Shane,

It is always a breath of fresh air to read your posts. Thank you!

Posted by: JamesM | July 14, 2008 12:21 PM

Shane relating that politicians have invited him to endorse or advise them reminds me of the scene near the end of "Oh Brother, Where Art Though". In the scene the incumbent governor tells the audience that the incredibly popular singing group, the "Soggy Bottom Boys" will be his advisors in his campaign or administration. It's a great example of a politician trying to latch on to what ever is hip or popular at the moment to ride that wave into office.

Keep on resisting their offers Shane!

Posted by: Eric | July 14, 2008 1:35 PM

inthekingdom - Not to get into a big debate about pacifism, but there is a huge territory between pacifism and thinking that "justice and peace come through violence and war". It's difficult to have a reasoned dialogue with other people if you put words like that in other people's mouths.

Posted by: Eric | July 14, 2008 2:28 PM

A great post, and high time, too.
Interesting that Modlad makes with the "what if", and well said...although I disagree that Wallis has been more divisive.

I think you miss one point...this site isn't about Wallis, it's about Christians who are sick and tired of being labelled by so-called Christian leadership.

Wolverine, is there something I missed in Jesus' teachings about pacifism not being a Christian trait? Leave the standard consrevative approach to life, and stop bashing pacifists...they have a beeter path to freedom than the aggressive stance we've been told is the American way...witness the wonderful job the neo-cons have done in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Isn't it time to give Jesus' Way a try?

Let Your Light Shine, and Pray for Peace!

Posted by: Doug & Jan In Co | July 14, 2008 3:37 PM

Doug and Jan,

Strictly speaking there's nothing in Jesus' teachings that you missed, except for the audience.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | July 14, 2008 4:21 PM

You are exactly right, you can't usher in the kingdom of God by telling people who they should vote for and you could even be wrong. I remember when the Christian Coaltion endorsed this state level conservative candidate in our community who belonged to our state's largest mega church. He turned out to be a child molester who abused and sodomized six different little girls at the church. He was convicted and is now serving 50 years in prison!

Religious leaders should not endorse candidates because they are not infallible.

Posted by: Ray | July 14, 2008 4:58 PM

Let's get back on topic.

Wolverine: "But I'm pretty sure there would be adjustments, and both Christian conservatism and the church as a whole would be better off after those adjustments are made."

Wolverine, care to speculate about what kind of adjustments might be made?

Posted by: carl Buckeye copas | July 14, 2008 7:33 PM

Carl,

Since you inserted that "Buckeye" in your handle, that clearly shows that you are being hostile and are not interested in a serious discussion. (grins)

So, what would RR 2.0 look like? I'll have to paint in broad strokes here and some of this is educated guesswork, but here goes:

One thing that the Christian right has yet to do is really think for itself what its theology is and how that reflects itself in politics. That especially goes for mainline Protestants and Evangelicals. (Who I'm focusing on here) We've been running on instinct and sentiment for a very long time. Now (IMHO) those instincts and sentiments happen to be sound ones for the most part, but even the best instincts and sentiments will only get you so far.

How would that translate into concrete public policy? Well, first I think we need our own independent think tank, and we need to develop our own intellectual leaders -- columnists/bloggers, policy experts, people with solid policy backgrounds. Right now the closest I can come to for that is Family Research Council. Now I have a higher opinion of James Dobson than most here, but his background is child psychology, not policy. We need alternatives to Pat Robertson. Right now the big intellectuals in the conservative movement are more likely to be Catholics. Nothing against the Catholics, but we'd be better off with intellectual leaders who used terminology that Protestants and Evangelicals are more familiar with. (In other words, time to can the latin.)

After that, I would expect more of an emphasis on hands-on service. We say we want the church to do more and the government to do less, we ought to be able to model how that works. I think that a lot of evangelicals have come to think that the church needs to be more compassionate and to the extent that Sojo has made inroads (exaggerated here but I'll admit they've made progress) it's on account of that. If the movement is a little smaller because some of our activists are busy at soup kitchens or tutoring at school, the movement that remains will have more credibility.

