Mal-Engagement, Disengagement, and Wise Engagement (by Brian McLaren)
I understand the sentiments shared by many voters in the recent Pew poll on faith and politics. The Chicago Tribune reports:
Social conservatives are growing more wary of church involvement in politics, joining moderates and liberals in their unease about blurring the lines between pulpit and ballot box, a new study found.
Churchgoers across the country are looking at the ways in which religious leaders and communities have been used by political parties – and have used them as well -- and they think, “Let’s just pull back and not talk about faith and politics in the same breath any more.” As the survey's overview states:
Some Americans are having a change of heart about mixing religion and politics. A new survey finds a narrow majority of the public saying that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters and not express their views on day-to-day social and political matters.
One key term in both of these statements is “church,” along with the related terms “pulpit” and “houses of worship.” The other key term is “politics," with related terms “ballot box” and “social and political matters.”
If people are saying they’re tired of pulpits and churches becoming the field for proxy battles between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, I couldn’t agree more. And if they’re saying that pastors and other religious leaders should try to throw their weight around in the political arena, bypassing normal debate and discourse by making theological pronouncements, again, I couldn’t agree more.
But if they’re saying, “Let’s go back to the good old days where in church we talked about ‘us and Jesus’ and nothing more,” I couldn’t disagree more. To talk about “us and Jesus” alone is unfaithful to Jesus, who linked love for God with love for neighbor. To exclude from our circle of concern the well-being of neighbor and enemy means that we aren’t following Jesus’ way, but some other way under “Christian camouflage.”
I grew up in those “good old days,” and I can tell you they weren’t so good. It wasn’t good when racism and concern for the planet were excluded from consideration because they were “social and political matters.” It wasn’t good when poverty couldn’t be addressed directly or in a sustained way – in spite of the fact that the Bible says so much about it – because it was “political” and “social.” It wasn’t good when we couldn’t talk about peacemaking in a violent world because to do so was “too political.”
It’s true: when you let your faith be trimmed, stretched, and shrunk to fit as a nice rug on a party platform, you’re being a faithful partisan but not a faithful Christian (or Jew, Muslim, or whatever). And it’s also true: when you limit “church” and “pulpit” and “house of worship” to private personal piety, to “us and Jesus,” you have a safe, domesticated, irrelevant, and unfaithful religion -- not the way of life Jesus launched.
The misadventures of the Religious Right are many, and their consequences are far-reaching. It would be doubly sad if in the aftermath of the Religious Right, we add another negative consequence: to react to an unwise mal-engagement of faith with social and public life by choosing unfaithful disengagement, instead of wise and proper engagement.
Brian McLaren is an author and speaker and serves as Sojourners' board chair.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Of course, to McLaren "mal-engagement" in politics means voting for the Republican party. Let's fully honour God by voting for His servant Barack!!!
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | August 25, 2008 10:30 AM
Ben--instead of throwing stones and putting words into McLaren's mouth, why don't you respond to some of the points he is making? That might actually lead to some productive discourse on this site.
Why not comment on the concerns McLaren brought up and our engagement with these issues in our churches? Issues such as social justice, racism, the environment, or poverty are not concerns of the Democratic Party only. How can we address these concerns within the church without making them political?
Posted by: squeaky | August 25, 2008 10:42 AM
Congratulations, Ben. You got here first. To the rest, let's not encourage this behavior by giving it the complement of rational response. We've seen before where that goes.
To the topic: Brian, thanks for the post. This is something that I have been hoping would be brought up on the GP blog. I believe the book "Blinded by Might," by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson (no relation to James) published several years ago was the first major statement advocating such withdrawal. It was widely criticized by many on the Religious Right such as James Dobson, who believe that conservative activism by evangelicals needs to continue. For me, as part of the Christian Left, I saw it as trying to have the cake and eat it too. After two decades in which the far-Christian-Right has changed the direction of politics and become a central player in the Republican Party, citing the excesses and then saying "let's not be political anymore" means accepting the new status quo.
My cynical side wonders if the conservatives who advocate withdrawal are doing so because they see the writing on the wall: fewer young evangelicals are buying into their agenda lock, stock and barrel, and the discrediting of made some longtime religious conservatives question the positions and in some cases even the motives of the Religious Right. It then would make sense to advocate a period of quietism, as was practiced by most theological fundamentalists before the late 1970's, to diffuse what could be a growing influx of evangelicals to the Christian Left.
I see all of this as encouraging, actually. This wouldn't even be a topic if there weren't so many conservative Christians doing some reflection on and reconsideration of long-held political views.
Posted by: I and I | August 25, 2008 11:03 AM
If I might add; I find it extremely heartening that many young evangelicals are embracing a third way of sorts, coupling opposition to abortion with a heartfelt commitment to world peace, poverty, environmental, and other justice issues. Being pro-life no longer automatically means embracing the rest of the "conservative agenda." And I think that is what scares the power brokers on the right, both religious and secular. That is surely enough to make some leaders advocate quietism--though I don't think it is going to work. You can't put a genie back into the bottle!
Posted by: I and I | August 25, 2008 11:10 AM
We are all God's servants, we are all called to serve one another in the name of the One God.
Obama is not the "One", we are the many of ones. Christians are called of God to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, clothe the naked, care for the widows and orphans and to love our enemies.
We are Not called to a Political Party or to "take sides". we are called to see that the Love of Christ is extended to everybody and to ensure that each is served justice, not judgment.
Use the pulpits and platforms to bring the Love and Mercy of Christ to the people, not to force judgement upon them. Use the pulpits to bring about social reform to the community, small and large, and join hand in hand with those of like mind to cause change.
Right now we need to bring all of the principles of Christ like living into play and not just a few. We do that best by appealing to the leaders of the land to do what is right in the eye of God.
The right of life is just one issue of many that needs to be addressed by all poloticians of both parties. Both have failed the social and moral needs of America and the world.
Posted by: Paul,seeking wisdom | August 25, 2008 11:18 AM
I believe the book "Blinded by Might," by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson (no relation to James) published several years ago was the first major statement advocating such withdrawal.
I have the book, and it actually supports no such thing. Rather, the authors were making two related points: 1) Political action can take you only so far; and 2) Plenty of good can be done without necessarily changing laws. In fact, Jim Wallis interviewed both men for this blog when the book came out.
Their basic point is that political power, even in the pursuit of "justice," can be and has been used for its own sake, which is not the way of either the Kingdom of God or the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That was one reason they argued that the "religious right" could not but fail.
