God's Politics

God's Politics


Daoud Kuttab: Good News for Palestinian Christians

posted by God's Politics

I first heard about the letter of the evangelical leaders through an e-mail from Professor Ron Sider, who used to teach at Messiah College, where I graduated. It was a gift from heaven after so many bad statements by evangelicals justifying killings, occupation, and the pillage of our land using so-called biblical interpretations. I tried to get the letter to as many media outlets as I know, especially some of the major newspapers and satellite TV stations like al Jazzera and Al Arrabiyeh. I wanted people in our part of the world to know that there are other Christian evangelicals from America who think and speak differently than the Pat Robertsons, Jerry Fallwells and other Christian Zionists.
The same day, my family and I were invited to the home of the pastor of the local Christian Alliance Church in Amman. Reverend Yousef Hashweh and his wife are long-time friends of my parents and my wife’s family. My father-in-law was an Alliance pastor in Jerusalem between 1957 and 1975. They had invited us for a good-bye dinner as we were about to travel to the U.S. I have been asked to teach a course at Princeton University on the topic of new media in the Arab world.
When I told them about the letter and that one of the signatories was the president of the Christian & Missionary Alliance, they rushed to their computer and made a print out of the letter. They were checking to be sure that Gary M. Benedict, president of the Christian & Missionary Alliance, had in fact signed a letter calling for a Palestinian state.
We spent the evening trading stories of the many false predictions (spoken as if they were true prophecies) made by Christian evangelicals about our part over the years. I told them my favorite story of seeing Pat Robertson in 1982 opening his Bible while speaking on the 700 Club, stating that the invasion of Israel to Lebanon was specifically detailed in the Old Testament and that PLO leader Yasser Arafat was none other than the anti-Christ. And then 12 years later the same Pat Robertson was taking a photo opportunity with none other than the former anti-Christ, Yasser Arafat, at his Gaza residency as Robertson was giving a donation of milk for Palestinian children.
The letter of the 34 evangelical leaders certainly was a pleasant surprise to many of us Christians in the Middle East who were beginning to doubt our own understanding of our faith in light of so many televangelists throwing themselves blindly behind the Israeli military. Hopefully these voices of sanity will continue and we will hear the true voice of an evangelical community who believes in justice and human rights. Liberty and freedom apply both to the spiritual as well as to the worldly needs of humankind. The sooner the evangelicals of the world embrace that, the sooner this will be a better world for all of us.
Daoud Kuttab is a Palestinian journalist and the director of the Institute of Modern Media at Al Quds University and the founder of the Arab world’s first internet radio station, ammannet. His e-mail is info@daoudkuttab.com.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(70)
post a comment
Wolverine

posted August 6, 2007 at 4:59 pm


I told them my favorite story of seeing Pat Robertson in 1982 opening his Bible while speaking on the 700 club stating that the invasion of Israel to Lebanon was specifically detailed in the old testament and that PLO leader Yaser Arafat was none other than the anti Christ.
Good ‘ole Pat Robertson. Always useful for a quote at Sojo.
Wolverine



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 6, 2007 at 6:03 pm


Pat Robertson is only one evangelist preacher of many who could be quoted with pro Israel, anti Palestinian statehood rhetoric.
And Pat’s not as hardline as others – like John Hagee, for example.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 6, 2007 at 9:34 pm


Posted by: justintime | August 6, 2007 6:03 PM
And for everyone of them there are dozens of other evangelicals that do not agree with Robertson and Co. But they are not as well known and do not get the press like the others nor will they because the NYT and others want the world to believe that all evangelicals are Pat, John and Jerry clones.
Blessings –
.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 6, 2007 at 11:30 pm


And for everyone of them there are dozens of other evangelicals that do not agree with Robertson and Co. But they are not as well known and do not get the press like the others nor will they because the NYT and others want the world to believe that all evangelicals are Pat, John and Jerry clones.
They simply do not have the microphones or the money rolling in to buy air time — if they did we’d be having a serious debate already. And besides, for that reason they really do believe they represent mainstream evangelicalism.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 7, 2007 at 12:37 am