I would think that school choice and education reform would be a natural for RR 2.0, not least of all because that's an issue that fits a conservative worldview well, and also fits the protestant tradition (historically we've emphasized literacy) well too. Plus its one of the few areas where there is likely to be some common ground between Christian conservatism and the African-American church.

I also think prison reform might be a good place for RR 2.0 to stake out some ground. Chuck Colson is an evangelical leader who has done a lot of work here already. It certainly fits into a Christian worldview (I was in prison and you visited me...) and there is a lot of work that could be done here that a conservative should have little trouble supporting, especially addressing the constant problem of prison rape.

I would guess that the movement would be less overtly nationalistic, not because America isn't a great country, but because the church is supposed to be more universal and an excess of flag-waving is unseemly. I don't want to open the whole Iraq War can of worms here, but we could afford to be a bit more sophisticated about diplomacy.

I think we could afford to turn the rhetoric down on abortion a notch, from 11 down to 10. I'm not calling for a wholesale change in position (or adopting Wallis' "lower the abortion rate" rhetoric, which to me just doesn't seem to get to the heart of the problem) but a bit of humility might go over better here.

Those are some first thoughts. I may change my mind on any of it.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | July 14, 2008 9:49 PM

[I think that this site is all about Wallis. Nothing really gets on here without his knowing or approval. This is the site that has labeled all conservatives Christians and 'Conservatives' first and 'Christians' second which is false.]

Interesting Lad,
Actually, I think you put perhaps twice as many words on this site than does Jim. But you are right, though I doubt he always agrees with you; he approves of your ability to participate.
I would disagree with any who would label all conservatives as Christian or all liberals as Christian. I believe a Christian would try to stay away from those limiting labels and look to find God's way rather than latch onto ideas just because of a label.

Oh, are you coming to MacPherson?
Igor

Posted by: Igor | July 15, 2008 12:36 AM

What's wrong with Latin?

Oh, and I live in Columbus, so I have an excuse.

Posted by: Buckeye Don | July 15, 2008 6:10 AM

Moderatelad,

"But I believe that you can achieve your objective easier and faster from a position of strength."

God could have easily taken this strategy with us, and sometimes I wonder why He didn't or doesn't, but He is committed to the values as Jesus put forth in His Sermon on the Mount. God isn't about taking the easy or fast approach to the world's problems--and thank Him for that, as without His patience, long-suffering, grace, and sacrifice, we would all be in deep trouble.

The choice is between taking the Kingdom of this World approach to injustice--the quick fix of violence and power, or taking the Kingdom of God approach to injustice, with Jesus' love and sacrifice as our example. One is quick and coercive, the other is lasting and meaningful.

Congrats on your son's wedding, by the way!

Blessings,

Lea

Posted by: squeaky | July 15, 2008 11:38 AM

Do you have any examples of how the RR used coercion to get people to vote for Republicans? Do you think Sojo lacks faith when they try to convince people to support their policies...as if the Spirit is not at work in those people?

They were not so much coerced but the victims of a well-funded, well-connected propaganda campaign which exploited fears and resentments of white conservatives primarily for political gain, and in cases like that you're told only what you want to hear regardless of the truth because it raises passion -- and $$$. I actually attended what turned out to be a "religious right" church in Atlanta nearly 30 years ago and the fear was so thick I could have cut it with a knife (and it's one reason I'm not conservative). But since "perfect faith casts out fear," I never understood what that had to do with true faith in God or Christ.

Actually, what you're proposing from your most recent comments is what Evangelicals for Social Action has been doing for a long time.

As a longtime ESA member I know that what you said is true, but I was on another Christian blog recently and the host said that Ron Sider was devoid of Biblical truth. In fact, a lot of conservatives fear him greatly because he's a threat to conservative hegemony and has been for a long time.