Posted by: Rick | August 25, 2008 11:26 AM
with all due respect (and i do indeed respect mr. mclaren), i don't think brian mclaren tackled the heart of this issue. we are not talking about a complete disengagement from our neighbors and enemies and going back to the "good old days." christians are now talking about dealing with issues like poverty, abortion, global warming, and so on, from a Kingdom of God perspective, not from a kingdom of this world perspective, as we so often do.
we fall into the political game, thinking that one party or the other will be able to solve the social ills. since the religious right most certainly go it wrong, we must now turn to the religious left. this is not the answer and it never will be.
i'm not saying that we shouldn't vote or engage in the discussion. just the opposite. we must engage! i just think that placing our hope in government to solve these incredibly difficult issues of our time is not the proper route to take. followers of Christ should mobilize with Kingdom of God methods, rather than just following the same old political games.
Posted by: dave | August 25, 2008 11:42 AM
Brian McLaren makes some good points, but he (perhaps inadvertantly) repeats a common mistake: linking "social" with "political" throughout this piece. Retreat from political activism does not necessarily mean retreat from society as a whole. There are non-political approaches to nearly all of the issues McLaren raises. We might be closer to finding a solution to the problems created by the religious right if we recognized this distinction.
LV
Posted by: Lord Voldemort | August 25, 2008 11:43 AM
we fall into the political game, thinking that one party or the other will be able to solve the social ills. since the religious right most certainly go it wrong, we must now turn to the religious left. this is not the answer and it never will be.
McLaren didn't say that. Rather, while he alluded to this only indirectly, the key is not in "withdrawal" but in not depending on partisan politics to advance the cause of Christ.
Posted by: Rick | August 25, 2008 11:53 AM
rick, i'm not sure i agree. i don't think mclaren was saying that we shouldn't depend on partisan politics. just the opposite really. i think he was saying that we must engage politically to get these issues resolved. i don't think the cause of Christ is advanced in this way.
Posted by: dave | August 25, 2008 11:55 AM
sorry to flood the comment section. i think we agree. semantics are awful barriers on these comment boards. i agree with both you and paul that the limitation of political action is very real and that mercy and love must be the Church's primary cause.
Posted by: dave | August 25, 2008 12:01 PM
rick, i'm not sure i agree. i don't think mclaren was saying that we shouldn't depend on partisan politics.
No, that was exactly his point. If I may quote above: "[W]hen you let your faith be trimmed, stretched and shrunk to fit as a nice rug on a party platform, you’re being a faithful partisan but not a faithful Christian (or Jew, Muslim, or whatever)."
Posted by: Rick | August 25, 2008 12:15 PM
thank you for this article, brian. concerning the blurred line between religion & politics: along with the problems inherent in legislating something purely because it is a "religious" idea, we have unfortunately seen hard-right economic and political ideas bleed over into the religious mindset, turning the good book on its head to support war, imperialism and general selfishness in God's (& freedom's) name. This has been the way of it throughout our history since the domestication of christianity by Constantine (and is continued to this day), and it is the surest way to keep the gospel quiet. in line w/ that, i really appreciated the 1890 frederic huntington quote GP posted as the voice of the day awhile back: "It is not scientific doubt, not atheism, not pantheism, not agnosticism, that in our day and in this land is likely to quench the light of the gospel. It is a proud, sensuous, selfish, luxurious, church-going, hollow-hearted prosperity."
Posted by: nad2 | August 25, 2008 12:18 PM
Rick, your comments are well taken. I'll have to take a look at the book again before I can comment further, but it seems I was not the only one who interpreted it as a call for conservatives to lay down arms for a while (as opposed to merely saying the Religious Right was ineffective).
Or perhaps, as another person commented, this comes down to semantics--whether a call to stop focusing on changing laws (as you mentioned)amounts to a withdrawal from the political arena.
What is very clear was that, in terms of political positions, neither of the authors has come over to the side of Wallis and McLaren and most other figures on the Christian Left. So I guess it is a question of to what degree they advocated a softening of tactics, and whether or not that level constitutes a "withdrawal" of sorts from politics.
Posted by: I and I | August 25, 2008 12:35 PM
Brian,
Now that we have seen what the enviromental movement wants our energy policy to be(very high prices to encourage us not to use). How will this help the poor? They will be and are the hardest hit.
Energy is the issue and they are wrong.
I invite everyone to read George Wills column today at http://townhall.com/Columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/08/24/for_obama,_believing_is_seeing
Roger
Posted by: Roger | August 25, 2008 12:41 PM
Now that we have seen what the enviromental movement wants our energy policy to be (very high prices to encourage us not to use). How will this help the poor? They will be and are the hardest hit.
Irrelevant. The energy companies will still "get theirs" -- stockholders will see to that.
Posted by: Rick | August 25, 2008 12:57 PM
rick. surely you are not saying that the poor are irrelevent. there are going to be more than 400,000,000 americans by 2050. cheap energy has built this country. it does not have to end, we have 400 year supply of coal. i live in tennessee wind and solar will not get it done here. roger
Posted by: roger | August 25, 2008 1:17 PM
rick. surely you are not saying that the poor are irrelevent.
I'm not -- the energy companies are.
Back to the topic.
Posted by: Rick | August 25, 2008 1:23 PM
Roger: "How will this help the poor?"
Funny, this reminds me of the quip that the Bush Administration only takes an interest in womens' rights when it wants to invade their countries. Funny, small-government conservatives aren't so interested in the poor when we talk of investments in public transportation or better city planning, which could really cut down on their travel costs.
Posted by: I and I | August 25, 2008 1:27 PM
rick, is there another way to get the enery than through the energy companies? they are averaging an 8 percent net profit. is that really too much for the shareholders to have? roger
Posted by: roger | August 25, 2008 1:32 PM
i & i, yes markets really do help the poor just ask the chinise as they have has one million people a month leave real proverty for the last several years. roger
Posted by: roger | August 25, 2008 1:39 PM
Will someone please tell me wby the right is being singled out for sin in this article? It seems to me that we are all guilty of it, unless someone can set me straight on that. I think much of the problems with being engaged is that we have no divine compass. The heart or the gut can be misleading. Remember McCain said Bambi was the movie that made him cry. If we allow this mentality to control our larger policies, such as eliminating all predators - much worse things happen. Consider the starvation of large deer populations because of overgrazing without the predators. Is not the policy of the heart abhoring predation wrong in this recurrent evil? The wedding party Jesus created wine for... Could he be correct doing this in a modern culture with modern chemically greased hormones and hemispherical headed hot rods bantering about? I think if Jesus came in amid our culture, the miracles and the message would be trimmed to the times. The leftand the right are full of the sin of lacking a compass from God that is real to our current situations and current problems. Just remember America is supposed to be a melting pot. The hispanic riots started in LA because instructions to disperse were given in English. If you would like to see a tommorrow anything like today, take a wider perspective and don't be seduced by Bambi's brown eyes. I used to be, until I was staring down brown eyes in a pickup attempting to flatten me in a crosswalk. I was struck, but only shaken, not smashed because of some infirmities causing slowness to get in the way when the little green man showed up on the cross walk. The time warp that seemed to happen then gave me a very vivid memory like when they say a picture is worth a thousand words. The eyes spoke prolific evil. The social gospel should be undertaken on small personal levels, not that on national scales. Jesus took the Kingdom of God out of the temple and put it within man. It should stay there, not be taken out and put into political platforms. We rarely understand the full implications of things on large scales. Smokey preventing forest fires seemed like such a good idea until it was understood to be a natural thing. Good for Sequioa's and unnatural to gather combustables for too many decades... THEN everything burns like the scourages erasing peoples homes and lives, and the flattening of Yellowstone.