Televangelists and media preachers have their own media networks, media production studios and broadcasting stations.
They don’t have to buy, borrow or beg a megaphone. They own their own noise machine.
With a captive audience – millions of zoned out Christians – media preaching is an enormous cash cow.
In many markets the ‘God Shows’ dominate the broadcasting spectrum.
The FCC looks the other way as they boost power over regulated limits and drown out local radio.
The God Shows distort American political discourse and awareness, creating a dangerous threat to our democracy.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 7, 2007 at 12:54 am


I previously wrote:
“”I’m sure Pat Robertson said something about it at some point, which was sufficient to tag all of us with it.”
Kuttab wrote:
” I told them my favorite story of seeing Pat Robertson in 1982″
Justintime goes on about this Hagee fellow, who is apparently on TBN.
I reject the teachings of TBN, by and large, and literally do not know a single Christian who embraces them. I am aware that there are, strictly speaking, multiple religious leaders who are pro-Israel no matter what.
But simply Googling someone who holds what would otherwise be a strawman position does not put you in the right. The unwillingness of Palestinian Christians to stand up to their leadership is, well, I’d say its appalling, but I can understand the impulse.
Either way, I am not going to support policy that complies with Palestinian demands simply because someone evokes certain names. I am not accountable for Pat Robertson’s words any more than I am accountable for Jim Wallis’. Thank God for that, on both counts.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 7, 2007 at 1:26 am


Is that you, Kevin?
Televangelists reach a mass audience with all the glamour of modern media, claiming leadership over the entire evangelical movement.
You reject the noise emanating from the God shows and don’t know any other Christians tuned into Christian media networks.
But the secular community judges the evangelical movement by watching the God shows.
Frustrating, isn’t it?



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted August 7, 2007 at 8:49 am


I’m familiar enough with John Hagee to say that if you really had the goods on him he’d be fair game. And while we can individually reject TBN (Me? I’m more likely to be watching Telemundo than TBN) the fact is it’s out there, somebody must be watching.
But I’d like to hear more specifics — what exactly did Hagee say?
One can support Israel passionately and still accept a two-state solution. I know some evangelicals can be a little meschugenah with the Israel love, but there’s an important distinction to be made between emphasizing (or overemphasizing) Israel’s claim to the land and calling for ethnic cleansing in the West Bank.
Supporting Israel is a general principle. The two-state solution is a political program. Sympathizing with the first might lead one to reject the second, but it isn’t automatic. Just because a preacher goes over the top on the former doesn’t mean you can assume he’s opposed to the latter.
So far nobody’s shown that even Pat Robertson has explicitly denounced the two-state solution. Am I the only one here who smells a microwaved cat?
Wolverine



report abuse
 

Ben Wheaton

posted August 7, 2007 at 9:36 am


It is irritating that many evangelicals believe that Israel is still God’s chosen land and people. Still, support of Israel as a state has lots of good reasons behind it (both prudential and moral). The two-state solution is the end goal for most evangelicals, I suspect, but many of us just don’t trust the Arabs to keep their side of the bargain. If Israel should give up the Golan heights, what then? Would Syria use it to invade Israel? Who knows.
And it’s interesting that Robertson would be portrayed in a reasonably good light on a site like sojourners, that usually believes him to be the antichrist.



