Brief comment:
Labels aside, one thing should be true about Christians regardless of political affiliation. Perhaps we (left vs. right) hold different opinions about how to regulate the market, BUT we should be united in fulfilling the call to "pick up our cross[es]." To act religiously or politically in a manner and attitude that disregards the immensely important fact that "we belong to each other" is to be un-Christian.

I'm new to the debates surrounding this. But it seems very curious to me that a term like "social justice" has a lefty connotation. For example, the Faith Formation program I taught a year ago was centered around the Catholic social teachings. They are a pursuit of social justice.

At any rate: God Bless

Posted by: scott | June 11, 2008 6:16 PM

"But we limit God if we say that he must act on any of these issues through the governmental and diplomatic methods that the left prefers, and cannot work his redemptive will through markets, international trade, or even through the military of a great power."

I don't think I was suggesting that God *must* act through the methods which the left prefers. In any case, I don't disagree with this statement, except for the part about the military. I simply don't believe that God can act through the exercise of military power.

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 11, 2008 9:40 PM

"Another nice way of saying that conservative, laissez-faire policies are more aligned with Christianity than the policies advocated on this blog."

James -

I don't know if you agree or not, but that is the exact opposite of what I was trying to suggest. If God is actively working to transform the world and expects us to get on board, which I believe to be the central message of the Gospel, then laissez-faire policies must be viewed with the utmost suspicion. If God wants to let things continue to operate under their own momentum, then what was the point of the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and everything else in which we profess to believe?

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 11, 2008 11:13 PM

"Well, who were the oppressors of the poor in 1st century Judea? Wicked industrialists? Nope - tax collectors!"

And who are the oppressors of the poor today? The IRS? Or first world industrialists who are forcing those least able to pay into dehumanizing poverty and hopelessness? And what would Jesus do if he were alive today? Picket IRS headaquarters, or call for a debt jubilee?

Historical context isn't everything, especially if it's used as an excuse to evade real, pressing issues of today. I am perfectly willing to defend my positions, and I will do so with every intellectual faculty that God has given me. I don't know who this straw man is that you're arguing with, but it isn't me.

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 11, 2008 11:42 PM

However, there are three things that keep me from taking most evangelical progressives seriously. One, they really tend to waffle on the social issues. They are unwilling to say that ANY conservative position is a hill to fight and die on. And anyone who does is identifying Christianity with "divisive politics".

Because that's just how "conservative" positions are often used -- to be divisive and to maintain cultural superiority. That really has nothing to do with true Biblical values because they're done out of sheer arrogance. Besides, it's easy to point out the sins of the "world" and fight (a losing battle) against them; however, I remember one taunt I consistenly heard in high school: "Quit acting normal!" If we Christians have "the more excellent way," we need to show that we will be different.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 12, 2008 12:33 AM

Brent: "Among current issues, I believe a pro-choice stance and support for gay marriage are the only issues that I would break fellowship with someone over."

Brent, that seems like such a shallow stance! Surly if you are such an upholder of the letter of the law there must be many more issues that would cause you to shake the dust from your feet as you're leaving.

These are the two topics that I believe most everyone is tired of hearing conservative believers talk about. Let's move on to wider discussions and simply agree to disagree if that being the case.

You say "pro-choice" in this manner as if to say you support a pro-life stance is this also to say that you oppose capital punishment?

Posted by: d.e.sharp | June 12, 2008 9:25 AM

this progressive thing has really worked out well for the church in western europe hasn't it? roger

Posted by: roger | June 12, 2008 10:06 AM

When I was young, there where Fundamental Christians and Liberal Christians. Some where along the road the some Fundamentalists started calling themselves Conservatives and stopped believing in social justice.

Now we have Progressives to add to the mix. The message of social justice and human rights and the Word and the Way of Jesus is being brought back into play.

