Yes, labels are a scourge.
Igor

Posted by: Deryll | August 1, 2008 12:41 PM

Rev. Tune,

Thank you for your thoughtful commentary. The stale, one-dimensional categories you write of are a carryover from the 'left/right" seating arrangement of the 1789 French National Assembly. I'd say late-eighteenth century French categories are too simplistic for christian worldviews seeking to follow Jesus.

If we put Jesus first--not Paul of Tarsus, not Levitical Laws, not James Dobson nor Pat Robertson--then we are led to entirely different conclusions.

Jesus never contorted all of humanity into this ridiculous binary opposition, so why should we?

Posted by: | August 1, 2008 1:37 PM

Thank for the corrections. Your right, i mixed the less from the week before which was "Blesses are the poor in Spirit: for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven." Last week was "blessed are they that mourn for they shall be comforted." You other statement goes right along with the point i was hoping to make, which is that these labels can do more harm than good, being liberal doesn't make someone a bad person and being conservative doesn't make someone a bad person. In the end what matters most is that as Christians we strive to live our lives in such a way that others will see the joy of the Lord in us and ask what must I do to be saved. How we live out our lives, should say to those who look at us, oh taste and see that the Lord is good, blessed is the man or woman that takes refuge in Him.

Posted by: Rev. Tune | August 1, 2008 3:35 PM

Rev Tune,

Great thoughts. It's nice to get everybody out of their boxes and stripped of their labels. Much healthier to look at people as children of God and follow Jesus' example when dealing with others. Nice guy, good thoughts too!

Peace, label-less peace everybody!

Posted by: J.S. Brooks | August 1, 2008 6:25 PM

I must admit,from a European perspective(I live in Scotland)I am getting a little tired of reading that the political spectrum spans only conservatives and liberals.
Perhaps this is because, in America, the whole tenor of political debate has been shifted so far to the right over the last thirty years that you have simply forgotten your own,and much of the rest of the worlds,social democratic tradition.Or,that people who might have had no problem describing themselves as left wing a couple of decades ago are now so brow beaten by the right that they embark on this, rather painful, attempt to declaim some 'third way'or to characterize the epithets 'left' and 'right' as being old fashioned,outmoded, etc.
You Americans are probably about to learn that Obama is, first and foremost,a servant of the capitalist class - just like Bush.He will have no problem wearing clothing that is very much 'right wing'. It is not the words that matter but what they point to.Unless Christian political commitment leads to a proper critique of existing capitalism then it is simply going to descend into a a load of naive blather.

Posted by: Alex Porter | August 2, 2008 8:22 AM

Alex Porter,

I appreciate your perspective--thank you for sharing. As much as I admire the christian Barack Obama, you are correct--Obama, like all political candidates of our time, is a servant of late global capitalism. A candidate wishing to reform unregulated capitalism and its consequent horrors in the Third World would be quickly and viscously "Swift-Boated" as a traitor and communist. Global Capitalism is the most popular God of the U.S.

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." {Matt 6:19-24}

Posted by: Quetzal | August 3, 2008 1:02 PM

I have looked at life through the eyes of a Christian for most of my life and secondly as a conservative for a good portion of that time. However, the past few years God has thrown a few people into my life that have challenged me to go beyond my usual views. Thank you for putting into words some of what I am experiencing. At this point, I am looking for another political label that doesn't include Democrat or Republican. I will most likely not decide who to vote for in November until I walk into the voting booth. But I will still vote as I believe it is what God would have me do. However, I pray for some "middle of the road" leaders on both sides of the aisle to emerge over the next decade or so that aren't so bitter-hard right or way out-there left.

Posted by: Amy Kendall | August 3, 2008 8:16 PM

[Unfortuantely, those who would be president must, to be elected, pose as nationalistic champions, dedicated to the promotion of our interests often over against others.]

Right, George,Jr.

Our society has a hard time seeing that one does not really get taller by chopping down another.

Igor

Posted by: Deryll | August 4, 2008 10:07 AM

George Jr,
You wrote that "No candidate or program will bring in the Kingdom..."

That is not true. As I said back last October, "I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

If you vote for me we can acheive this goal. Remember, I am the change we've been waiting for.