report abuse
 

Donny

posted August 7, 2007 at 9:42 am


“Liberty and freedom apply both to the spiritual as well as to the worldly needs of humankind.”
Yes, but the Palestinian problem lies in the fact that to the 99% of Palestinians who are Muslim this includes AK-47’s and bombs to secure their freedom by killing Israeli’s.
Will you dear sir, gain a Palestinian country at the cost of Israeli Jews and others) lined up and shot down like so much grass being mowed? Or, forced to become Muslims for survival?
Palestinians and Islam have proven their intentions are not honorable, peaceful or fair.
I think it is great that Pat Robertson would take a picture with the anti-Christ WHILE GIVING FOOD to the suffering masses. What Christian is afraid of the Anti-Christ or his minions?
Interesting that there are so many suffering masses within Islamic countries don’t you think?
AND, the Israeli’s do not, as yet, use suicide bombs and machine guns to mow down innocent infidels. Israel fights her enemies as any country should. And if Palestinians – as typical Muslims – would not desire to enslave or kill non-Muslims under Islamic law, then a peace could be reached. But alas, as my post is removed here ate Beliefnet, reality will still move on to grueling reality.
Do you recognize Israel’s the right to exist.
I am a Christian, and unless I see peaceful mass demonstrations AGAINST THE VIOLENT Muslims, IN MUSLIM LANDS, then it is politics – and its accompanying propaganda -as usual.
I would be willing to join my Christian brothers and sisters in Palestine to demonstrate against violent Islamist Jihadists and the support they definately have within the majority of Muslim Palestinians. Being murdered in the land where so many other Christians were murdered is somewhat eery, but “if” the Lord wills it and you would house me, then I would go.
Come on now, as soon as the violent factions of Palestinians (Muslims) gain the riddance of Israeli’s, their next victims will be all of the Christians in that part of the Earth.
There is solid proof of that.
As a Christian, for the most part, I am still supporting the way the Israeli’s deal with the situation of violence against them in their own country and not supporting the way Palestinians have dealt with it. The Israeli’have their bad side without doubt, but they do not have the Qur’an to back it up.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 7, 2007 at 10:20 am


Yes, but the Palestinian problem lies in the fact that to the 99% of Palestinians who are Muslim this includes AK-47’s and bombs to secure their freedom by killing Israelis.
False, Donny. For openers, about one-third of Palestinians are (at least nominal) Christians, so religion has little or nothing do to with that. Second, evangelical Christians are actually persecuted in Israel — wouldn’t that concern you?
AND, the Israelis do not, as yet, use suicide bombs and machine guns to mow down innocent infidels. Israel fights her enemies as any country should.
What would you do against the Israeli war machine? I remember elsewhere that some folks were aghast that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon, never mind that it’s almost accepted that Israel has several.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 7, 2007 at 10:22 am


Posted by: justintime | August 7, 2007 12:37 AM
With a captive audience – millions of zoned out Christians – media preaching is an enormous cash cow.
In many markets the ‘God Shows’ dominate the broadcasting spectrum.

Sorry – as one of the ‘zoned out’ I find your comments limited and erroneous. They are many of us that are not ‘zoned’ as you label. We understand that there are differing opinions. Just because we listen to D. Jame Kennedy – does not mean that we take everything he says ‘hock-line and sinker’. Like I said before – for every Pat Robertson there are dozens more evangelical preachers that would not say the same thing. These people would never be asked by the Dem Party to give the Sat address either.
Would you please stop broad-brushing all evangelicals as Robertson clones – were not!
Later –
.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 7, 2007 at 11:14 am


Like I said before — for every Pat Robertson there are dozens more evangelical preachers that would not say the same thing.
Then why do they not stand up and say so? It is our relative silence that gives the world the idea that we do. But then again, if you do you get pilloried for “not believing the Bible.”



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 7, 2007 at 11:29 am


Wolverine says: “But I’d like to hear more specifics — what exactly did Hagee say?”
Regarding John Hagee, I posted this on Deanna Murshed’s thread:
“Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized ‘Christians United for Israel’ Tour” by Max Blumenthal
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/7/27/22848/0528/Front_Page/Rapture_Ready_The_Unauthorized_Christians_United_for_Israel_Tour
Max Blumenthal writes:
‘I attended the Christians United for Israel’s annual Washington-Israel Summit. Founded by San Antonio-based megachurch pastor John Hagee, CUFI has added the grassroots muscle of the Christian right to the already potent Israel lobby. Hagee and his minions have forged close ties with the Bush White House and members of Congress from Sen. Joseph Lieberman to Sen. John McCain. In its call for a unilateral military attack on Iran and the expansion of Israeli territory, CUFI has found unwavering encouragement from traditional pro-Israel groups like AIPAC and elements of the Israeli government.
But CUFI has an ulterior agenda: its support for Israel derives from the belief of Hagee and his flock that Jesus will return to Jerusalem after the battle of Armageddon and cleanse the earth of evil. In the end, all the non-believers – Jews, Muslims, Hindus, mainline Christians, etc. – must convert or suffer the torture of eternal damnation.’
You could also read Hagee’s book ‘Jerusalem Countdown’.
Or watch you-tube clips of Hagee’s sermons:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcPfBQCT40M



