The monologue of the Religious Right is over and a new conversation has begun! Join the God's Politics dialogue with Jim Wallis and friends Brian McLaren, Diana Butler Bass, Becky Garrison, Gareth Higgins, Shane Claiborne, Mary Nelson, Gabriel Salguero, Tony Campolo, and others.
Continuing a Today show special series called "The Mystery of Faith," host Meredith Vieira explores the growth of evangelical Christians in America and their changing political power.
I'm glad you got some coverage, Jim, but that segment is too heavily edited and cropped.
I prefer PBS-style coverage that fosters sustained discussions of ideas rather than the low-level, bumper-sticker logic of mainstream and cable new networks.
Come to think of it, it's precisely the bumper-sticker theology of folks like George W. Bush and Joel Osteen that I find so empty, disembodied, and detached from biblical or contemporary reality.
Jesus was once asked a question about salvation and he proceeded to tell a lengthy story about a heretic who showed compassion to a stranger. No bumper-sticker one-liners there.>
Posted by: Tenoch | November 15, 2006 12:48 AM
Only Tenoch could connect the format style of Today Show interviews to the "evils" of Bush. _>
Posted by: HAC | November 15, 2006 5:32 AM
I seem to remember a bumper sticker that read "GOD IS NOT A REPUBLICAN...........................
...or a democrat."
Who put that out?>
Posted by: Kevin s. | November 15, 2006 5:51 AM
"Who Would Jesus Bomb?"
"Jesus was a liberal"
"The Christian Right is neither Christian nor Right"
"When did Jesus become pro-rich and pro-war?"
--Bumper stickers I have seen in my city, where there are about 30 liberal stickers for every conservative one.>
Posted by: jessie | November 15, 2006 1:36 PM
Wow. Attempting to counter a critique of bumper-sticker theology by posting sloppy, opportunistic, bumper-sticker responses?
I see the trolls are still not prepared for conversation.
Dialogue is clearly threatening, and thus you work to undermine it with childish partisanship and intellectual sloth. Nice gospel you all have there.>
Posted by: Tenoch | November 15, 2006 2:18 PM
Is the issue really about bumper stickers?! Or, the fact that one group of conservatives is no longer dominating the conversation? I think it's great that mainstream media is willing to acknowledge that evangelicals can be progressive. Thanks go to Jim for helping to open up the dialog.>
Posted by: js | November 15, 2006 2:22 PM
Tenoch: This is an end to the bumper sticker theology of George W. Bush.
Others: (Counterexamples)
Tenoch: Wow, you're using counterexamples? How immature.>
Posted by: Kevin s. | November 15, 2006 3:47 PM
" ... mainstream media is willing to acknowledge that evangelicals can be progressive."
My impression (and this is not taken from the media, "mainstream" or otherwise) is that many younger evangelicals who now find themselves in the 'progressive' camp, and who maybe even voted the Democratic ticket this past go-around, did so not completely out of conviction but because it has become the trendy, hip, chic, and "emerging" thing to do so.>
Posted by: Brian | November 15, 2006 4:16 PM
Brian, I don't think you're giving much credit to young voters. I think young people are concerned about issues of war, hunger, and justice. In this particular election, that translated to democratic votes.>
Posted by: js | November 15, 2006 4:27 PM
I think moreso there is a widening of what is considered evangelical. Before, many of these young people would not have considered themselves evangelical. There is an expanding tent to include more belief systems. Therefore, I think it is less evangelicals turning liberal, than more liberals considering themselves evangelical.
Whether they actually are or not depends on what they have asked Christ for.>
Posted by: Kevin s. | November 15, 2006 5:52 PM
This blog actually doesn't give much evidence for the claim that evangelicals are becoming more liberal. The only evangelical who has posted is Campolo, really. In addition, the liberal commentators on the haloscans have all been non-evangelical, and the conservatives have been more conservative theologically (more evangelical).
However, I do think the emergent church movement, which is purporting to be "evangelical" (some of their leaders, like McLaren, are not), is attempting to move evangelicals more leftward politically. I don't believe their influence is insignificant, in this regard.>
Posted by: jessie | November 15, 2006 6:28 PM
I should say of the regular bloggers, only Campolo is evangelical...>
Posted by: jessie | November 15, 2006 6:35 PM
Interesting, Jessie. I am fairly new to reading this blog so I do not know the regular contributors.
Part of this problem has to do with the fluid nature of the term "evangelical". It is interesting to note that the term is applied by many to, for instance, politically-theologically-socially leftward Lutherans or PCUSA folk and politically-theologically-socially rightward non-denom types. The word really doesn't mean anything anymore.>
Posted by: Brian | November 15, 2006 6:51 PM
jessie,
...Bumper stickers I have seen in my city, where there are about 30 liberal stickers for every conservative one.
If it's east of the Mississippi I wonder if you could recommend a good real estate agent.:-)>
Father forgive Donny; he doesn't know what he's doing.>
Posted by: Deryll | November 16, 2006 1:21 AM
"Come to think of it, it's precisely the bumper-sticker theology of folks like George W. Bush and Joel Osteen that I find so empty, disembodied, and detached from biblical or contemporary reality."
When G.W. is given a chance to discuss his beliefs, they hardly follow this pattern. I don't think it at all reasonable to judge his or anyone else's beliefs on the basis of the sort of soundbyte-oriented reporting that characterizes the media.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 16, 2006 1:54 AM
Donny,
whatever happened to "Judge not, let ye be judged"?>
Posted by: darwin's monkey | November 17, 2006 1:51 AM
Copyright (c) 2006 Beliefnet, Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this site is subject to Terms
of Service and to our
Privacy Policy.