Posted by: Serfer | August 25, 2008 1:41 PM
rick, is there another way to get the enery than through the energy companies? they are averaging an 8 percent net profit. is that really too much for the shareholders to have?
You miss the point. With stockholders, the only thing that matters is keeping the stock price high and if it means having to raise prices or cut benefits for their workers they'll do so. The optimum course for the poor is for such companies to cut the costs they charge utilties, which isn't going to happen. Will isn't about to tell you that, preferring to pass the buck and scapegoat environmental groups.
Posted by: Rick | August 25, 2008 1:44 PM
Will someone please tell me wby the right is being singled out for sin in this article?
Because its religious component questioned the faith of everyone who didn't play by its rules -- even fellow Christians -- and in some cases still does. Furthermore, no one else had the money, the media, the fundraising capability and, worse, secular interests behind it from jumpstreet.
Posted by: Rick | August 25, 2008 1:50 PM
rick, isn't this the eniromentalist plan to make energy expensive? why shouldn't the boards at these companies take care of their stockholders first? roger
Posted by: roger | August 25, 2008 1:58 PM
I believe that pastors and denominational leaders as well as lay-leaders should and can be as involved in politics as they desire to be. They can speak out and support any canidate they want to and even have them come to their place of worship for an informational meeting of some format. I do not believe that they should speak out from the front of the church during a worship service in support of a canidate or party. I DO NOT believe that a canidate should be allowed to speak to a congregation at anytime when the congreation is assembled in worship - that to me is OFF LIMITS. (boy - is that one abused all the time)
Political support can happen anytime except when the family/congration is 'worshipping'.
All the Time - God is Good
.
Posted by: big guy | August 25, 2008 2:10 PM
How will this help the poor? They will be and are the hardest hit.
In the long run, it could help the poor tremendously, as well as the rest of us, if we don't get shortsighted. The poor are not helped at all by our current transportation system, which relies so heavily on private automobiles at the expense of public transportation. Cars are very expensive to own and maintain--and that goes for older, depreciated cars as well as newer ones. The poor who have to own a car to get to work or the grocery store are hurt far more than the more affluent. Efficient public transportation, which might finally become a reality if energy prices stay high, will give the poor the mobility they need without the requirement that they own and maintain a car at their own expense.
Here in Columbus, the public transit company just announced a new bus route to and from a warehouse and distribution center that's located several miles from downtown. This route will serve primarily lower-income people who will have the opportunity to work at this center, an opportunity they don't have now unless they have a car. We can thank higher fuel prices for this new service. If fuel prices remain high, we can expect to see more of these kinds of transportation services.
peace,
Posted by: Don | August 25, 2008 2:20 PM
don, thanks i get it now central planning. roger
Posted by: roger | August 25, 2008 2:47 PM
why shouldn't the boards at these companies take care of their stockholders first?
You're catching on. This isn't at all about the poor; it's about keeping the profits rolling in and to hell with the environment.
Posted by: Rick | August 25, 2008 2:51 PM
"Being pro-life no longer automatically means embracing the rest of the "conservative agenda." And I think that is what scares the power brokers on the right, both religious and secular."
I an I I totally agree with you . My own personal experies would reflect some of what you and Mr. Mcclaren is saying . Stepping back from embracing the republican party I see and hear what others are saying better . We tend to stick up for our side , and our side being embraced to one political party is not a good thing if you have a inner core that is dedicated to our Faith .
I still see things in a free economic system as being better for all of us in the long run , and politicians that advocate spending tax dollars on abortion is an issue that matters to me .
But I no longer see the bad guy as a democrat , the liberal . I do sometimes see the liberal Christian in a state of denial with concern of what is happening in our culture . But I do not see them as advocating for that as I once did . And if the liberals here were as tolerant say of some old traditional minded Pastors instead of the attack mode and mis representation that conservative beliefs suh that their advocacy is ALWAYS rooted in a power trip it would be helpfull . Its not true . One time I was in the thick of things , and was in many circles of the right , the Christian Right also . You have those types , personality P type . But that is in all circles of people .
But the old guard is changing , the politics and issues of today is different then what it was even 20 years ago when I first started particpating .
I also see the liberal Christian movement just being repackaged in certain ways . The attacks of Bibical and spirtual superiority from either side often leaves the most dedicated to the cause of Christ with a very bad taste in their mouth from my perspective . It is quite noticable here , and often read some outrageous and negative stereotyping, that sounds just as outrageous to the average person as some of the often quoted Falwell quotes . But the liberal movement has not been mainstreamed as the right has . The nuts are not reported on yet . ;0)
But I can say honestly I do not feel I fit in with either political party , not sure if the republicans left me , I them, or a combination .
.
Posted by: Michael | August 25, 2008 3:03 PM
I do sometimes see the liberal Christian in a state of denial with concern of what is happening in our culture. But I do not see them as advocating for that as I once did.
Four years ago I went to a Christian student conference, and the keynote speaker basically bragged that she and others, by creating considerable public outcry, had stopped the founding of a gay-themed cable-TV network. Last year, however, I found such a network on my cable system.
Which got me to thinking: Perhaps the "culture warriors" were hoodwinked from the start. I detect a strategy -- the "sinners" get the plans out, let the moral busybodies have their inevitable b-----and-moan, the-world-is-going-to-hell session and then proceed as though nothing had happened. Heck, I remember when "Jesus Christ Superstar" was denounced as blasphemous!
Posted by: Rick | August 25, 2008 3:19 PM
don, thanks i get it now central planning. roger
That's ridiculous.