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 7, 2007 at 11:34 am


Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 7, 2007 11:14 AM
Then why do they not stand up and say so?
They do not have the money to get out there on the radio and TV. They also know that to openly challenge them just gives them another area of the Christian world that is talking about them again and again. These ‘quiet evangelists’ for lack of a better name, focus on what they believe God has called them to do and it is not to argue with each other. For the “jit’s” of the world – these people will never effect how they think. I believe that God does put people into office for a season, something that I would like to talk to him about during my second 1000 years in heaven. We need to focus on and keep the main thing the main thing.
Blessings –
.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 7, 2007 at 11:54 am


Laddy says:
‘Sorry – as one of the ‘zoned out’ I find your comments limited and erroneous. They are many of us that are not ‘zoned’ as you label. We understand that there are differing opinions. Just because we listen to D. Jame Kennedy – does not mean that we take everything he says ‘hock-line and sinker’. Like I said before – for every Pat Robertson there are dozens more evangelical preachers that would not say the same thing.’
Would you please stop broad-brushing all evangelicals as Robertson clones – were not!’
______________________________
D. James Kennedy:
Kennedy is strongly opposed to same-sex marriage and calls for a constitutional “Firewall” to protect the nation from “counterfeit marriage.”
Kennedy is a Young Earth Creationist and supporter of intelligent design who rejects the theory of evolution and believes that it “led to the death of nine million people in Nazi Germany…. The greatest mass murderers of all time [are] all compliments of evolution.”
Kennedy seeks to “reclaim America for Christ” in which government policies and laws would be consistent with evangelical Christianity. Many of his public messages on this topic focus on his assertion that the Founding Fathers of America were Christian and had intended to establish a Christian constitution.
Kennedy was a co-signer of the “Land Letter” sent to President Bush in October 2002 which outlined a “just war” rationale for the military invasion of Iraq
_____________________________________
Why do you listen to this man, Laddy?
I do not broad brush all evangelicals as Pat Robertson clones.
I’m just saying that secular America thinks evangelicals are all represented by what they see on the God shows.
Sane evangelicals have not been able to effectively counter this erroneous impression because they do not have equal access to the media.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 7, 2007 at 12:45 pm


Posted by: justintime | August 7, 2007 11:54 AM
Why do you listen to this man, Laddy?
We still have free speech in this country – don’t we?
‘…strongly opposed to same-sex marriage…’
I believe that the Bible does support his statements. I believe that there could be ‘civil unions’ that are reconginzed but are different than marriage.
‘…Young Earth Creationist and supporter of intelligent design…’
You can argue this topic both ways as I look at them to be ‘theories’ in the secular world.
‘…seeks to “reclaim America for Christ” in which government policies and laws…’
From what I have read in some of the Federalist Papers – we are a secular nation whose Constitution and Bill of Rights are based on the morals and ethics of the Bible. We are ‘endowed by our Creator’ and have the right to persue ‘life, liberty and happiness’. Jefferson requested that the Bible be read in the schools. Franklin – although more a ‘deiest’ asked those that were drafting the Declairation of Independence to pray at the beginging of each session.
“Land Letter”
Signed by many others that made compelling arguments supporting ‘just war’ and the premptive move on Iraq. Colson has a great piece on this too.
So – the discussion goes on and on. Someday it will be settled – not all will be in agreement, but it will be settled.
Have a great day!
.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 7, 2007 at 12:55 pm