Constructed by Beliefnet.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I'm glad you got some coverage, Jim, but that segment is too heavily edited and cropped.
I prefer PBS-style coverage that fosters sustained discussions of ideas rather than the low-level, bumper-sticker logic of mainstream and cable new networks.
Come to think of it, it's precisely the bumper-sticker theology of folks like George W. Bush and Joel Osteen that I find so empty, disembodied, and detached from biblical or contemporary reality.
Jesus was once asked a question about salvation and he proceeded to tell a lengthy story about a heretic who showed compassion to a stranger. No bumper-sticker one-liners there.>
Posted by: Tenoch | November 15, 2006 12:48 AM
Only Tenoch could connect the format style of Today Show interviews to the "evils" of Bush.
_>
Posted by: HAC | November 15, 2006 5:32 AM
I seem to remember a bumper sticker that read "GOD IS NOT A REPUBLICAN...........................
...or a democrat."
Who put that out?>
Posted by: Kevin s. | November 15, 2006 5:51 AM
"Who Would Jesus Bomb?"
"Jesus was a liberal"
"The Christian Right is neither Christian nor Right"
"When did Jesus become pro-rich and pro-war?"
--Bumper stickers I have seen in my city, where there are about 30 liberal stickers for every conservative one.>
Posted by: jessie | November 15, 2006 1:36 PM
Wow. Attempting to counter a critique of bumper-sticker theology by posting sloppy, opportunistic, bumper-sticker responses?
I see the trolls are still not prepared for conversation.
Dialogue is clearly threatening, and thus you work to undermine it with childish partisanship and intellectual sloth. Nice gospel you all have there.>
Posted by: Tenoch | November 15, 2006 2:18 PM
Is the issue really about bumper stickers?! Or, the fact that one group of conservatives is no longer dominating the conversation? I think it's great that mainstream media is willing to acknowledge that evangelicals can be progressive. Thanks go to Jim for helping to open up the dialog.>
Posted by: js | November 15, 2006 2:22 PM
Tenoch: This is an end to the bumper sticker theology of George W. Bush.
Others: (Counterexamples)
Tenoch: Wow, you're using counterexamples? How immature.>
Posted by: Kevin s. | November 15, 2006 3:47 PM
" ... mainstream media is willing to acknowledge that evangelicals can be progressive."
My impression (and this is not taken from the media, "mainstream" or otherwise) is that many younger evangelicals who now find themselves in the 'progressive' camp, and who maybe even voted the Democratic ticket this past go-around, did so not completely out of conviction but because it has become the trendy, hip, chic, and "emerging" thing to do so.>
Posted by: Brian | November 15, 2006 4:16 PM
Brian,
I don't think you're giving much credit to young voters. I think young people are concerned about issues of war, hunger, and justice. In this particular election, that translated to democratic votes.>
Posted by: js | November 15, 2006 4:27 PM
I think moreso there is a widening of what is considered evangelical. Before, many of these young people would not have considered themselves evangelical. There is an expanding tent to include more belief systems. Therefore, I think it is less evangelicals turning liberal, than more liberals considering themselves evangelical.
Whether they actually are or not depends on what they have asked Christ for.>
Posted by: Kevin s. | November 15, 2006 5:52 PM
This blog actually doesn't give much evidence for the claim that evangelicals are becoming more liberal. The only evangelical who has posted is Campolo, really. In addition, the liberal commentators on the haloscans have all been non-evangelical, and the conservatives have been more conservative theologically (more evangelical).
However, I do think the emergent church movement, which is purporting to be "evangelical" (some of their leaders, like McLaren, are not), is attempting to move evangelicals more leftward politically. I don't believe their influence is insignificant, in this regard.>
Posted by: jessie | November 15, 2006 6:28 PM
I should say of the regular bloggers, only Campolo is evangelical...>
Posted by: jessie | November 15, 2006 6:35 PM
Interesting, Jessie. I am fairly new to reading this blog so I do not know the regular contributors.
Part of this problem has to do with the fluid nature of the term "evangelical". It is interesting to note that the term is applied by many to, for instance, politically-theologically-socially leftward Lutherans or PCUSA folk and politically-theologically-socially rightward non-denom types. The word really doesn't mean anything anymore.>
Posted by: Brian | November 15, 2006 6:51 PM
jessie,
...Bumper stickers I have seen in my city, where there are about 30 liberal stickers for every conservative one.
If it's east of the Mississippi I wonder if you could recommend a good real estate agent.:-)>
Posted by: Daniel | November 15, 2006 7:38 PM
By the way, for Sojourner folks I like the bumper sticker from Ron Chandonia: http://madprof.home.mindspring.com/ethic.html
.>
Posted by: Daniel | November 15, 2006 7:46 PM
Jim Wallis has become a Christian?
Good job Dr. Dobson.>
Posted by: Donny | November 15, 2006 10:38 PM
[[Jim Wallis has become a Christian?
Good job Dr. Dobson.
Donny]]
Father forgive Donny; he doesn't know what he's doing.>
Posted by: Deryll | November 16, 2006 1:21 AM
"Come to think of it, it's precisely the bumper-sticker theology of folks like George W. Bush and Joel Osteen that I find so empty, disembodied, and detached from biblical or contemporary reality."
When G.W. is given a chance to discuss his beliefs, they hardly follow this pattern. I don't think it at all reasonable to judge his or anyone else's beliefs on the basis of the sort of soundbyte-oriented reporting that characterizes the media.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 16, 2006 1:54 AM
Donny,
whatever happened to "Judge not, let ye be judged"?>
Posted by: darwin's monkey | November 17, 2006 1:51 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?