Posted by: Don | August 25, 2008 3:22 PM
Rick:
When exactly did the energy companies say that the poor were irrelevant? Do you have a news release or some other document you can point me too?
LV
Posted by: Lord Voldemort | August 25, 2008 3:37 PM
big guy--a lot of the examples you mention in your 2:10 post are very problematic--if a church openly endorses a candidate or political party, they run the risk of losing their tax exempt status, and is why they should avoid doing so. Some cross the line, and some are under scrutiny for doing so.
Posted by: squeaky | August 25, 2008 3:39 PM
When exactly did the energy companies say that the poor were irrelevant?
They don't have to. If they were truly concerned about the poor they would lower their prices and encourage utilities to do the same (and make a big deal about that, for sure).
Posted by: Rick | August 25, 2008 3:45 PM
Brian--I agree with you wholeheartedly. Thoughtful engagement about how biblical certain political visions are is essential to living as Christians. I hope the dialogue can genuinely happen.
Posted by: Mike J | August 25, 2008 3:46 PM
Anyone who professes to truly follow the Christian beliefs and looks closely at the "rug" that they are standing on, will clearly see that their rug does not fit on the platform of any political party (too big in some parts too small in other parts). Anyone who puts their rug only in one political party, or excludes it from any political party, is not true to their faith.
We all have to pick one candidate over another, but in doing so we should be openly and vocally exposing where the rug does not fit, and likewise praising the other candidates where they do fit.
The goal is not to trim our rug to fit any political platform, but to influence all parties to create a platform that encompasses most (if not all) of our rug. Dogmatic defense (or opposition) of any one party does not adjust the platforms in a positive way, it in fact does the opposite. A dogmatically supported party will shrink to only allow the few items on the litmus test and avoid other key items, and the opposed party will do nothing when you appear to be unwinable. Constructive engagement with all parties is the only way to ensure that some candidate will best fit your rug!
Posted by: Doc | August 25, 2008 3:48 PM
Posted by: squeaky | August 25, 2008 3:39 PM
I believe that they can - just not from the front of the church during worship. If they want to have a gathering that is a open forum type of meeting to discuss the issues and give with opinion and support. This needs to be done as an individual or group - not to speak for the entire congregation. My church could - open it's doors to a canidate for a discussion on the issues. My pastor could go on record as backing this canidate for any number of reasons. Others could lend their support if they wish to do so publically. They just can not do this sunday morning during worship or at any other regular church function. They could use the building for the meeting. They can as private citizens give support. They just can not speak for the whole congregation.
That is my take.
All the Time - God is Good
.
Posted by: big guy | August 25, 2008 4:01 PM
When I think of the intersection of politics and religion I am reminded of such persons as Henry IV of France who, among many other things, has been attributed with saying, "There should be a chicken in every peasant's pot every Sunday." Henry also famously converted back and forth between Catholicism and Calvinism depending on his desire to stay alive or stay in power. Not having to be burdened with the election process, did not mean he did not have to worry about his popularity. How our faith life guides us to see our neighbour is important in every time, in every place - so of course it will intersect with politics. Amazingly, throughout the world today, there are some great examples of how "faith," "religion," or "beliefs" effect civil and social discourse. "Change," such an important word in US politics today is already happening elsewhere. The Holy Spirit is moving in Africa where women and men are redefining a continent. How can we help ourselves and one another to see the world as God sees it, (remembering Job who saw God, and was so very changed)? No single candidate, nor one party holds that key and when Henry was assassinated, many of his reforms collapsed. Real change, holy change means something we may need to learn about from the "last and the least", rather than the powerful and the well connected.
Posted by: Mary | August 25, 2008 4:17 PM
"don, thanks i get it now central planning. roger"
So end of the conversation, Don. "Central planning" is like "big government" or "liberal." Once the incantation is pronounced, all discussion must cease because we all know "central planning" is bad.
Not unlike the way "Orwellian" or "fascist" or "Hitlerian" function for some on the Left.
Posted by: carl copas | August 25, 2008 4:45 PM
"It would be doubly sad if in the aftermath of the Religious Right, we add another negative consequence: to react to an unwise mal-engagement of faith with social and public life by choosing unfaithful disengagement, instead of wise and proper engagement."
I agree, but it would also be a negative consequence to react to one unwise mal-engagement of faith with another, tying people of faith to a different major party. This is where I think you, the "Matthew 25 Network", Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo have gone badly astray.
The church should speak prophetically across partisan lines, not line up with one party of another. And, of course, it is quite obvious neither major party represents Gospel values.
Hallelujah to Bishop Blake for speaking prophetically to Democrats at the interfaith service in Denver, and making clear this was not an endorsement of the Republicans, to which he also spoke prophetically. I would like to see Sojourners get back into that prophetic mode, instead of appearing to be a partisan political group.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | August 25, 2008 5:08 PM
"don, thanks i get it now central planning. roger"
LOL. Roger, didn't you just use China's use of centrally planned market reforms as an example of how to effectively bring people out of poverty? Apparently you "got it" before.
(Or did you naively think that when China embraced market reforms it just threw government out the window?)
Posted by: I and I | August 25, 2008 5:18 PM
Trusting in free market economy=
Worshiping Baal=
Violation of the First Commandment
Duh--------sciple
Posted by: Duh-sciple | August 25, 2008 7:07 PM
Posted by: Bill Samuel | August 25, 2008 5:08 PM
I would like to see Sojourners get back into that prophetic mode, instead of appearing to be a partisan political group.
To late - so sad.
I don't mind that Jim and Co are on one side of the political fence or the other. I just wish he would stick to telling his story and point of view and not attacking other religious leaders that politically differ from him. Had he not done this - I believe that he would have a bigger and more diverse following, which in the long run would only have helped him. (OK - so back in the day some 'attacked' him - big deal. Sticks and Stones people and wouldn't it have made him look better had he not 'joined in'????)
Just my take
All the Time - God is Good
.
Posted by: big guy | August 25, 2008 8:16 PM
Trusting in a free market economy . . .
There is no such thing. Such an economy invariably gets skewed in one direction or another; usually the interests that succeed then use their position of power to further promote their particular prosperity. They do that economically but also politically. Even our "Founders" believed that "those who own the country should rule it".
Posted by: George,Jr. | August 25, 2008 10:21 PM
"Ben--instead of throwing stones and putting words into McLaren's mouth, why don't you respond to some of the points he is making?"
McLaren throws stones here as well. It's just that you believe he is throwing them in the right (no pun intended) direction. Having endorsed a candidate, McLaren loses neutrality when he takes the opposing side to task for their mal-engagement.