Posted by: The One | August 4, 2008 10:26 AM

Well said, Rev. Tune. When Christians begin viewing one another as either liberal or conservative, because politics is a hot issue, disunity and schisms in relationships can become strained, though not all the time. A Christian can be liberal. A Christian can be conservative. I have friends of every political persuasion. However, the very blog you are blogging on is extremely guilty of perpetuating the separation and division among “Christian” liberal lefts from the “Christian” conservative rights, or as they (Wallis and Co.) call them: the religious right. More venom against many solid evangelical – Bible Believing- conservative Christian leaders – both pastoral leaders and public officials – has been spewn over the pages of this blog of Jim Wallis and Sojourners over the years. (I could attach a list of quotes if your readers would like). In his books, in the Sojourners magazines, in his speeches and actions, Wallis’ distaste for “the religious right” rings loud and clear. He rarely bashes any liberal or left winger.

Well, Jesus, in red letters, said that you will know them by their fruit (Matt. 7:15-20 – Sermon on the Mount).

Ever since Sojos came to our home church, Vineyard Columbus, for the first time ever in 20 years, we have witnessed tremendous division. Our senior pastor even made it clear to Mr. Wallis that he was not to do any Bush-bashing, and, established other parameters (although none of us knew what they were or why). Anyway, there’s been a seething, under the surface rumble ever since. Conservatives and “the religious right” have been marginalized and have been silenced from having a clear voice on the conference itself. Those opposing it risk being labeled “divisive”, being only 2-party issue people, and being against the poor. Those bent toward liberal-socialism-statists politics (those who liked the “revival”) act like you are weird or non-informed if you voice criticism about Sojo’s or Mr. Wallis’ views and statements. A leader in our church was even derogatively spoken to by a choir member when he voiced opposition to the socialist leanings of Wallis/Sojourners. He was ironically called: a radical redneck conservative. Funny – he is all 100% black American. Our church never before has experienced such talk among its members. For over 2 decades, we have all served side by side – conservative and liberals – without ever caring about political leanings or being even concerned with being politically correct. We’ve created all kinds of outreaches into the inner city: from free pantry and free medical clinic to real homeless ministry in which many have been brought off the streets, to Jesus, off addictions, and working. All kinds of outreaches and ministries were developed among the creative artists, homosexuals, intellectuals at OSU, addicts, college students, and more. And – all done mostly by a predominate conservative congregation (not “flaming liberals”). Many conservatives built the multi-million community center attached to the church and started most of the incredible ministries that one would now call: acts of social justice (the latest buzz word these days). Our church has been way ahead of many others. So, when the “Justice Revival” produced much cornering and labeling in negative ways the conservatives and the wealthy, the conservatives were unjustly marginalized. Unfortunately, many longtimers in this wonderful congregation have left over it. And, I can’t blame them. From this perspective, regardless of what the pastoral leaders and those defending it say, the aftermath fruit just isn’t there.

So – while there it is necessary to sort out the varying degrees of differences in solving the world’s problems – from communism-marxism-socialism to laissez-faire capitalism and minimum government intrusion on individual liberties, and, while labels for these political perspectives are important and necessary for communication and analysis, and serve a valid purpose, pastors and Christians should best leave labeling, slamming, and marginalization of “liberals” and “conservatives” at home, so that they may worship Jesus wholeheartedly and do the Words and Works of Jesus together.

Posted by: Marian from VCC | August 4, 2008 9:11 PM

Rick -

Sorry, guy, but you missed the point. Rev. Tune talked against such labeling. What happened here, only confirms what happens when such labeling occurs amongst Christians in a church setting and he pointed out rightfully so, that as Believers of Jesus Christ, joint-heirs, we are to walk in unity within our churches - and that liberals and conservatives can worship and should worship together - because In Christ - we are all part of His Body.

The "over two decades" refers to the 20 plus years of our church's existence within the context of our dearly beloved church's life, not the past decades in all of American history, thus your comments are irrelevant to the point.

The "marginalization" refers to our own local church, too. In fact, the whole story is about our own particular congregation. And, until the Sojo/Wallis conference (they called it: "Justice Revival") - it never seemed to matter what political camp any of us ever were in! We served, worshipped, and extended tremendous ministry to the poor(and still do) without this ever being an issue.

Rev. Tune was right - political labelings within church contexts does not exemplify the heart of Jesus.

I trust this helps you.

