four apocalyptic evangelical democrat horsemen

Scot, I’ve said this before, but I think you’re off when you refer to these folks (or other emerging folk) as “democrats”. Being progressive, being “liberal” even, is not the same as being a “Democrat”. Nor is a concern for social justice, poverty, the environment, peace, etc.
I was just at Wallis’ book tour stop at Wheaton College tonight, and he went out of his way to once again reiterate (as he has done for years) that his is not a partisan agenda, that God is not a Republican or a Democrat, and that he has no desire to create a “Religious Left” to replace the Religious Right. I wish more people (and I’m not just talking about you now) would actually listen to what Wallis, et al. are saying about this before assuming that they (we) are all Democrats or the “Religious Left”.
Take me for instance, while I have been moving in a politically progressive and theologically emerging direction for nearly a decade now, this year may be the first time I actually cast a vote for a Democratic President.

Thanks for mentioning these books. I hope they get traction. I tend to think that we Christians are too wedded to an American way, which is not the Jesus way, and I’m afraid often runs counter to it. I mean we make America to be something it’s not intended to be in God’s economy, something that we as Church, as the light of the world in Jesus, can only be. And by that really impact America and the world in the way we’re meant to, rather than baptizing Americanism.

Scot, this is encouraging to hear, esp. from the States. I too hope that this call for biblical Christianity wont simple be written of as leftist or “democrats”. It must be deeper than that. Deep enough to be discipleship of the Lord who refuses the sword.

Mike, I guess we just disagree. I just got back from Eastern, where Tony is and where Shane is from, and Eastern is known for being an evangelical democrat haven. Once I was there and there were “evangelical and democrat” stickers all over the place. Sider is mostly democrat …
I didn’t connect this to emerging did I?

I can’t remember if you’ve posted on Greg Boyd’s The Myth of a Christian Nation, but I would tend to throw it in amongst these books. He does a great job distinguishing between the Kingdom of God and kingdoms of this world. And he does so in a way that deeply calls into question many of the ways that American Christians have handled politics. Shoot, anyone brave enough to preach a series like his book is based on, and lose 1,000 members of one’s congregation (mainly upper middle-class Republican-leaning folks) is one brave dude.
I agree that Christians are not to have an allegiance to one political party or the other. However, as a registered Democrat swimming in the sea of the Christian sub-culture in America, it almost seems necessary that some brave folks begin to step up and unhinge the phrases “evangelical Christian” and “Republican” from one another by announcing that one can be both a follower of Christ and vote for a Democrat.

Scot,
I read God’s Politics and I am finishing up Irresistible Revolution. Both Wallis and Claiborne are saying some very important things. I really appreciate their focus on the “least of these.”
One concern for both: neither makes it clear what they think the gospel is. We see general teaching on the kingdom of God and important reminders about justice, etc., but I am left wondering what both think about the gospel. One could say being specific about the gospel is outside the purview of their books, but I find that a pretty tenuous explanation.
Best,
Dave

Mike Clawson (#1), methinks thou doth protest too much. You move from “Being progressive, being ‘liberal’ even, is not the same as being a ‘Democrat’” to “I wish more people would listen to [emerging folk} are saying…before assuming they (we) are all Democrats or the ‘Religious Left’” to “Take me for instance, while I have been moving in a politically progressive and theologically emerging direction for nearly a decade now, this year may be the first time I actually cast a vote for a Democratic President.”
Do you not see how you yourself are an example that being progressive, being ‘liberal’ even, IS the same as being a ‘Democrat’ eventually.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

In the interest of correct grammar in blogging, the word “what” should have been included before [emerging folk] in my first paragraph above, and the penultimate sentence in the post should have ended with a question mark.

Having not read any of these books, I’d have to say (in part in response to Mike in #1) that every thing I’ve read or heard from these guys (except Claiborne, he’s new to me) sounds great as long as they speak in generalities. When they get specific, they tend to sound like the Democratic party platform.

Perhaps on the political scale, the words “liberal” and “conservative” should be used rather than partisan political labels. Jim Wallis may not be partisan, but he’s definitely a liberal politically. When he says “God is not a Republican or a Democrat” what he’s really saying is, “God may not be a Republican or a Democrat, but the stands he would take are mostly in line with the Democrats.” At least, that’s the result of his policy positions that he claims are God’s own.

FYI I was at Jim Wallis’ book talk on Monday and I posted my notes on my blog.

It’s funny how this site gets comments worrying if such and such leader is leaning or is in fact a Democratic or endorses a democratic policy. Yet if some commentor offers a Republican point of view, the idea of being partisan never comes up. Funny, eh?

And from the “other” side: Chuck Colson recently referred to another intriguing book on Christian engagement — Chuck Stetson, ed., Creating the Better Hour: Lessons from William Wilberforce (Stroud and Hall Publishers, 2007; not yet released in the U.S.) Evidently, a PBS program of the same title is to air soon.
See BreakPoint.org from February 19, 2008.

The difference, Frye, is that Wallis doesn’t claim to be a partisan, yet he is. Commenters who like Republican stances do not make the claim that they are non-partisan.