Brian McLaren believes conservatives are mal-engaging because he disagrees with them. I believe Brian McLaren and the rest of the religious Democrats are mal-engaging because I disagree with them. There is nothing wrong with this disagreement, but McLaren can't have his stone and throw it too.
That said, I disagree that disengagement is faithless. There are those who see no particular benefit to America in the election of either party, and see said election as inevitable. I disagree with this tack (of course), but if you cite something as faithless, you had better make a case beyond mere assertion.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 25, 2008 10:47 PM
McLaren throws stones here as well. It's just that you believe he is throwing them in the right (no pun intended) direction. Having endorsed a candidate, McLaren loses neutrality when he takes the opposing side to task for their mal-engagement.
Unfair, totally. According to that belief system, no one has any right to criticize the opposition for things it does wrong without spawning accusations of partisanship -- it's the reason that, for example, conservatives complain to high heaven about alleged media bias just because the media don't come to the same conclusions as they do. For this reason the "religious right" is losing steam -- it cannot work with or even relate to anything or anyone outside its boundaries, and that's no way to encourage reconciliation.
Posted by: Rick | August 25, 2008 11:09 PM
{McLaren throws stones here as well. It's just that you believe he is throwing them in the right (no pun intended) direction. Having endorsed a candidate, McLaren loses neutrality when he takes the opposing side to task for their mal-engagement}
This seems like argument by assertion, and so i'm just not convinced.
{That said, I disagree that disengagement is faithless.}
But you offer no basis for sustaining your assertion, so how can we believe what you say?
{There is nothing wrong with this disagreement, but McLaren can't have his stone and throw it too.}
I honestly don't believe that Brian is saying that he wants to have his stone and throw it too. IMHO he is just saying we should be careful of mal-engagement and disengagement. I think you should re-read the article carefully.
respectfully--
Posted by: Loretta Mahan | August 25, 2008 11:15 PM
I just wish he would stick to telling his story and point of view and not attacking other religious leaders that politically differ from him. Had he not done this - I believe that he would have a bigger and more diverse following, which in the long run would only have helped him.
In "God's Politics," Wallis told the story about a 1976 Sojourners investigative piece about a "religious right" that aroused the ire of Bill Bright -- and part of the problem was that the campaign was fairly secret and brooked no dissent. It's not that he won't work with them -- they won't work with him because he's not on their team. Besides, Wallis started his work in the early 1970s, before most of them even got started. Why can't they embrace him first?
Posted by: Rick | August 25, 2008 11:20 PM
"Unfair, totally. According to that belief system, no one has any right to criticize the opposition for things it does wrong without spawning accusations of partisanship "
I would never use the term "partisan" as an accusation, which renders your point null.
Moving on, one cannot endorse a party's platform and endorse their president without being partisan. This has nothing to do with his criticism of the religious right, much of which is very valid.
"it's the reason that, for example, conservatives complain to high heaven about alleged media bias just because the media don't come to the same conclusions as they do."
That the media comes to conclusions invariably invites bias. If all you are saying is that conservatives only care about bias when it negatively affects them, then you are correct. But this would have nothing to do with Brian McLaren.
"This seems like argument by assertion, and so i'm just not convinced."
Do you agree that political endorsement compromises politicsl neutrality? If not, then what is your definition of neutrality?
I said:
"That said, I disagree that disengagement is faithless."
Lorena Said:
"But you offer no basis for sustaining your assertion,"
The only assertion I make in the quote you cite is that "I disagree". I reinforce this assertion by specifying my disagreement. What I think you mean to say is that I offer little by way of support of the idea that it is not faithless to disengage from politics.
Fair enough, though I do still make the argument in the sentence following the one you cite. I think when McLaren labels an action as "faithless", the onus is on him to make the case.
"IMHO he is just saying we should be careful of mal-engagement and disengagement."
He is saying that, but he is also saying that disengagement is faithless. That was the issue I raised.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 26, 2008 1:28 AM
Here is mathematical proof of the Divine origin
of The Bible.
611=The Light=Torah (bible)=611
611=secret of God secret of truth=Torah=611
There is alot more amazing proof at :
http://godssecret.wordpress.com/category/spiritual-proof/
Posted by: John | August 26, 2008 2:08 AM
I would never use the term "partisan" as an accusation, which renders your point null.
You just did by saying that McLaren endorsed Obama, rendering his thesis "weak."
If all you are saying is that conservatives only care about bias when it negatively affects them, then you are correct. But this would have nothing to do with Brian McLaren.
You contradict yourself again for similar reasons. The bigger picture is that conservatives often act as if their views are sancrosanct and any criticism, even principled, must somehow be invalidated. That's no way to win an argument.
Posted by: Rick | August 26, 2008 8:40 AM
Kevin,
I appreciate your thoughts and insights. Sometimes I agree; sometimes I disagree. But I'm always curious by the way your posts come across here. I think you need to be aware that the tone of your posts ("...which renders your point null") seems both negative and pushy. You make some good points. Don't let them get lost in a tone that makes others feel defensive.
You obviously care about your positions on these issues. May God bless you with wisdom, humility and grace.
Posted by: Paul | August 26, 2008 10:05 AM
'In "God's Politics," Wallis told the story about a 1976...'
Blah - blah - blah...was someone saying something?
All the Time - God is Good
Posted by: big guy | August 26, 2008 10:06 AM
Blah - blah - blah...was someone saying something?
Was that comment necessary, big guy?
Posted by: Don | August 26, 2008 10:12 AM
Was that comment necessary, big guy?
In his view, it was. He keeps saying without any evidence that if Wallis "moderated his rhetoric" he would have a larger following and even get conservatives to support him. However, many of those same conservatives -- and there's plenty of proof of this even now, which is why I brought up the anecdote -- would even go so far as to question his salvation because he's not a conservative. In short, they have no interest in reconciliation, only capitulation. The right-wing, dominionist World magazine slammed the book as well for the same reasons, and an interviewer from the same magazine engaged in an insult-fest with Ron Sider, who certainly isn't the firebrand that Wallis is, when "The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience" was published.
Posted by: Rick | August 26, 2008 10:30 AM
Posted by: Don | August 26, 2008 10:12 AM
Was that comment necessary, big guy?
Don - I have asked him to not comment on my posts - I am not on his. But he has to take something that I have written and make some comment - snarkie or not - and then it looks like I'm the one that has nothing to say or imcapable of replying. I am not commenting on his would he please leave mine alone! (truth be told - I read his as I find some interesting points of view that make me dig a little deeper - I will not post because of his lack of respect for me and others)
Dear Gussie - would he just consider me dead and get on with whatever and whomever he wants to dis again.