Posted by: Marian at VCC | August 5, 2008 5:27 PM

Rev. Tune talked against such labeling. What happened here, only confirms what happens when such labeling occurs amongst Christians in a church setting and he pointed out rightfully so, that as Believers of Jesus Christ, joint-heirs, we are to walk in unity within our churches - and that liberals and conservatives can worship and should worship together - because In Christ - we are all part of His Body.

In the evangelical circles in which I ran in the 1980s, that certainly wasn't the case -- labeling was part and parcel of the discourse and a lot of time and energy was spent determining who was "in" and who was "out." In fact, because I didn't fall neatly into any category I found myself on the outs most of the time. (But a lot of folks weren't even aware of the labelling they actually did because a certain posture was "assumed.")

The "over two decades" refers to the 20 plus years of our church's existence within the context of our dearly beloved church's life, not the past decades in all of American history, thus your comments are irrelevant to the point.

With all due respect, based on what I know about human nature (but admittedly not knowing the details of your own situation), I hope you'll excuse me for finding that a bit suspicious. People often don't realize how much hatred and resentment they actually harbor until a crisis exposes it -- it happened in a couple of churches I became involved with (one of which I attend today) where the ugliness of racism, to give one example, surfaced.

Posted by: Rick | August 5, 2008 6:22 PM

Well, I can attest to the truth of Marian's blog; Vineyard Columbus grew from 100 members to 7000 in 15 years, because our pastors preached the power of the Holy Spirit through the saving grace of Jesus Christ to any and all who would serve Him. That was it, period. I have served in that church with people of all polical persuasions, and have discussed politics in a civilized way with many; before this "Justice Revival," the members of my church that I knew (difficult to know all 7000) held different political views, but we all agreed on the basic tenets of Christianity, that we are all called to help the poor, to defend the defenseless (including unborn children), that all humanity is sexually broken and needs the spiritual restoration to the true sexuality that God intended: one man, one woman...these tenets of the church have never been disputed by true followers of Christ, regardless of their individual giftings and emphases. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, those who walk most closely to the center of God's will are the ones who have the least argument with others who have a different calling than they; it is the people on the fringes of Christianity who foment dissension in the Church and thrive on all their petty prejudices.

It is true that Vineyard Columbus *was* a place of sanctuary for 20 years, where we could all work in a mulitude of community service programs, joyfully and cheerfully. But bringing Sojourners to VCC introduced division and bitterness into our congregation that was definitely not there before. Longstanding friendships have been destroyed, faith in a gifted pastoral staff has been broken, many have left the church. It is true that they shall know you by your fruit: Jim Wallis is a political figure who sows contempt for his political enemies and division within churches. He, and all those who bring to the Church a "party" spirit (factions), will have to answer for their deeds in the end.

Posted by: mary | August 5, 2008 11:40 PM

Marian, you wrote: "I am so sorry you have felt marginalized in any churches you have attended in the past."

You may never see this reply because this article is about to scroll off the page.

When I have ever felt marginalized in the congregation I have attended for 36 years, it has not been because of politics. Our congregation remains firmly grounded in our denominational emphases on personal discipleship and serving others in the name of Christ. I think most of us are basically apolitical. (Full disclosure: I have always thought God had to be a Democrat, but only a few people at my church know that because it does not matter.)

Where I do feel marginalized is the public assumption that the religious right speaks for all Christians. They don't speak for me. That is why I see Jim Wallis as a breath of fresh air.

Jane

Posted by: | August 6, 2008 8:13 AM

Regarding one of the comments posted earlier today, which discussed how Jesus, not Paul, is our ultimate model and guide in how we live together and how we treat "the other" (i.e. our neighbors who share this mortal coil with us, inside and out of the church communities), I thought you might appreciate the comments below (excerpted from an article by Dr. Fred Bush, now retired professor of Ancient Semitic Languages at Fuller Seminary, in a 29 page article he wrote about "Christian Zionism" and the dispensational theology that underlies this view of the world. In the exerpt quoted below, Dr. Bush notes that for the dispensationalist, Jesus and the Gospels are not for the church, but rather only for Jews; Paul and the Epistles are the normative guide for the "the church age". Of course the implication of this is that those of us who believe that the Sermon on the Mount and the overall life and teachings of Jesus should be our model and message are (according to dispensationalists) sadly misguided. So, read on to grasp what underlies much of the "conservative evangelical" worldwiew:

