt to justify and implement ungodly things in the false presentation that it is Christian, that I should speak up. Also, when they want to take my money by force and sponsor horror I should speak up as well. For example, there is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that fatherless children suffer far more than children from nuclear families. yet, you see the supposedly educated elitists "on the Left" ignoring this provable fact.

"There may be people of the same sex who live out love for one another fully - deep and abiding - but in a nonsexual way. That is not marriage, though, nor does adding erotic pleasures (eros) to that love (agape) make it marriage."

Why should i know anything about what two men ot two women do to each other. I know many sisters and brothers that live together for a lifetime. NO ONE needs to know anything about their sexual proclivities. "Don't ask, don't tell," is a noble and decent request. But somehow the GLBT community opposes that. In Christianity, there are moral boundaries and they are sensible and they are healthy. If you don't like them, create your own religion. Don't force Christians and the Church to be ruled by anti-Christians. How is that tolerant?

"I" am required to repent and sin no more. And I am required to forgive (and be forgiven) as many times as a fellow Christian repents. I am also required to contend for the faith. Not one letter of the Apostles, nor any of the Gosples are written to those that have rejected the Gospel. They are written so that followers and those willing to follow, will believe, and will see errors in their behaviors and beliefs that oppose a healthy life in Christ.

Is it not the height of love to warn someone of danger? I feel it is right to warn people that Progressive and Liberal theology and ideology is in contradiction to, and opposes the Gospel. I have done my study. I have tested all things. I see the Humanist Manifesto in Progressive goals and not the Gospel. Why is that such an offense in this "dialogue" supposedly, between Christians?

I have stated many places in scripture and throughout history where my position is solid.

It is very alarming that Jim Wallis would support a silencing of the dialogue that he supposedly wants to create. He is nothing more than a man with opinions. I once proudly thought of myself as a Liberal. Not anymore. What passes as morality in Liberalism mirrors Greek and Roman decadence and IS Humansim in part and parcel.

All individuals have to make choices, but they have to have a persepective of multiple views of life and things to make a good choice. It appears that leftists do not want freedom of choice and a free exchange of ideas. Otherwise, the brain-washing, indoctrination charge that I and the Evangelical community make against Liberals and Progressives is true. Tolerance and diversity mean others have rights too. But you see a silencing of opposition from Leftists a thousand times worse than anything "The Right" puts forward.

Progressive's have existed as long as the Church has. And I'm sorry to say this, but it sounds like they have always been outside of it. There is a reason Paul wrote this:

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all.

Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ."

Posted by: Donny | February 14, 2008 2:38 PM

Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God?

Don't assume you're pleasing God by your rants here.

(Sigh) Once again, another thread addressing a legitimate issue has been hijacked for the sake of one issue which is only at best a tangent.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 14, 2008 3:04 PM

"kevin, let's be realistic. Because it was always somewhat artificial, Reaganism, including the "religious values" that abetted it, is dead -- permanently -- and American society is thus moving away from the "dog-eat-dog" mentality endemic of conservative ideology."

I disagree that with your pejorative description of the ideology, and I do agree that we are shifting away from it. But nothing makes Americans clamor for a "dog eat dog" ideology more than a well-intentioned effort to redistribute their income gone awry.

There is no evidence that suggests to me that America is on a consistent ideological trajectory. Today's idealistic 24-year-old bopping around on his eight internship is tomorrow's middle-manager trying to pay off the school and credit card debt he accrued while he was delaying real life.

And even if he doesn't change his own worldview, the crop of college grads behind him will learn his lesson. And I can guarantee you they won't be excited about the prospect of supplementing his retirement with their tax dollars. These things ebb and flow, just as they have historically.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 14, 2008 5:02 PM

Donny, you are right on target. Ash, it is
amazing the tortured lengths to which you go to twist Scripture to justify your sin. Unless you see the error of your ways in time, you are due for a rude awakening at the Judgment Seat. Canucklehead, you are setting up a false dichotomy. Mr. Wallis, you are still a socialist and a liberal, in spite of trying to evoke the Great Awakening -- which shows that you might have delusions of grandeur, as well. Wesley, Moody, Finney, and Graham all preached the gospel, but
didn't go around trumpeting how great they were
or how they were doing something significant. Kathleen, some others have answered you well. Every vote you place for a liberal Democrat is a vote for babies to go on being killed, which troubles you, but apparently not enough. I recall of song of some years back, with a line to the effect that "Never mind the babies, but we just gotta save the whales." The Democrats should not be credited with any of the positives you ascribe to them.
As for the youth issue, Western society has long
been youth-oriented. (Even in Greek mythology, it
was the youngest gods who were the most important.) This is in
contrast to Oriental society, where respect for
age and experience was the norm. I say "was"
because I assume that they've since been corrupted by Occidentalism, with the resultant worship of youth. This is not to suggest, of course, that young people have nothing important
to contribute.