God is Good - All the Time
.
Posted by: big guy | August 26, 2008 11:13 AM
But he has to take something that I have written and make some comment - snarkie or not - and then it looks like I'm the one that has nothing to say or imcapable of replying.
Translated: I don't want to have to defend my arguments in front someone on "the other side" who knows what he's talking about.
Posted by: Rick | August 26, 2008 11:27 AM
Posted by: Don | August 26, 2008 10:12 AM
Was that comment necessary, big guy?
Don - I am off this thread. The last time too many people like you who just wanted to all get along - this person hi-jacked the thread and many people got into the discussion and many were hurt because of what was said. I will not let this happen again becaus the only ones that get hurt are those who come here for the first time and see this garbage. I will not let that happen again. There are other topics to talk about and we can talk there.
Don - thanks and have a great day!
All the Time - God is Good
.
Posted by: big guy | August 26, 2008 11:56 AM
In Brian's original post, he wrote:
But if they’re saying, “Let’s go back to the good old days where in church we talked about ‘us and Jesus’ and nothing more,” I couldn’t disagree more. To talk about “us and Jesus” alone is unfaithful to Jesus, who linked love for God with love for neighbor. To exclude from our circle of concern the well-being of neighbor and enemy means that we aren’t following Jesus’ way, but some other way under “Christian camouflage.”
If I am correctly interpreting Brian's message, he seems to be saying that our imitation of Christ includes a certain degree of involvement in our interaction with our fellow man. This involvement inevitably leads to us taking positions on issues being debated in the public square. I think that his argument has merit, and as long as we can remain civil to those who might disagree with us, we should pursue that course.
The problems inherent with that approach occur when either side accuses the other of not being a "true Christian." I left the church that I was raised in mainly due to their advocacy of one political party.
There is indeed a middle ground wherein we can respect each other views. The former Republican senator from Missouri, John Danforth very effectively makes that argument in the following link:
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/danforth/danforth_oped-onward.shtml
Posted by: Sister Marie | August 26, 2008 12:11 PM
" I think you need to be aware that the tone of your posts ("...which renders your point null") seems both negative and pushy. "
How is that more negative than "Unfair, totally."?
Or:
"Translated: I don't want to have to defend my arguments in front someone on "the other side" who knows what he's talking about."
Rick often meets arguments with the single-word sentence "irrelevant". He's a big boy, and can take it.
"You just did by saying that McLaren endorsed Obama, rendering his thesis "weak.""
Why is "weak" in quotes when I never used the term? The thesis, that Godly engagement is better than disengagement and mal-engagement, isn't all that problematic.
My point was that I don't think one can "accuse" one of being partisan any more than one can "accuse" one of liking chocolate ice cream. It isn't an accusation.
"You contradict yourself again for similar reasons. "
Similar to what?
"there's plenty of proof of this even now, which is why I brought up the anecdote -- would even go so far as to question his salvation because he's not a conservative."
The more frequent crticisms of the book is that it pretends to moderate, but doesn't at all. Rick Warren, who did not question Wallis' salvation, said that his rhetoric essentially reads as the Democratic playbook, and that attempts to suggest otherwise are window dressing. Further, as you are surely aware, Wallis has come under fire in reformed circles as well.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 26, 2008 12:21 PM
"I think you need to be aware that the tone of your posts ("...which renders your point null") seems both negative and pushy."
We have been around this mountain before. Kevin is actually a really nice guy. He just has a way of pushing buttons at times. We all do I guess.
Kevin is a fixture here and part of the loyal opposition. If you really want to get him going, ask him what he thinks of the blog title "God's Politics". Right, Kevin? ;-)
Posted by: JamesM | August 26, 2008 12:54 PM
Kevin: "Further, as you are surely aware, Wallis has come under fire in reformed circles as well."
Not aware. Can you elaborate? I assume this means he is coming under fire for theological or tactical rather than political reasons. Or are these politically conservative Reformed circles, in which case this isn't news?
Posted by: I and I | August 26, 2008 1:49 PM
JamesM: "Kevin is a fixture here and part of the loyal opposition."
That's a good way to put it. Kevin's got his own style, one of forceful assertion and strong language, and most of us have gotten used to it. JamesM, Rick, and others, including myself occasionally, rip into Kevin pretty vigorously at times. Obviously he can stand the heat, so he remains in the kitchen.
On a different thread, Don pointed out, in a post that should be required reading for anyone who participates in these kinds of forums, that electronic communication is inherently hostile. Nuance, facial expressions, voice tones--all of the things that soften face-to-face conversation--are lacking. You have to assume that the medium makes people sound harsher than they really are, even if at times it's hard to do so.
Posted by: carl copas | August 26, 2008 2:05 PM
Why is "weak" in quotes when I never used the term? The thesis, that Godly engagement is better than disengagement and mal-engagement, isn't all that problematic.
You suggested that McLaren was involved in another form of the same mal-engagement he was decrying. True, you did not use the word "weak" -- perhaps I should have phrased that differently. And besides that, what is "Godly engagement," and what does that entail? That's the question.
The more frequent crticisms of the book is that it pretends to moderate, but doesn't at all. Rick Warren, who did not question Wallis' salvation, said that his rhetoric essentially reads as the Democratic playbook, and that attempts to suggest otherwise are window dressing.
Depends on where those criticisms are coming from -- if they're from Republican-leaning partisans that's to be expected. And despite Warren's recent broadening into issues of poverty and others that heretofore have been championed by liberals, he's still a conservative at heart (and will tell you this).
Further, as you are surely aware, Wallis has come under fire in reformed circles as well.
World is a Reformed-leaning magazine, and its editor is PCA.
Posted by: Rick | August 26, 2008 2:14 PM
How old is McLaren that he can remember a time when the church was not involved in politics? The establishment churches or mainline, have always been heavily involved in politics and were willing to sell their soul to continue being involved.
Posted by: WesDave | August 26, 2008 4:02 PM
IMHO people should just lay off Kevin S because he is just doing what everyone else is doing on here. He is just ttrying to express his opinion and learn more about God and politics and how the Christians can serve God with their politics. I for one appreciate Kevin's passion and his willingness to keep posting even tho he's pretty conservative.
At least he's sincere, unlike a lot of other people.
Respectfully--
Loretta
Posted by: Loretta Mahan | August 26, 2008 4:11 PM
"World is a Reformed-leaning magazine, and its editor is PCA."