They do not have the money to get out there on the radio and TV.
There — you said it. And there’s a reason for that — they’re not preaching what a lot of folks want to hear.
Sane evangelicals have not been able to effectively counter this erroneous impression because they do not have equal access to the media.
Specifically Christian media. I wonder how often Jim Wallis gets on Christian TV, and I doubt he’s been invited in the 700 Club.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 7, 2007 at 1:37 pm


“There — you said it. And there’s a reason for that — they’re not preaching what a lot of folks want to hear.”
Right. But that’s a watered-down gospel issue, not an Israel issue.
“I wonder how often Jim Wallis gets on Christian TV, and I doubt he’s been invited in the 700 Club”
How much Christian TV is there? I’ll concede it would be difficult to see a pro-choice, pro gay-marriage Democrat who thinks the President might be the anti-Christ on the 700 Club.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 7, 2007 at 1:37 pm


Laddy says:
‘Jefferson requested that the Bible be read in the schools.’
Your claim is debunked here:
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg6.htmFranklin
Laddy says:
‘although more a ‘deiest’ asked those that were drafting the Declairation of Independence to pray at the beginging of each session.’
‘At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when the convention seemed to head for disaster due to heated debate, the elderly Franklin displayed his conviction of a deity that was intimately involved in human affairs by requesting that each day’s session begin with prayers. Franklin recalled the days of the Revolutionary War, when the American leaders assembled in prayer daily, seeking “divine guidance” from the “Father of lights.” He then rhetorically asked, “And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?”.
Although Franklin may have financially supported one particular Presbyterian group in Philadelphia , it nevertheless appears that he never formally joined any particular Christian denomination or any other religion.
According to the epitaph Franklin wrote for himself at the age of 20, it is clear that he believed in a physical resurrection of the body some time after death. Whether this belief was held throughout his life is unclear.’
OK Laddy, where does it say that Franklin proposed American government be based on Christianity?



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 7, 2007 at 1:45 pm


Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 7, 2007 12:55 PM
There — you said it. And there’s a reason for that — they’re not preaching what a lot of folks want to hear.
You are correct. What Kennedy – Dobson have to say resonates with the majority of Christians today. They can inspire their base and challenge them to become active in any number of issues. Wallis and people like him and their message, not that their message is wrong or bad. They are just uninspiring in their delivery. They use the ‘bash Bush’ and the ‘Dobson is for Dummies’ argument too much. There are several items that I could get on board with Mr. Wallis – but the way he talks, and writes I might add, I have to discredit what I like about Kennedy and Dobson inorder to support Wallis. I can not do that. I know of more people that have had their life effected in a very positive manner by these ministries.
Sane evangelicals have not been able to effectively counter this erroneous impression…’
Maybe we need to define ‘sane’. Ministers and others that disagree with the Kennedy’s and Dobson’s of the world are not able to motivate their base to action and more importantly – add to their numbers. Kennedy’s “EE” has done more Kingdom Work than many others and because he has put the majority of his focus on ‘personal evangelism’ he has credibility with people on other issues. If God did not want Kennedy’s message out there for all to hear – Kennedy would be a modest preacher in an average church and Wallis would have the pully pulpit that he desires so much. God put people into areas of influence and He can remove them.
With all the people that Wallis seems to have involved with Sojo – he needs to find a PR person that can assist him in framing his message to inspire people. Sadly – he is kinda flat and I doubt that he will be spearhead in the Christian community and spokesperson that he so wants to be.
Blessings –
.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 7, 2007 at 1:58 pm


Posted by: justintime | August 7, 2007 1:37 PM
Your link does not work –
The Federalist Papers I think are more correct than your website.
The member of the Const. Congress wrote –
‘We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator…’
They understood the role of the Almighty and desired to establish a secular gov’t based on morals and values of Holy Scripture – The Bible.
The US in really the only country that talks about a ‘Judeo-Christian Ethic’ because of the Bible. Most European countries see there ethical base devoid of “Judeo” teachings.
Have a great day –
.