Posted by: Rick | July 15, 2008 12:57 PM

"They were not so much coerced but the victims of a well-funded, well-connected propaganda campaign which exploited fears and resentments of white conservatives primarily for political gain, and in cases like that you're told only what you want to hear regardless of the truth because it raises passion -- and $$$."

Yeah, I didn't think so. I agree both Conservatives and Liberals use extreme rhetoric to convince people to support their issues. You could say that Liberals exploit fears that Americans will starve to death if we don't support government programs A-Z. You could also say liberals exploit the resentment of rich people.

Posted by: DITE | July 15, 2008 3:47 PM

Wolverine, thanks for the very thoughtful response. Can you identify leaders on the RR who are moving in this direction? Rick Warren?

Don, Permissum Buckeyes triumphus super Wolverines!!

Posted by: carl copas | July 15, 2008 5:05 PM

My earlier post was deleted. I will try again. This site seems to be a lot about Jim Wallis and the criticism of the "Religious Right." As we know, the gospel does not urge us to go out and criticize those we disagree with.

Posted by: Noodle Beach | July 15, 2008 8:12 PM

His politics, IMHO, are thoroughly confused. His character, as far as I know, may very well be decent.

I know you were talking about me and in fact it was an insult, though roundabout. Be advised that I would never say that about you or anyone else; I have gotten upset with people only when I feel they've crossed a line, often when they get huffy because they can't defend their positions.

FWIW, I've never been one for ideological consistency and I've said time and time again that I don't fit into any neat category; my primary concern is adhering to the Scriptures without the cultural biases, which is why I fit here better than on some other Christian blogs. Furthermore, I don't assume (as, at least in my experience, most conservatives do without realizing it) Christian cultural superiority.

That's especially important when dealing with political issues, because when you've already determined that people who don't agree with you are already irredeemably wrong (and that happens a lot in my theological tradition), that leads to disunity in the Body. I for one get tired of hearing about Jim Wallis' "apostasy"; while I don't agree with him on everything, he does get a lot of things right and we who claim Christ as Savior and LORD should listen to him and those who come from that side.

Posted by: Rick | July 16, 2008 12:35 AM

For what it's worth, the post I referred to above was intended to signal that in the future I intended to avoid being drawn into arguments with that individual. I don't think he's a particularly bad person though.

Wolverine -- You missed the point. You indicated that you thought there was something wrong with my thought process because I don't follow a rigid ideological formula, particularly yours, and that's what Beliefnet called you on.

The problem is that society in general, and liberals in particular, are not prepared to do what is necessary to deal with the problem. They create a catch 22 where they can continually criticize those responsible for dealing with the prison population, but make it impossible for anything to be really done about it.

That's vague, to say the least.

An area where efforts could probably show more fruit would be in efforts at reintegration after incarceration.

That's a conservative issue, not a liberal one, because conservatives are the ones who are more concerned about protecting their perceived interests. That's why ex-cons often end up in poorer neighborhoods that don't have a lot of political or social power. (Same with group homes, addiction clinics etc.)

Posted by: Rick | July 16, 2008 8:39 AM

Apparently, Sojo pulled the post in which you leveled a "direct personal insult" against Rick. So I can't judge whether it was over the line or not.

He admits he was bounced for making this statement: "I think there's an intelligent, well-intentioned person in there somewhere ... ", which in fact did represent a personal insult (though it didn't make me angry -- I've heard far, far worse, even here).

And, it IS a little disturbing that two conservatives have been banned over the past two days (Mod'lad being the other).

This is not at all an ideological thing -- I've run into trouble myself and have thus "toned it down." Anyway, that can happen when you identify with one set of values so strongly that any challenge is taken personally; in such cases cordiality can, and often does, go out the window.

