Comments on: Riffs: 03:15:09: How the Left Perceives Evangelicals: Change? Really?

By: Josephine

Josephine — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:30:55 +0000

At this point in American history, christian leaders like Pat Robertson, James Dobson and all pastors need to get out of politics and go back to preaching the gospel of Christ. Unfortunately the damage these men have caused to the cause of Christ is so great it will take a new generation of leaders to erase. Indeed, Christ avoided politics, instead we see him addressing the real need of man which is transformation of the soul and spirit. We forget that Christ lived at a time when the Jews and indeed the known world was under Roman oppression. People were being crucified daily, new borns were dashed to their deaths and yes there were homosexuals all over the place. He chose not to speak out against these things but rather to deal with eternal issues. If he had chosen to go after the Romans, we would not have the gospel today. It would have been obscured by the more bellicose message of politics. When questioned by Pontius Pilate, he told him his kingdom was not of this world! I wish our pastors and leaders could remember that a little more often. Maybe we followers of Christ can learn from this humble son of a carpenter who remains a star over 2000 years later.
Churches like the Seventh day Adventist church are to be commended for their wisdom. They are every bit as evangelical as the others but have wisely chosen to keep the political views of their leaders out of the public arena.
I hope that the election of Barack Obama a black man of direct African descent finally shocks christian leaders in this country into realising that just as God chose Cyrus, a man who did not even know him, to rebiuld his temple and Jerusalem, he can allow whoever he wants to rule this nation.
We meanwhile need to be about the master’s business no matter who is in the white house.Our duty is to convince others by reason and persuasion with all respect about the goodness of Christ and not to force our beliefs down other people throats.

By: Dan Allison

Dan Allison — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:43:37 +0000

Michael, you are always measured and thoughtful, yet I think abortion is the oneplace where we would disagree. The problem, of course, is how to stand for righteousness and against abortion without appearing to buy the rest of the far-right agenda. Because I oppose abortion — and consider it murder in almost every circumstance — does not mean I am a young-earth creationist, a racist, a warmonger, or a Glenn Beck-style “crush the poor” capitalist. I too believe marijuana should be decriminalized, not because there’s anything good about pot, but simply because the police have better things to do, and pot users often are not “criminals” in any other sense.
But I do believe that “nuanced” views on abortion are simply compromises, and that the political right’s willingness to compromise undermines the credibility — and the internal logic — of the pro-life position. I have always opposed “parental consent” — that you can muder someone provided you have a note from mommy — and “informed consent” — that you can kill someone provided you’ve seen an ultrasound picture. I think that’s nonsense. Equally insane is the Obama position, that we fight abortion by eliminating “root causes” — it’s like saying we don’t criminalize wife-beating, we merely work to “eliminate the root causes” of wife-beating.
Frankly, if anyone knew how to handle this abortion thing, it would have been dealt with long ago. I’ve withdrawn from being an activist on the issue, but we simply cannot compromise the dignity and worth of those created in God’s image, even in their embryonic stages. Of course we must work to create a culture that nourishes life and values children…and pray…

By: Anna A

Anna A — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:06:17 +0000

Joe,

I rarely talk politics, being a yellow dog Republican Catholic. .

One way to consider, without it being a cheap shot, is that President Obama is a good man, but not effective as being President. That’s the way I think about former President Carter.

By: Janet Aldrich

Janet Aldrich — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:05:25 +0000

I guess I’m a conservative libertarian, if I’m anything; I’ve gotten pretty apolitical, except for specific local issues and candidates.

Sorry, I guess I differ from most of you. I don’t think the Bible is situational. It is what it is, and if you decide to ignore pieces you don’t like or don’t think apply, then I guess you will. I’m not going to.

And I don’t eat shrimp either, FWIW.

By: Joe Fahler

Joe Fahler — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:44:31 +0000

If you really want to raise the level of discourse between Christians on the left and the right, you might want to refrain from cheap shots such as “Obama is the next Jimmy Carter.” I guess glib proclamations is the name of the game here, we’ve got “inept”, “non-Christian” from some poster who apparently has the ability to see directly into the souls of others…anyone else want to toss in a few more? Or shall we get back to meat of the issue and leave the BS at the curbside?

By: beatrice

beatrice — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:56:51 +0000

Stumbled into this article after reading the one in Slate. I’m a liberal who disagrees with a good handful of your assertions here but wanted to express, like others on this wall, my appreciation of your refreshing, open-minded rheotoric.

By: David Learn

David Learn — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:33:03 +0000

Hi Michael,

You write an interesting article, and I appreciate your perspective, but I have to say, I do think there *is* a change going on among younger Christians traditionally defined as evangelicals, and as a group they are becoming more socially liberal.

You are correct — both voices have been there all along, for those who know where to look. But following the victories of the Religious Left in the 1960s, the Religious Right rose to ascendancy in the 1970s by politics about “values” (usually morality) rather than about social justice, which in a religious context often was dismissed in evangelical circles as a “social gospel,” and somehow less sacred or True than the spiritual gospel being pushed instead. The Religious Left didn’t disappear, but it did fade, and as is often the case, the crowd of moderates gradually shifted toward the voices on the Right that were dominating.

It’s not entirely fair to say that “the media” anointed the leaders and speakers for evangelicals. Most were chosen by evangelicals who listened to their programs, distributed their material, and made the phone calls that they were asked to. It’s not reasonable to fault the media for noting who the political power-brokers were in Christian circles; the fault lies with us for ever elevating them to that level.

I am curious to see how the leftward shift plays itself out in terms of evangelicalism. It’s been made clear to me by a good number of evangelicals that the tent isn’t big enough for me because of my political viewpoints — even though my religious views fall squarely within orthodoxy. That sort of political bellicosity, combined with an eagerness to define evangelicalism along narrower and narrower doctrinal lines, led me several years ago to ditch the evangelical label. I’m happy to be known as “post-evangelical” or, more simply, “not evangelical.”

From what I’ve read, my experience is hardly unique. Some people, like Gary Olson, are trying to reclaim the evangelical label for the inclusivity it once represented, but from what I can tell, that hasn’t been happening. If the strident voices on the Right politically continue to push away those who don’t toe the party line, how long will this new generation of politically liberal Christians be willing to identify themselves with a movement that’s become known for not wanting them?

By: Rob Lofland

Rob Lofland — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:33:27 +0000

I apologize Drew G. the contact info is not on that site.
Try t e x g u y @ t e x g u y . net
Spread out to discourage spammers. (THE DEVIL’s SPAWN).

By: Rob Lofland

Rob Lofland — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:00:39 +0000

BTW
This is an example of closed-mindedness.
If the fetus is not human then kill the annoying insect.
If it is human protect it with the full force of you life and the law.
I only see a middle ground if the birth is going to cause physical death to the mother in which case it is justifiable homicide.
Don’t bring up the death penalty. They are only marginally related in that both result in death.
Here’s a deal.
I will wholeheartedly support abolition of the death penalty if the pro-choice people will give the same benefit of the doubt to fetuses.
After all, the argument are:
1.Don’t make mistakes in who dies.
2. They might become humans or humans again in the case of murderers.

By: Rob Lofland

Rob Lofland — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:51:06 +0000

on 16 Mar 2009 at 8:15 pm Joseph
“I don’t know if you’d call this pro-choice, ….

Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience. Therefore, a decision concerning abortion should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel.”

It’s either a human or it’s not a human.
Anything else is strainig for gnats.

Methodists, take a stand.