In the most common dispensationalist scheme, the one set forth in the Scofield Reference Bible, the biblical record is divided into seven separate and unique dispensations. Here is the scheme as set forth in the two editions of the Scofield Bible:
Scofield Reference Bible (1917) The New Scofield Study Bible (1984)
1. Innocence (Gen. 1:28) 1. Innocence (Gen. 1.28)
2. Conscience (Gen. 3.23) 2. Conscience or Moral Responsibility (Gen. 3.7)
3. Human Government (Gen. 8.20) 3. Human Government (Gen.8.15)
4. Promise (Gen. 12.1) 4. Promise (Gen. 12.1)
5. Law (Ex. 19.8) 5. Law (Ex. 19.1)
6. Grace (John 1.17) 6. Church (Acts 2.1)
7. Kingdom or Fullness of Times (Eph. 1.10) 7. Kingdom (Rev. 20.4)

We need only look at the last four of these, dispensations four through seven, in order to understand the dispensationalist system.
The first is the dispensation of Promise, and it basically covers the period of the Patriarchal narratives of the book of Genesis, and concludes with Israel’s arrival at Mt. Sinai, where Moses receives the Law from God. The second is the dispensation of the Law or Israel, which runs from Moses’ giving of the Law to Israel in Exodus 19 through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels up to the founding of the Church in the 1st century A.D. recorded in chapter 2 of the NT Book of Acts. The third is the dispensation of the Church, which runs from its founding in the 1st century A.D. until it ends with the Second Coming of Jesus. These three dispensations are in turn followed by the last dispensation: the dispensation of the Kingdom or the 1,000-year rule of Jesus Christ after his Second Coming.
The implications of this division are radical for the Christian understanding of the Gospels. Note the extent of the dispensation of the Law: it continues to the end of the Gospels. Therefore the Gospels belong to the dispensation of Law, and the life, teaching and ministry of Jesus stands within the dispensation of Law. This leads to the amazing assertion in the introduction to the Gospels in the Scofield Bible that:
The mission of Jesus was, primarily, to the Jews... The Sermon on the Mount is law, not grace... The doctrines of Grace are to be sought in the Epistles not in the Gospels. (Scofield Bible, p. 989)
Thus, the Gospels were essentially for the Jews and therefore not relevant for the Church. In the note attached to Ephesians 3:6, the Scofield Bible boldly states, “In his (i.e. Paul's) writings alone we find the doctrine, position, walk, and destiny of the Church” (p. 1252).
The implications of these views for the beliefs that dispensationalists draw from the Gospels are drastic and tragic. For example, in a recent edition of the evangelical journal Sojourners, David Batstone, the magazine’s executive editor, quoted sections of a letter he had received from a Christian Zionist from Texas. The letter criticized what the writer called “liberal Christians” as follows:
Liberal Christians have no understanding of the God-given role of Government. Liberal Christians are Peter-Pan Christians who demand that Governments, before the return of Jesus, foolhardily beat their God-given swords into plowshares and live according to the Sermon on the Mount. Liberal Christians do NOT realize that the plow-share things happens during the 2nd Coming of Jesus, when Jesus takes back the swords from Human Governments as He establishes God's Kingdom on Earth. . . . In the New Testament Jesus is just a private citizen, NOT a member of Government (Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, etc., were Government Officials). Moreover, Jesus directed His Sermon on the Mount exclusively to private citizens like Himself, and NOT to the Roman Government or the Sanhedrin. Note that Jesus did NOT criticize the Roman Government for not having any Social Welfare Programs. This is because the Romans were doing what was called for in the Old Testament: the Roman Government was using the Sword to maintain Law and Order!
The Sojourner Magazine editor concludes his reaction to these views as follows:
If this viewpoint merely represented a crackpot hiding out on a survivalist ranch in rural Texas, I wouldn't bother to publish it. But it unfortunately has significant credibility among a swath of American evangelicals. . . . [M]any American Christians reject the notion of a separation of church and state as a "humanistic secular plot" to obstruct God's proper ordering of U.S. society. They want to see the establishment of a theocracy that puts into place many of the Mosaic laws as established in the Old Testament. At the moment, they are mobilizing a strong cadre of religious leaders and members of the U.S. Congress to rewrite the legal system.
[end of exerpt from article "WHEN FAITH BECOMES A BARRIER TO PEACE: CHRISTIAN ZIONISM" by Dr. Fred Bush] NOTE for the entire article, email JohnTBerg@middleeastfellowship.org

Posted by: John Berg | August 7, 2008 4:33 PM