Further, you may recall that moderatelad consistently brought up "limousine liberals," Teddy Kennedy and the Democratic Party in Minnesota (known there officially as the Democratic/Farmer/Labor Party, hence the initials DFL) at times when none of those had anything to do with the topic at hand. Besides, he also consistently complained about "persecution" from non-conservatives, most notably myself, who challenged not only his positions but also his attitude.

Posted by: Rick | July 16, 2008 11:33 AM

Those who had been banned from posting before now, however, were consistently insulting to everyone who disagreed with them and/or challenged their positions. And we had to put up with their insults for, in some cases weeks, before Beliefnet did anything. I remember in one case sending an email to Beliefnet complaining about the repeated violations of one person. It was still weeks before they finally took action.

Further, these individuals never apologized for their persistent and sometimes nasty personal attacks. Instead, they continued insisting that we were wrong, not they.

In these recent two cases, nothing like that has taken place. Wolverine was always level-headed and never insulting in the way that the earlier banned individuals were. But Wolverine had been warned before, so no doubt that counted against him. Still, there are other regulars on this blog who are consistently less respectful than he, and they haven't been touched.

Moderatelad, although his posts were often frustrating for content and rhetorical reasons, and although as Rick points out he loved to attack certain political figures even if they weren't concerned with the topic at hand, was rarely personally insulting to those here who disagreed here him. The post that got him banned was from last week's exchange with RJohnson, who was challenging Moderatelad's positions and was at the same time acting provocative by stereotyping "all conservatives." Johnson pressed Moderatelad's button and he reacted. Moderatelad later apologized, quite unlike the earlier banned individuals. He lost his cool one time. It's not a regular occurrence with him.

I don't believe either of these individuals should have been banned. Moderatelad should have been warned, but Beliefnet should read through the exchange and note his apology.

FWIW,

Posted by: Don | July 16, 2008 11:52 AM

It seems very un-Sojo like.

Please remember that Sojourners and Beliefnet aren't the same entity. Sojourners is "renting" blog space from Beliefnet, and so is agreeing to abide by Beliefnet's rules. It is Beliefnet, not Sojourners, who are making these decisions.

D

Posted by: Don | July 16, 2008 12:10 PM

Wow. Sounds like you are trying to establish a theocracy....government based on your view of Biblical mandate. Isn't that what folks on your side of the fence have been accusing the "religious right" of for so many years? Even "voting" for Jesus" Did you forget: "My kingdom is not of this world." (Jn 18:36)

I wonder if you really believe your own words. It's fairly obvious that you are not reaching for some post-partisan accord, but pushing a radical Left agenda and attempting to mold the Lord into an image of the same.

"Endorsing" Jesus is a cute little stunt, true. But it's pretty arrogant for you to traffic in the idea that Jesus needs your "endorsement" or anyone else's!

"inthekingdom" wrote: "how does one support violence and war of any kind, and under any circumstance, and still claim allegiance to the crucified one"

Easy -- dude breaks into my house, threatens my family with a knife...I do my duty to protect my family, most likely by violence. Would you let your family be killed in the name of your "pacifism?" To modify a cliche -- "There are no pacifists when your son has a knife to his neck." Jesus would not support non-action in the face of such threats to innocent life.

Posted by: Chet Lemon | July 16, 2008 3:32 PM

Rick: "This is not at all an ideological thing -- I've run into trouble myself and have thus "toned it down.""

It may not be "an ideological thing." But I'm still bothered by the fact that two outspoken conservatives were booted off by Beliefnet over the course of two days.

Moderatelad often popped off about things which he had no business commenting on, because his comments made clear that he had no idea of what he was talking about. Certainly, his sophomoric references to "Harry and Nancy" and "Teddy" were silly, and his "Blessings" sign-off was annoying. But as Don suggests, he apologized last week when he went over the line.

As for Wolverine, granted he could get pretty vociferous at times; he should not have made the comment to Rick about "an intelligent, well-intentioned person in there somewhere." But I've read a lot stronger comments on this blog, without repercussions for the writer.