Bob #7:

Do you not see how you yourself are an example that being progressive, being ?liberal? even, IS the same as being a ?Democrat? eventually.

Not at all Bob. I didn’t vote Democratic in 2000 or 2004 because voted Green Party. The Democrats weren’t “progressive” enough for me. That’s my point, my political values are shaped by my commitment to the vision of the kingdom of God, not by adherence to any particular party orthodoxy. If a Democratic candidate comes closest to those values among the options available, then I’ll vote for them, but that doesn’t mean I’m a Democrat. I’ll evaluate the candidates from each party according to kingdom values, not vice versa. Personally the Dems fail on that standard almost as often as the GOP IMHO. Most of the time I’m left with a choice between the lesser of several evils.

“…every thing I?ve read or heard from these guys (except Claiborne, he?s new to me) sounds great as long as they speak in generalities. When they get specific, they tend to sound like the Democratic party platform.”

I disagree. I think when they get specific they start saying things that go beyond even where the Dems are willing to go. Progressive Christians aren’t Democrats because the Democrats themselves aren’t even as radical as the values of the kingdom of God.

Scot #4:
You’ve connected this to emerging in the past in your “5 Streams” article where you basically said that emergents are essentially Democrats (besides which I would consider at least three of the four folks you mention to be friends of the emerging conversation – and that’s just ‘cuz I don’t know much about Sider). What I am suggesting is that we are kingdom of God folks, and that the kingdom of God is often too radical for either party.

Mike,
I have indeed, but that connection was not made on this post today. Yes, these are friends of emerging and, perhaps even more accurately, emerging is friends with them.
I like the kingdom of God being too radical for either party — as long as we know what we are talking about when we define kingdom of God. You’ve heard me say this here many times: any kingdom of God discussion that does not involve, at it core, evangelism and the call to follow Jesus, is not kingdom of God.

Could we get a clear and concise definition of the word “progessive” as it’s used in political discourse? Does it have a unique meaning, or is it just a euphemism?
Thanks.

“…any kingdom of God discussion that does not involve, at it core, evangelism and the call to follow Jesus, is not kingdom of God.”
Can I get an amen?!

Jesus and American Politics « Merging Lanes

[...] http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=3493 All at once, gathering on my desk of books, is a four-volume collection about public issues ? and I could call this post the four evangelical horsemen riding into the American scene with ideas about how Jesus can help our politics. Here they are… [...]

ChrisB #21 – Amen. Even though it was Scot’s.
Mike 1, 15, 16 – Amen. You’re speaking for me!
Speaking for myself, I’d say my frustration is that both party pick up bits and pieces of kingdom values -not radically enough, but still bits and pieces of kingdom values – and rather than applying them consistently, divide them and turn them against each other, so that you can’t easily vote consistently for kingdom values – or, put another way, can’t vote for a “consistently pro-life” perspective. Certainly you can’t do it by party, since each party supports some aspects of such a perspective and attacks other parts. You have to do it by individuals.
One more example. I too, would say that I’ve been moving in a politically progressive and theologically emerging direction for awhile now (but only if I get to define those terms!). But while I currently plan to vote for Sen. Obama, should he not win the nomination, my support will shift to Sen. McCain. I am decidedly NOT a democrat, nor a Republican.

This issue brings up a long standing problem I’ve had with Wallis’ calls to action and his platform in general. While he does not explicitly identify as a democrat, and says that God is not for either side, his critique of democrats in God’s Politics was that they were secular but had good policy, and that the right was theistic but had bad policy.
With Barack Obama speaking at the Sojourners’ conference last year, and with the democratic candidates speaking more about faith, it seems that the democrats now have good policy and understand faith. This sure looks like what Wallis advocated for in God’s Politics and is celebrating in his newest book.
I guess my problem with Wallis essentially comes down to him being emphasizing social responsibility at the expense of moral responsibility. I often hear the argument that to be pro-life is to support life in all its forms, which includes caring for the least of these. I think that’s entirely true. I’ve seen many articles from Sojourners and blog entries from Wallis highlighting the plights of the poor in our country and others, and the stress of low income mothers trying to provide for their children, but I’ve never seen anything come close to lamenting abortion. And maybe he doesn’t think Roe V Wade should be overturned, but at least come out and say it. (if he has, please tell me, and then I’ll be quiet and go back to my hole.)

There are a couple of more recent books that can be thrown into the fold: The Case for Civility by Os Guiness and A New Kind of Conservative by Joel Hunter. I have both but have not read them yet.
I would have to agree that I wouldn’t call Wallis bipartisan or “purple” although I have learned a lot from him. I don’t understand why he can’t just call himself a Christian progressive or liberal and leave it be.
I have read from a lot of these guys on both sides and I don’t know if any of them truly represents a third way or a purple politic. Wendell Berry or Rod Dreher of Crunchy Con fame are the closest I have seen.

I’ll third Chris’ Amen.
And Mike, do you think that the Canadian New Democratic Party (the socialists) would fulfill the radical vision of the kingdom of God? One of their candidates stated that she was confident Jesus would be a member of that party.