I don't like labels because they divide us rather than unite. Just call me Christian and let my life be in the will of God. If I happen to believe that working for the cause of social justice is a part of my life in Christ, so be it. If I believe that life is Paramount from the womb to the grave, let it. If I believe that war is a sin and evil in the sight of the Lord and that Jesus came that we might live in peace with each other, that's my opinion. I live wholly for Christ and not the will of the World, but because I live in the world, I must do all that I can to see that it is a better place for all.

Jesus said to pay our taxes and to give ourselves to God. Taxes are not a sin but a means to pay the cost of social justice. It did pay for the Roman roads, after all.

Posted by: Paul | June 12, 2008 10:32 AM

Yes, the influence of the Religious Right has waned, and I would add that in particular the influence of the right's leadership has waned. But firmly entrenched and heavily invested beliefs die hard, and it's likely that even those conservative evangelicals who have been feeling skittish about the right's political entanglements will revert to old habits come November.

This is an unusual admission for Sojo, and this is something that the religious left needs to think about and consider closely.

It's pretty clear that a lot of grass-roots activists and plain churchgoing voters are reconsidering their ties to the right, and (speaking as a staunch conservative) I think this re-evaluation is long overdue.

But there were reasons why evangelicals moved right all those years ago, and not all of those reasons have evaporated. An intelligent conservatism could still win them back, especially if the religious left isn't willing to address those underlying concerns in a meaningful way. There's an opportunity here for liberals, but you're going to need to do more than fiddle with the rhetoric to make the most of it.

Another thing: staring at your navel and pondering what the best labels are isn't going to get it done either.

That's enough free advice to you guys for today.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 12, 2008 11:05 AM

If one defines "progressive" as simply caring and acting as you see fit about creation, the poor, debt relief, etc then a lot of Christians with conservative political views are progressive too. But in most discussions, progressive doesn't just mean "caring and acting individually" it means mandatory communal action directed by the central government. This is where, I think, the confusion between Wright, Another Non, and Wolverine develops.

James,
I don't think you understand what Wolverine wrote. He wasn't saying his policy solutions are closer to Christ than Progressive policy solutions. He's criticizing Wright (or at least Another Non's interpretation of what Wright is saying) for assuming that the only way for Christ to work on this earth is through centralized government planning and programs. Wolverine, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, was pointing out that there are other ways of showing the love of Christ in this world.

Posted by: Eric | June 12, 2008 11:20 AM

"Another nice way of saying that conservative, laissez-faire policies are more aligned with Christianity than the policies advocated on this blog."

That isn't what he said at all. You have devoted hundreds, if not thousands, of one-sentence posts to dismissive comments of Wolverine or myself that exhibit no interest in engaging the conversation in any way. You spend many of them accusing us of bad faith.

"If God wants to let things continue to operate under their own momentum, then what was the point of the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and everything else in which we profess to believe?"

Conservatives do not argue for things to operate under their own "momentum", but rather argue that the market has the capacity to stop reverse negative momentum.

Actually, it is indisputable that the markets have the capacity to reverse negative momentum. The question is what level of governmental intervention is necessary to prevent inequity under the Constitution.

As such, to argue that the incarnation and resurrection were God's arguments against a free market economy would require a bit more explanation than you have provided here. A cursory counterargument might note that God offered his son only after generations of disobedience. Disobedience that included, mind you, a request for an earthly ruler.

Posted by: kevin s. | June 12, 2008 11:36 AM

He's criticizing Wright (or at least Another Non's interpretation of what Wright is saying) for assuming that the only way for Christ to work on this earth is through centralized government planning and programs.

Reread Another nonymous, Kevin. He didn't say anything remotely like that, let alone claim that N T Wright was saying it.

Regarding God's acting through military action, I would have to say yes he does. But not in the way that the instigators of such action usually intend. Since all things work toward God's purposes, that would include human sinfulness and folly like warfare. In Habakkuk, we read God telling the prophet that he is going to use the ravaging, murderous exploits of the Chaldeans to chastise Israel for their disobedience. But God doesn't therefore bless the Chaldeans for their atrocities. He still holds them responsible, and he will bring them to a deserving end as well.