I strongly urge Sojo or BeliefNet or whomever to allow both of them back on. I think the blog moderator owes us an explanation.

Posted by: carl copas | July 16, 2008 4:50 PM

Hey Shane,

Joel from Cali here. Thanks for being you, and bringing the Spirit into the conversation. No more of this blind leading the blind, because we don't "have the eyes to see and ears to hear" what the Spirit is saying to the church.

Seeing you guys here in Ventura over the weekend, I sensed God's presence there that evening that what you guys are doing is good AND needed to awaken the mind, as you put it. After all, if 2 or more gather in His name, then He dwells there. In other words, His presence being present is the marking of what happens when we invite Him in; for the Lamb to have his way.

So thanks for your words, your encouragement and the Spirit you and Chris are carrying as you travel the country.

Much love.

Posted by: Joel Hickenbottom | July 17, 2008 3:35 PM

This is not a challenge to the system at all. Notice that Claiborne does not reveal whether he will vote, and why or why not.

I find that disturbing, and I also find it disturbing that a radical would sell themselves to the king's ear, even if the advice is "dismantle the arms." I find that to still be part of the Constantinianism that Christians have been part of for far too long. The problem is not that the religious right dictated what people should do, but that they thought people should do something in the first place, rather than categorically opposing the system.

I fail to see how Shane's blog post is really a challenge to anything. It fails to address the system as an inherently colonial, violent, and expansionist enterprise, which anyone with an inkling of history knows is true.
Edit/Delete Message

Posted by: Andy | July 17, 2008 3:58 PM

I wish Shane and company would be a little more transparent about their positions on the election. "Not endorsing" a candidate is the official position of every church and church organization. But everybody knows which side each church and organization is likely to support, so that the official neutrality is simply a facade. I mean even Sojourners has an official position that is neutral and does not say vote for this or that candidate over the other. But we all know who they are backing: Barack Obama. So Shane's lack of transparency here cannot help but be read as support mostly for the Democratic side, as seen in how CNN treated his position.

Shane should make clear whether he votes or does not, and defend that position. Not voting is a defensible position and saying that he will not do so, is not tantamount to telling others not to.

Anyhow, these are the primary concerns I have with this. Other than that I share many of Sahnes views in this blog posting.

Posted by: Andy Alexis-Baker | July 18, 2008 12:44 AM

Love it love it LOVE IT!!!

Rather than accepting an invitation to ride the coat tails of the Power Brokers, invite them to ride the coat tails of the Kingdom. And our invitation is OUR LIFE.

Keep it up Shane and JFP Company!!

Posted by: Greg Boyd | July 18, 2008 11:41 AM

Shane makes some good points. However, his statements about the Religious Right are hurtful. The previous generation is the one that was hit very hard on all fronts with the steep decline in morals and the passage of RvW in 1973. It happened very fast and we tried to prevent the slide for our children's sake and for the sake of this nation.

Now I don't see a lot of difference between Shane's and other liberal Christian's negative remarks about conservatives and conservative Christians and the Saturday Night Live crowd or Bill Maher. I think that the Religious Right has been valiant in the unrelenting culture wars in this country. That we have mostly lost the battle isn't because we didn't try or because we didn't ask the right questions.

But you will find out because the mantle is passing to you. We wanted you to know right from wrong, Godly from ungodly and what we get is a slap in the face and are told that the unborn don't matter, same sex marriage doesn't matter and that there are "bigger issues" as a justification for Christians voting for an avowed supporter of abortion. What is bigger than the issue of the family from which all of society springs? We've spoken the truth and granted not all of us have spoken the truth in love, and that is a gross misuse of the Gospel. But our values shouldn't be faulted because some of the messengers were flawed. Remember a lot of our message has been heavily filtered through the liberal media. I hope you'll be able to reach your generation and the generation that you will raise and maybe you will. But you won't do it through appeasement or by agreeing with sin or saying that it doesn't matter.

Posted by: Sue | November 6, 2008 1:47 AM