Okay, that is not surprising, since World's concern is primarily political rather than theological, and is conservative first and Reformed second. Having read the magazine a few times, I wouldn't expect them to approach Wallis with anything approaching fairness. Kevin has yet to tell us which Reformed circles are critical of Wallis for reasons other than petty politics.
Posted by: I and I | August 26, 2008 4:17 PM
Kevin has yet to tell us which Reformed circles are critical of Wallis for reasons other than petty politics.
I don't think that Kevin is himself Reformed, at least theologically; meanwhile, I lean that way. The one "Reformed" website I frequent spends a lot of time attacking Warren (though that's controversial). Understand, too, that in that culture theology and politics are often intertwined, which goes back to Calvin.
Posted by: Rick | August 26, 2008 4:50 PM
"Not aware. Can you elaborate?"
I said Rick would be aware, and he is. But to elaborate...
Much of it stems from criticism of the emergent church, which (rather obviously) shares the same political mission. I know that Piper and Driscoll have offered commentary, so I'll try to put together specifics.
The point isn't to say that their criticisms are necessarily valid, but rather to refute the notion that any criticism of his book questions his salvation.
I am not reformed theologically, and was unaware of World's reformed bent.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 26, 2008 6:24 PM
"We have been around this mountain before. Kevin is actually a really nice guy. He just has a way of pushing buttons at times. We all do I guess."
Wow, JamesM must have looked in the mirror for once...
Posted by: Robert | August 26, 2008 6:51 PM
What is very clear was that, in terms of political positions, neither of the authors has come over to the side of Wallis and McLaren and most other figures on the Christian Left. So I guess it is a question of to what degree they advocated a softening of tactics, and whether or not that level constitutes a "withdrawal" of sorts from politics.
Posted by: I and I
I and I this isso shallow from my perspective if I understand you right . The perspective of the book shows how mixing religion and politics , examples like Ireland is often used . you get unintended consequences . The views of the authors remain conservative , they often make that clear through out the book . You read it ? Issues like abortion , marriage , and other issues important in their Faith remain just as important and valid in their Faith walk . but they would not advocate those positions at election time , not steer away from the issues in the Pulpit or in reaching out to the community . No petition signing in the foyer . Using politics to promote those issues they , and I agree , hurt the message of the Gospel . Cal Thomas did not loose his conservative view of smaller government and less taxation because in his heart as mine for that matter , less taxation helps more of us in the long run . Leaving the approval stamp off God of his opinion also allows those who disagree with us to still share our Faith . And make a valid try , and I will say at times compelling arguemnts , to why sometimes government is part of the solution . Sometimes and often I happen to find it not . I found your view that because you disagree with the tactics of the religious right , actually they played a smaller role in over all republican policies then the left makes it out to be , that somehow when you come to the realization of the religious right was blinded by might , you have to now be blinded by mighty might of the religious left . Not at all , I can say the religious right was wrong , and not support an organization using much the same tactics that advocate for different techiques of solutions . It is the method of the religious right that was written about , and how it accomplished nothing by the way .
When you talk about religious conservatives and the power trip they have , that is on the higher level , the common Christian Conservative sees just the opposite , the culture slipping , and sometimes just changing . Change is scarey regardless if it is bad . But the average Christian conservative sees important issues that he holds to always loosing at the polls , and in general . He also sees his Faith being ridiculed constantly . Quite the different picture that Wallis gives of the religious right , quite different indeed . Most people who say they are Christians vote evenly among democrats and republicans , with a slight lead for the respublicans . The scare tactics and demonization gets old from all sides .
Posted by: Michael | August 26, 2008 9:48 PM
When you talk about religious conservatives and the power trip they have, that is on the higher level, the common Christian Conservative sees just the opposite, the culture slipping, and sometimes just changing. Change is scary regardless if it is bad. But the average Christian conservative sees important issues that he holds to always loosing at the polls, and in general. He also sees his Faith being ridiculed constantly.
And those issues, whether legitimate are not, were exploited for the sake of power. If the average "conservative Christian" ever read the Scripture in its context he/she would understand that Biblical principles are not universally shared by the rest of the world. Essentially, these same conservative Christians are angry with non-believers for acting like non-believers. And as for being ridiculed for faith in Christ -- well, tough, because Jesus Himself said that would happen and He certainly wouldn't lie, would He? So we'll just have to deal with that and quit complaining about the inevitable persecution.
The problem is that, the way a number of conservative Christian leaders operate (and this was especially true during the 1980s), they encourage people to opt out of spiritual warfare by focusing upon an "enemy" to be defeated while starving and infantilizing the flock in the process so that they actually become too weak to do ministry themselves, which takes a lot of guts. In my view (and this is hard but necessary to say), they may actually be cooperating with the devil.
Posted by: Rick | August 27, 2008 12:00 AM
"And those issues, whether legitimate are not, were exploited for the sake of power."
Rick stated
As are issues of poverty, abortion,race, etc .
Sex ,pornography , all have their advocacy groups that play for power and control. And are used by the liberal side of politics to gain power .
"If the average "conservative Christian" ever read the Scripture in its context he/she would understand that Biblical principles are not universally shared by the rest of the world., "
Rick stated
True . But Bibical principles work regardless if one is a Christian or not . Bibical principles work when pagans use them . The problem is not Bibical principles , its the way they are presented and motive behind presenting them . Also as you say , if rejected its not to be forced on anyone .
Yes promoting marriage because of a bigotry towards homosexuals is degrading . But Christ promoted Marriage for the right reasons . Promoting Marriage is not wrong . Either is helping the poor . Its a bibical principle . But even helping the poor is used as a power gain issue.
Many Bibical principles are common sense, I believe part of the problem is that when you know the Lord , all the aspects of the Bible begin to grow in your being , hence it becomes so common , it becomes hard for some to explain to a secular mind certain issues .
"Essentially, these same conservative Christians are angry with non-believers for acting like non-believers. And as for being ridiculed for faith in Christ -- well, tough, because Jesus Himself said that would happen and He certainly wouldn't lie, would He? So we'll just have to deal with that and quit complaining about the inevitable persecution."
Heard that in a sermon not too long ago , And the insults and such will get worse. Its easy to see.
It will not any better when the religious right is out of business, from my experience the liberals will be next in line. In fact it will be worse if they remain politically active.
"they encourage people to opt out of spiritual warfare by focusing upon an "enemy" to be defeated while starving and infantilizing the flock in the process so that they actually become too weak to do ministry themselves, which takes a lot of guts."
Wow Rick , this is sounding harsh to me , the religious right is not that smart on the corporate level , But if that is what you believe .
"In my view (and this is hard but necessary to say), they may actually be cooperating with the devil."