But WWII being an advance of God's kingdom? I certainly think not.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | June 12, 2008 1:42 PM

"Ah, the old Constitution again. Wolverine was only recently arguing that there is no right under the Constitution to serve food to poor people in a park, and I'm afraid he may be correct. "

If the Constitution allowed this, the concept of a public park would be untenable.

Posted by: kevin s. | June 12, 2008 2:14 PM

What a mess with all these labels to divide us. There are theological liberals, theological conservatives and theological fundamentalists; then there are political liberals, political progressives and political conservatives.

Often the theological positions do not align with the political ones. Many political conservatives would claim a faith in God, but would hold a very liberal view of scripture. Many political liberals would fall the same way.

Theological fundamentalists who really take all of scripture seriously, may find themselves to be politically liberal, conservative or progressive.

Theological conservatives (whom I'd define as those for whom personal salvation is the be all and end all) are probably more likely to be conservative politically, but again it's not a fixed fact.

Me, I'm a post-modern charismatic liberal christian who generally votes conservatively. The dividing of Christians by political persuasion and the assumtion that this reveals something about their 'type' of faith, is simply wrong.

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | June 12, 2008 7:23 PM

"He's criticizing Wright (or at least Another Non's interpretation of what Wright is saying) for assuming that the only way for Christ to work on this earth is through centralized government planning and programs."

Eric -

If I may be allowed author's privileges here: That's not at all what Wright says, and it's not at all what I said that Wright says. The equation of progressive politics with the idea that the only way for Christ to work on earth is through central government was yours and yours alone. I don't know any progressive who thinks that way.

What Wright does say - and I affirm - is that much of what Jesus and the Apostles did was essentially political, in that they stood against the established order and sought to affirm the radical Lordship of Christ. This was a progressive position 2000 years ago, and it is just as progressive today, especially when you begin to think through its implications for the issues I cited: 3rd world debt, creation care, poverty relief, etc.

Of course, I could add the commodification of sex, rampant materialism and individualism, and the cheapening of life that results. To oppose these things is also progressive, and always has been.

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 12, 2008 10:14 PM

>Brent, that seems like such a shallow stance!

Ok, so I should be dogmatic about more of my conservative beliefs?

>Surly if you are such an upholder of the letter >of the law there must be many more issues that >would cause you to shake the dust from your feet >as you're leaving.

Doctinal, yes. Political no. See below.

>These are the two topics that I believe most >everyone is tired of hearing conservative >believers talk about.

I don't care if people are "tired of it." We can discuss other things - but the Bible doesn't lay out much of a political agenda. It gives out principles, but when I hear people say the Bible supports this or that politically, it tends to be extrapolation. Christians should be active politically. But it isn't our main task by a long shot. Jesus is about changing lives first, and that is what ultimately leads to a more just world.

>You say "pro-choice" in this manner as if to say >you support a pro-life stance is this also to >say that you oppose capital punishment?

The state still has the power to wield the sword. (Romans 13).

Posted by: Brent | June 13, 2008 12:00 AM

"Doctinal, yes. Political no. See below."

"I don't care if people are "tired of it." We can discuss other things - but the Bible doesn't lay out much of a political agenda."

It's almost as if you're saying that abortions and same sex marriages are akin to political items and other issues you choose not to declare here are more of a dogmatic nature????

I choose to believe that political issues are what we the people make out to be political issues. Turn back the pages of God's Politics to last week's two part article by Brian McLaren on this issue to see the varied viewpoints as to what constitutes politics.

"The state still has the power to wield the sword. (Romans 13)."

Another nonymous is correct the hermeneutical understanding of the scripture is very important if you're going to use it in its proper context.

But as far as the specific issue of pro-life goes; as far as I understand it -it is solely based on the commandment that "thou shall not kill" is it not?

Surely you and I can agree that capital punishment by its own nature is defined as the "killing" of someone found guilty of a crime - is it not?