You’re right, Wheaton, the Republican commenters don’t claim they are non-partisan; they claim they are right.

John Frye #26, thank you for cracking me up! Sometimes the truth is just flat out funny.

I’m still in search of a label…and no one here seems to want to take a stab at how the word progressive is being used in this discussion and by the authors cited. I’m well aware of the historical uses of the term, but it seems to be a pretty fluid concept that’s often used as an expedient euphemism for something less palatable to large segments of the population.
I didn?t vote Democratic in 2000 or 2004 because voted Green Party. The Democrats weren?t ?progressive? enough for me…my political values are shaped by my commitment to the vision of the kingdom of God, not by adherence to any particular party orthodoxy.
I’m guessing that there’s still an orthodoxy of sorts involved here, and it’s a conception of the Kingdom of God. Presumably you could spell this out in a concrete way so that I could understand what your definition of progressive, is, and how it transcends political party platforms.
Regarding comments on Mr. Wallis: …and with the democratic candidates speaking more about faith, it seems that the democrats now have good policy and understand faith…but I?ve never seen anything come close to lamenting abortion. And maybe he doesn?t think Roe V Wade should be overturned, but at least come out and say it.
Asking why Wallis’ view on abortion is less than clear is a good question. If someone knows what it is, I’d like to hear it.
If he’s claiming that Democrats have had good policy, then is it fair to conclude that support for elective abortion, even late term, is included in that assessment?
Further, I’m still looking for a label…
Where do those of us who advocate and live Kingdom values but don’t trust government as an agent of those values wind up in political sorting buckets.
Suppose, for example, we we share Tony Campolo’s desire to liberate Camden from crime and poverty, but think that gun control and government programs are dead ends that have already failed repeatedly. Suppose I believe that governments are wasteful, bloated, and self-serving bureaucracies that bastardize and distort well-intentioned policy ideas. And suppose I view Democrat tax policies as destructive and oppressive strategies that wind up destroying the very wealth creation that they rely upon to fund their policy visions?
Where do those of us who see the church, not government, as the most effective agent of change, and channel of charity to individuals in get filed or sorted in this discussion?
There are many of us out here who dislike the anti-individualism and anti-capitalism contained in a lot of “progressive” rhetoric, but we care about the poor, the unborn, and the environment.
We disagree on many of the means, but not the ultimate ends.

“I don?t understand why he can?t just call himself a Christian progressive or liberal and leave it be.”

He does call himself progressive, and probably even “liberal” too, as do I. But these labels are not synonymous with any particular party affiliation. For instance, by global standards, most Democrats these days would only be considered moderate conservatives.

Ben, #25

“And Mike, do you think that the Canadian New Democratic Party (the socialists) would fulfill the radical vision of the kingdom of God?”

I have no idea. I don’t know a thing about Canadian politics.

I?m guessing that there?s still an orthodoxy of sorts involved here, and it?s a conception of the Kingdom of God. Presumably you could spell this out in a concrete way so that I could understand what your definition of progressive, is, and how it transcends political party platforms.”
I said “party orthodoxy”. I wasn’t talking about Christian doctrine.
But in terms of what I think the values of the Kingdom of God are, I think it’s pretty well summed up in Jesus’ mission statement in Luke 4 (and this is how Wallis defined it last night too):
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
Any political agenda that prioritizes these gospel concerns is a “progressive” Christian agenda IMHO.

#30: I said ?party orthodoxy?. I wasn?t talking about Christian doctrine.
Right…but you’re substituting one agenda or program for another, right?
Any political agenda that prioritizes these gospel concerns is a ?progressive? Christian agenda IMHO.
Which I assume means that conservative Republicans or Reagan Democrats could qualify as having that agenda, or is there something in Luke 4 that would allow only political liberals (as currently defined) qualify?

Ben #25
Funny that you mentioned the Christian Democratic party because I didn’t know anything about them before last week when I was reading up on Abraham Kuyper and an article mentioned the role he played in the foundations of the party. From what I have read it does sound like they are the closest thing I have seen to a kingdom based third way. Too bad there is no representation in the U.S. Here is the wiki link if anyone is interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democracy
Also, if you have not read the Kuyper lectures from Princeton you owe it to yourself to do so.

“Which I assume means that conservative Republicans or Reagan Democrats could qualify as having that agenda, or is there something in Luke 4 that would allow only political liberals (as currently defined) qualify?”

Sure, why not?
For instance, one of the questioners at the Wallis event last night asked “what if I agree that we should help the poor, but I think that the best way to do that is to cut taxes for the rich?” Wallis’ basically replied that as long as we first agree that helping the poor ought to be a primary concern, then we can sit down and have a conversation about what are the best methods for doing that. But it’s the first part, the agreement that it ougt to be a major goal in the first place, that’s most important.
In fact, Wallis said that one of Sojourner’s goals is to get people from the left and right to sit down and give their best ideas for reducing poverty, and then use those ideas (and new ones not thought of yet by either side) to come up with, in his words, “a new nonpartisan plan with bipartisan support”.

Is there any way to subscribe to your site via email? OR are you a member of blogcatalog or something like that?
God Bless,
ThirstyJon