Posted by: John G. | February 14, 2008 5:15 PM

Perhaps the 20-something evangelicals are now reading the New Testament for themselves and have discovered that the gospel Jesus proclaimed is both faith AND social justice, rather than being either/or. But this isn't new; social activist evangelicals appear during the Great Awakening revivals of the Early National period of America's history (pre-Civil War). Now, I hope the younger evangelicals don't give up the afterlife focused, salvation pitch part of the faith; I hope rather that they (and we) recombine the social justice aspect to it which makes up the whole gospel of Jesus Christ.

Posted by: daren | February 14, 2008 5:37 PM

n m rod. thank you, thank you, thankyou

flatter them titilate them and laugh all the way to the bank. isn't that exactly what jim is doing? your 11;37 post describes jim to a tee.
i have concluded that jim's great awakening is a secular movement, motivated by fame, money and religion.
a rereading of this comment by jim is very disturbing. fortunately i don't think he has the votes to get nominated for anything. i wonder if he has read roman's lately? he rarely backs his statements up with scripture. he seems to be caught up in his politics and pollsters.

Posted by: jerry | February 14, 2008 6:34 PM

I hope that my turn in front of the Judgment Seat, like everyone else's, will be something like this: "You got a whole bunch of things wrong, but I love you anyway. None of that matters now. Welcome home, son."

Posted by: Ashpenaz | February 14, 2008 11:18 PM

"much better off than those that are completely forgotten by republicans who give tax breaks to the wealthiest and never even discuss the poor during campaigns or thereafter."

While I don't think Democrats are entirely to blame for failed city leadership, tax breaks for companies and businesses (the rich, as you call them), do entice business to come into cities.

Remember when Chicago wanted to enact a special minimum wage for big box retailers? Target threatened to back out of two major projects in some of the city's struggling areas. Would that have been a better outcome for those portions of the city? The cty council didn't think so.

"No, to democrats, the first amendment is to allow people to think for themselves and tell others what their thinking, even if it goes against the grain of the brainwashed general public. Funny that you think hollywood elites are all in the porn industry."

Careful who you are calling brainwashed. One of the common criticisms of liberals is that they consider themselves to be somehow enlightened, while the unwashed masses march, lockstep, in accordance with some imaginary, Orwellian drum. Looking past Donny's combative rhetoric, the first amendment has been used (and yes, by Democrats) to permit all manner of pornography.

"But why can't we focus on preventative measures. Stronger families and family support can help. "

They can help reduce any crime. However, they are not always present, and no law can make them so. I don't think the statistics back your assertion that babies will still die, but mothers will die also. The rate of abortion at least doubled after the passage of Roe v. Wade, while death related to sepsys is substantially less frequent.

What does it say to you that Democrats are so fervently pro-choice? Is this position out of character? Is it ideologically inconsistent? Does it reflect any broader assumptions on the part of your party?

Posted by: kevin s. | February 15, 2008 12:03 PM

"While I don't think Democrats are entirely to blame for failed city leadership, tax breaks for companies and businesses (the rich, as you call them), do entice business to come into cities."

I believe that these types of tax breaks are handed out to big businesses as a result of their lobbying and relationships with politicians in charge. I don't think anyone making these decisions is considering the good of the people before their own personal gain, and least of all the big businesses themselves. (I really don't trust any politicians republican or democrat).

"Careful who you are calling brainwashed. One of the common criticisms of liberals is that they consider themselves to be somehow enlightened, while the unwashed masses march, lockstep, in accordance with some imaginary, Orwellian drum. Looking past Donny's combative rhetoric, the first amendment has been used (and yes, by Democrats) to permit all manner of pornography."

I'm not calling any individuals brainwashed, but I do believe the media twists things to influence people toward a certain end result. The sad part is we have no control over that, which is why the 1st ammendment is so important to protect. As for pornography that is the least of my concerns. We should protect our children from it, but we can't try to control all people to act as we do. If you don't like it, don't buy it. When people stop buying it, it will end.

"What does it say to you that Democrats are so fervently pro-choice? Is this position out of character? Is it ideologically inconsistent? Does it reflect any broader assumptions on the part of your party?"

It says that they see it differently than I do. But it's normal for people to disagree. We can't expect every American to have the same values and we shouldn't try to control them into doing so. And no I don't think it reflects any broader assumptions. It is what it is.
I am interested in what you think about little girls that are raped by their fathers. Should they be forced to give birth to a tragedy. McCain wants to allow abortion for those that are raped but how do you prove something like that without victimizing the victim. I think we can all agree that this is a very touchy topic, but not all things are easy to fix.

"Remember when Chicago wanted to enact a special minimum wage for big box retailers? Target threatened to back out of two major projects in some of the city's struggling areas. Would that have been a better outcome for those portions of the city? The cty council didn't think so."

So we should reward companies that threaten us and have no interest in the wellbeing of the communities they serve? I don't care what the city council thinks. Don't forget all the mom and pop stores that go out of business when big box stores open up.

Posted by: Kathleen | February 15, 2008 5:26 PM

It is the Republican Political Machine which wants to force other people's children to have unwanted babies. They are as ruthless in their
use of this concept to get elected as any Talibani or Al Qaedian could be imagined to be.
A most unGodly concept.

It has amazed me that it has taken so long for the Evangelical Tide to begin to turn.

Posted by: Dounto | February 20, 2008 12:38 AM