So the only way that I can see you finding one acceptable yet not the other is that for you it is plausable to assign a value system to humans based on our actions, or in the case of an unborn their "lack of action". Is this not correct?

Posted by: d.e.sharp | June 13, 2008 7:32 AM

It is interesting how much discussion there has been about the recent shift in the Evangelical political landscape.

Wait a minute!!!!! Hold the horses!!!

Did I miss the Evangelical elections--when we all went out and cast our "Evangelical vote?" How does anybody know there has been a shift??

Oh, because of the polling.

Really?

So what do we have here? Say a random, scientific, sample of 3000 Evangelical voters that have been tracked for the past three decades (or three years for that matter) who have shifted their thinking, attitudes, commitments and political behavior? No.

I have at the best only seen thin evidence of any shift.

Oh, but the commentators and experts say there has been a shift. Enough people have now published books, written articles, and been mentioned on Meet the Press that we know there has been a shift. Marcia has even participated on a panel discussion.

This is a battle over the control of a public dialogue. Jerry Falwell contended there was a 'moral majority' that did not have a voice. For some reason, the major media found that to be an interesting proposition. It came on the coattails of the "First Born-Again President" (Jimmy Carter)

It's amazing they promoted the story so long--as it morphed into "all Evangelicals are conservatives are Republicans are a dominant force" storyline.

Of course, the "Religious Right Spokespersons" (Robertson, Schaffley, Dobson, T. Perkins, etc.) never seemed to mind having their voices amplified as representing some great force in American politics. It even seemed to help being treated as if it was somewhat of an evil insurgent force against the mainstream.

Who cares if the story was true??????

And that is my point now. Who cares if this latest story is true????? I have not changed my vote. Have you?

There hasn't even been a vote.

Yes, I understand, there are Evangelical leaders who are framing a broader/deeper range of socio-political concerns. But to jump from that to a conclusion there is an emergent force in American Politics that is a "Not-Right-Evangelical-vote" is a leap of faith.

Maybe Rick Warren votes for Democrats. I don't know. My hunch is his vote will not look all that much different than it did in 1980 or 2000.

I wouldn't even write this comment outside a sincere concern that the "Voices of the Progressive Evangelical" are acting exactly as Jerry Falwell. They have discovered a new power block of voters whom they represent--and will have their voices amplified as long as the media likes this storyline.

Jim Wallis and others are absolutely justified (and I support) in political action. I just think it is neither ethical, honest, nor effective (in the long run)-- to advance issues based on a storyline that lacks the evidence.

Will the Evangelical vote break out differently in 2008 than it did in 2000? First of all--we will never know. There simply isn't a consistency in the research data to make solid conclusions beyond what any given person wants ot make of it.

Secondly, my prediction is our voting behavior will be different. I suspect the change will closely reflect a change in the broader electorate--a group that Evangelicals have been much more closely aligned to for decades than we were ever aligned with a mythical Religious Right or Religious Left.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | June 13, 2008 10:17 AM

Yes, I understand, there are Evangelical leaders who are framing a broader/deeper range of socio-political concerns. But to jump from that to a conclusion there is an emergent force in American Politics that is a "Not-Right-Evangelical-vote" is a leap of faith.

Not where I live, it isn't -- in fact, as a "progressive evangelical" I had a hard time finding like-minded believers in my city until recently, and even some of those on the "right" whom I battled in the 1980s have tired of politics or at least are now open to something new. Furthermore, Christian media are still dominated by the right (although, thankfully, less of a factor). I think the shift is real and not just discovering something that always existed.

Posted by: Rick | June 13, 2008 5:43 PM

"Well, who were the oppressors of the poor in 1st century Judea? Wicked industrialists? Nope - tax collectors!" (sorry, I came to this thread late)

And what were the tax collectors? A cross between a pyramid selling scam and a "Sopranos"-style protection racket. Never forget that the roman tax-farming system was (a) based on private enterprise and (b) primarily concerned with maximising profit at all levels of the operation, not raising sufficient revenue to fund budgeted central government spending.