Well I am one of those folks who does not believe a Christian can be possessed , but I can undersatnd being oppressed to do things . But compared to the lie all roads lead to God Among other liberal lies regarding Faith in Christ, the devil appears to be non discriminatory in which side of the political religious aisle he tries to infiltrate .
The last republican meeting I went to , I was asked for what I considered something that could be used against the democratic candidates .
I brought up a recent bill that was passed sending all people under a certain income level a percentage of dollars . This was similiar to the earned income tax credit for poorer families .
My point was the sum was ridiculis low but the over all cost was quite a chunk of change , including the new employees hired to administer it , actually made a new buruacracy, the cost was hundreds of millions , and two years before anyone would see amounts , the dollar amount trinkled down to say 50 dollars or so a year or less for each person. I had their attention , I then went on to say how much better say a program was designed with that money , say a tech school , anything , scholarships for inner city kids who had good grades but maybe not good ebnough to get a regular scholarship . Anything , I was talking on my feet so I did not come up with real great ideas I guess,
.
Well the help the folks aspect of my comments were lost on the crowd , I do speak worse then I spell , sometimes I hit right on , but my comments also are lost on liberals and liberal Christians . My point , the devil is not only attacking conservative Christians , he is working on the other side of aisle as well . The folks who made out that spending money on people without made out like they were doing something .
No they weren't . They might have done something to make themselves feel good , from your judements you might say they were just doing it for the power .
I don't fit in either party . I think their are more people like me out there . I am just hoping they can spell better . And many many are Conservative Christians .
Posted by: Michael | August 27, 2008 3:37 AM
Wow, JamesM must have looked in the mirror for once...Posted by: Robert |
Hi Robert. Nice to meet you. I haven't seen too many of you posts here. Do you post under a different name?
Feel free to post under your customary moniker, Robert. Really, we won't hold it against you.
Peace.
Posted by: JamesM | August 27, 2008 6:29 AM
Sex, pornography, all have their advocacy groups that play for power and control. And are used by the liberal side of politics to gain power.
Not in the name of God, they're not.
It will not any better when the religious right is out of business, from my experience the liberals will be next in line. In fact it will be worse if they remain politically active.
That's precisely what Jim Wallis is trying to blunt.
Wow Rick, this is sounding harsh to me, the religious right is not that smart on the corporate level...
On the contrary -- you don't build an entire apparatus without some smarts. The biggest mistake was hooking up with secular interests, which Jerry Falwell did from the beginning.
Well I am one of those folks who does not believe a Christian can be possessed, but I can undersatnd being oppressed to do things. But compared to the lie all roads lead to God Among other liberal lies regarding Faith in Christ, the devil appears to be non discriminatory in which side of the political religious aisle he tries to infiltrate.
That's not what I'm talking about. The devil has no problem in playing both ends against the middle if doing so serves his ends; his purpose for the conservative Christian is to get his/her eyes off God and onto the "problem." That is to say, "Once we solve this ... then God will be blessed/honored/etc." It doesn't work that way because that gets into "flesh" and God is dishonored, which is the goal.
Posted by: Rick | August 27, 2008 8:25 AM
Why not look at other candidates and see what they have to offer?
Why must we choose between these two?
I say lets look to see who else is running and maybe cast our vote away from the status quo!!
Posted by: B | August 27, 2008 10:42 AM
Loretta: "IMHO people should just lay off Kevin S because he is just doing what everyone else is doing on here. He is just ttrying to express his opinion and learn more about God and politics and how the Christians can serve God with their politics. I for one appreciate Kevin's passion and his willingness to keep posting even tho he's pretty conservative."
Kevin, how long have you and Loretta been an item? (Behind every great man . . .)
Posted by: carl copas | August 27, 2008 11:46 AM
Kevin, how long have you and Loretta been an item? (Behind every great man . . .)Posted by: carl copas |
LOL! And of course, "[a]t least he's sincere, unlike a lot of other people." She got our number...
Signed,
The Insincere One.
Posted by: JamesM | August 27, 2008 2:38 PM
The dialogue here reminds me of a former pastor who justified his pulpit partisanship by asserting that his comments were limited to "moral issues." In reality, one could conjecture that every political issue is also a moral issue. To the extent that each of us cherry pick which moral issues matter the most to us tells us more about our politics than our morality.
Posted by: Sister Marie | August 27, 2008 2:45 PM
Somehow Dobson can say that he supports a Republican and McLaren and other liberals cry that he should just focus on Jesus and not politics but when McLaren and emergents support Obama that is viewed as great and progressive. Somehow that smells like hypocrisy to me.
Posted by: Roy | August 28, 2008 2:08 PM
New blog contains a devotional for an election year for thoughtful Christians who do't fit in either right or left categories but want to be faithful to exalt Christ in all they do.
Go to VoteforJesus.blogspot.com
Posted by: ChosenRebel | August 28, 2008 2:34 PM
Somehow Dobson can say that he supports a Republican and McLaren and other liberals cry that he should just focus on Jesus and not politics but when McLaren and emergents support Obama that is viewed as great and progressive.
Except that Dobson castigates anyone -- anyone -- who doesn't agree with him and has some pull. It's not the McLaren wouldn't allow him to support whomever he wanted; Dobson, however, has always sought to speak with God's "voice." FWIW, McLaren himself has already been viciously attacked on at least one other Christian blog.
Posted by: Rick | August 29, 2008 3:39 PM
Thanks for this article.
I´ve been thinking lately about the history of the church in America and what it has had to say about political involvement, since the world is always changing and we´re always having to find a Christlike way to deal with everything. From articles on the history of the black church in America, for example, I have found that there is a very strong historical base for political activism in the American church as church leaders were forged among the persecuted - this has to be spoken and respoken wherever it speaks truth to power since the threads of history form the tangle of the present.
We have to think about what our actions do on a societal level and how we can be good stewards of the leverage we´ve been given or that we can manage to create in society.
Posted by: solagratia | August 31, 2008 7:52 PM
Brian McLaren has recorded an ad for Obama. This seems clearly in contradiction to the principles he states in this post, which I fully agree with. I support what he said, but not what he has done.
The "Matthew 25 Network" is not consistent with Brian's stated principles, and is a travesty which harms the cause of Christ, just as the Christian Coalition was a generation ago. It is important that Christians with a variety of political perspectives speak out against such travesties.
And I would suggest that Brian reread his own book, Everything Must Change, and reconsider his endorsement of an establishment politician who lives and campaigns by the framing stories Brian does such a good job of pointing out are the cause of our problems.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | September 4, 2008 2:34 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?