tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905922288517555692.post3949719214568658832..comments2023-08-10T04:26:09.048-04:00Comments on Wise Man's Heart: How dishonest use of the term "evangelical" weakens Christian influence in our societyHermeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15048343595688010664noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905922288517555692.post-61149388933549205892008-07-01T00:51:00.000-04:002008-07-01T00:51:00.000-04:00Anonymous, what good does it do to be "torn" about...Anonymous, what good does it do to be "torn" about these issues when at the end of the day, you come down on the liberal side? They can be "torn" all they want, but in the end they're recommending keeping abortion legal and instituting same-sex marriage. I would say this phenomenon of being "torn" is a quintessential <A HREF="http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005864.html" REL="nofollow">unprincipled exception.</A> Jim Wallis believes in individual moral autonomy, the total equality of all persons, and absolute non-discrimination, principles which contradict being opposed to abortion and homosexuality. Yet he knows that abortion and homosexuality are wrong by biblical standards, and he can't shake this sense that they are wrong, so he says he personally opposes them, while continuing to support policies that enable and promote them.<BR/><BR/>VA, that article is amazing. It took every effort to get past the first sentence: "The American flag was appropriated by the political right wing years ago." Anyone who can say that with a straight face is, it is safe to say, not a member of the reality-based community. The author reminds me of a liberal Christian poster on a message board I used to browse, which was populated mainly by liberals: this guy used to like to imply that in the parable of the sheep and the goats, <I>conservative Christians</I> are the goats; that we're going to Hell for our judgmentalism and concern with private sexual behavior. This individual, however, was one of these liberal mainline types, who have totally abandoned Christian doctrine, not just Christian morality. In a way the liberal evangelicals are even worse, because they're claiming the mantle of the theologically orthodox; they're saying that for those who believe the Bible to be divinely inspired, believe Jesus to be the son of God, to have been born of a virgin and resurrected after death, believe in a real Heaven and Hell, the second coming and final judgment, and the exclusivity of Christian truth, there is (contrary to what we've thought all these centuries) a scriptural mandate to be politically and socially liberal.Hermeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759992237912757958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905922288517555692.post-81543777352952531852008-06-30T23:21:00.000-04:002008-06-30T23:21:00.000-04:00Hi, Hermes...Interesting post to me as well.I ofte...Hi, Hermes...<BR/><BR/>Interesting post to me as well.<BR/><BR/>I often say "it's all in the way you phrase it."<BR/><BR/>Joseph Goebbels had a few things to say about phrasing things.<BR/><BR/>"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>"Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”<BR/><BR/>I think both of these quotes are cogent to what's happening with the way the press presents the <I>new</I> evangelicals.<BR/><BR/>God bless,<BR/>LaurelLaurel Loflundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06983044173456409615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905922288517555692.post-36018757245338811282008-06-30T22:18:00.000-04:002008-06-30T22:18:00.000-04:00Hermes - good post.A few years ago, there was a fl...Hermes - good post.<BR/>A few years ago, there was a flurry of articles in religion sections of newspapers about how there were 'progressive' evangelicals uniting to 'take back' Christianity from the 'religious right' who had, in their words, 'hijacked' it. A quick google search turns up this Washington Post piece. The tone of it is very hostile, and it was typical of the pieces I remember reading back then. There was obviously a coordinated campaign.<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/6494t8<BR/><BR/>''Americans of faith -- and those lacking one -- ought to vigorously resist attempts by power-hungry zealots to impose their religious views on the nation. That means standing up to them at every turn.<BR/><BR/>It means challenging them when they say of Americans who support a woman's right to choose; the right of two adults to enter into a loving, committed, state-sanctioned, monogamous relationship; the right to pursue science in support of life; the right of the aggrieved to launch aggressive assaults against racism, sexism and homophobia, that they are not legitimate members of the flock.''<BR/><BR/>To me it's obviously an attempt to slur and marginalize conservative Christians. I think the religious left are succeeding in turning many formerly traditional Christians away towards their version of Christianity which is liberalism in Christian garb.<BR/>-VAVanishing Americanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07723746944036650219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905922288517555692.post-46097529086753056462008-06-30T08:16:00.000-04:002008-06-30T08:16:00.000-04:00I'm not sure that it's as dishonest as all of that...I'm not sure that it's as dishonest as all of that. I think people like Jim Wallis really do feel differently about abortion and homosexuality. Where the general, secualr left does not see these as moral issues at all, people like Jim Wallis do see them as moral issues, but are more torn about what the proper response to these issues should be. I was recently labeled "misogynistic" and "insufferably self-righteous" for suggesting that pregnancy is the result of (in most cases, excluding rape) two consenting people choosing to have sex, that people probably should not be having sex if they are not willing to deal with the potential consequences, and that pregnancy is not a disease for which abortion is the only cure. Before I became a Christian, I was ardently pro-choice, but now... well, I don't think either side has it right. For the lip service paid to "safe, legal, and rare," it may as well just say "safe and legal." While I view myself as generally more progressive (particularly in Biblically supported areas such as peace and poverty), I really am torn by the way that many other progressives view certain issues and I think this is where people such as Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo find themselves. And while their stance may weaken the mass partisan power of the "Religious Right," I think it has the potential to increase Christian influence in our society by making Christianity relevant not only to conservatives, but to liberals as well. Anyway, that is just my take, though I was impressed with most of your analysis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com