Who were the people most fiercely criticised by the prophets (leaving aside the general tendency of Israel and Judah to apostatise)? The traders and financiers who exploited the poor (cf Amos 2 or Isaiah 5), legislators who corruptly favoured particular interest groups (cf Isaiah 10)... I could go on, but it's bed-time.

Bis morgen, Kinder

Posted by: Tony Dickinson | June 13, 2008 6:24 PM

Und die Propheten, wie immer, sind manchmal mißverstanden y verachtet.

Posted by: Don | June 13, 2008 9:59 PM

Don -

Macht nichts, amigo! :-)

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 13, 2008 10:14 PM

Brent said:

"The biggest oppressors of the poor today are the leaders of Third World governments, usually at all levels."

It is true that there is corruption in many of the two-thirds world/developing nations/global south ("third world" is considered an offensive term nowadays). But to any fair student of these matters, the corruption is a symptom of previous problems, usually involving prior slavery, or imperialism which itself was usually a systematic impoverishment of these nations by...guess who? Have you read of the generational poverty in many African states, still rich with diamonds, for example, none of the proceeds of which reach the people who nearly literally eat dirt?

At any rate, Brent, you could not be suggesting that "third world" governments are responsible for poverty found in America?

Back to the initial issue of this blog, however, I do believe that we exacerbate the difficulty of "maintaining the unity of the Spirit" with these labels we love to embrace and bandy about. And that's another thing, Brent: my reading of Ephesians 4 doesn't suggest at all that it is my prerogative to determine whom I "break fellowship" with. I have been ordered to "maintain" what the Spirit has created between us, whatever inimical labels we insist on giving ourselves.

One more thing: does anybody agree that some poverty is either caused or perpetuated by some governmental policies? And shouldn't the government be petitioned - even pressured - to reconsider those policies that create or enlarge the problems of the poor? So then why do some believers see red when some other believers include the government as part of the potential solution to poverty?

Posted by: Michael Friday | June 14, 2008 9:17 AM

Poverty Church Government

I find it helpful to break this question (and many like it) into three levels.

What is the public's responsibility to address issues of income/opportunity/justice towards low-income persons??

Within the public responsibility--what do we deem the role of government (versus church vs. business vs. other sectors)to address these issues?

And then within that--what are the most effective governmental policies performed at what levels of government? Is granting cash support the most just and effective; or food; or __________???? Is it most effective for a national bureaucracy delivering the aid--or ______________?

The problem is that most of the political debate focuses on the particular policies or tactics without addressing the first two questions.

I do not think I exaggerate to say that President Bush could jointly issue a call for 100 leaders (government, academic, activists, religious, etc.) to gather at a retreat center for 2 days and hammer out a bipartisan, multi-sector, framework--laying out a goal for poverty reduction--with a basic outline for what responsibilities each sector would fulfill; and from that political leadership could craft significant legislation (not comprehensive answers--but significant movement).

I get frustrated beyond words on issues like this because it is so simple on the fundamental issues. We simply do not need to fight endlessly over whether the US should govern its borders justly; or carry out its business in a way that systemically does not undermine families or hurt poorer citizens; etc.

The vast majority of political dialogue and energy is wasteful, hurtful, and causes leaders and citizens to disengage.

The media who facilitates the mediums of public discourse and politicians who control the mediums of governmental action are first of all responsible to run a process that works. My criticism is not that they fail--but that most fail to even accept responsibility.

I am inclined to vote for Obama for no other reason than this. At least he is willing to say, "I will be responsible to run a process that works." He may be a complete failure. If every leader that ran in the Republican and Democrat primaries (e.g. Biden, Richardson, Clinton, Huckabee, Paul, etc.) would simply join hands with the rest who said they would make a good President and change Washington--then Washington would change. It could change today.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | June 14, 2008 6:58 PM

Eric -

Apology accepted. That's what these blogs are for; so we can understand each other better. :-)

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 16, 2008 9:04 AM