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted August 7, 2007 at 2:08 pm


Somebody posted a link to the “Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour” as evidence of what John Hagee said about the two-state solution. But the link contains no quotes from Hagee. What’s there is actually a gripe about the conference not allowing videotapes of attendees. Now whether or not that’s wise is a whole other question (I tend to sympathize with Blumenthal on this) but there’s little of what Hagee actually says to be found in this.
As for the collected speeches of John Hagee, what’s going on here is you want us to do your homework for you — instead of finding the quote and pointing us to it, you want us to go through his speeches and find it for you. Either that or you seem to think that after picking any Hagee sermon at random we should just know that Hagee is the kind of purely evil sort that would oppose the two state solution.
Well, maybe he is. Hagee does strike me as a bit of a blowhard. But then again, I’m an Anglican, and we’re used to sermons that are several decibels lower than what evangelicals are used to. Either way that’s not the same as opposing the two-state solution.
There’s that microwaved cat smell again. Where the heck could that be coming from?
Wolverine



report abuse
 

Eric

posted August 7, 2007 at 2:15 pm


I’m still interested in hearing what this guy Hagee actually says (and not just how some third party describes his event) and why evangelical Christians are supposed to tarred with his brush…
If there aren’t any direct quotes from him on the internet than I doubt he’s that popular among any group of people.
The fact is that the vast majority of evangelical Christians in the U.S. support three things: 1) the right of Israel to exist, 2) the right of the Palestinians to have their own state, and 3) peace between the two states and nations. Digging up quotes from Robertson from the 80s doesn’t change this fact. If Kuttab gets the impression that most evangelical Christians think the Palestians don’t deserve their own state then maybe he should choose different news sources that provide him more accurate information or talk to more evangelical Christians.



report abuse
 

Ryan Rodrick Beiler

posted August 7, 2007 at 2:16 pm


justintime, please stop the repeated use of “Laddy”–it sounds like a schoolyard taunt, distracts readers from your actual arguments, and degrades the level of discourse on this blog.
Thanks.
Ryan Rodrick Beiler
Web Editor
Sojourners



report abuse
 

Eric

posted August 7, 2007 at 2:24 pm


Hey Wolverine… In what state do you live in, if you don’t mind me asking?



report abuse
 

Alicia

posted August 7, 2007 at 2:44 pm


I am not (and never have been) an evangelical Christian, and I’ve supported a two-state solution for years, but reluctantly, in the last couple of years, I’ve concluded that those who dominate the Palestinian leadership have never been sincere in wanting a two-state solution.
It’s my feeling that people on the liberal side of the spectrum have been so anti-Israel in recent years that they encouraged the delusional Palestinian majority that appears to believe that a one-state solution is possible.
I recognize that Palestinians who genuinely want peace exist, but it seems to me that they have been systematically intimidated, terrorized, and suppressed by the extremists who hold the upper hand.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 7, 2007 at 2:49 pm


“I do not broad brush all evangelicals as Pat Robertson clones.
I’m just saying that secular America thinks evangelicals are all represented by what they see on the God shows.
Sane evangelicals have not been able to effectively counter this erroneous impression because they do not have equal access to the media.”
This is the heart of the argument. Robertson is heard as a much louder voice than more centrist Christians because he has the resources to get his voice out there. Therefore, all Christians are painted with a broad brush as just like him because he and others like him are viewed as the voice of Christianity. It isn’t because they are our voice. It isn’t because the secular media paints Christians as Robertson clones. It is because that is the loudest voice the secular world hears (that being said, many of the Christians I know share many of Robertson and others’ views).
Someone way up the thread asked why those who don’t agree with Robertson and company don’t speak out more loudly. This exact same question is asked repeatedly on the atheist blog I occasionally visit. If I or others tell them that Robertson does not speak for me, that there are Christians who are nothing like him, I am asked “if that is true, why don’t you speak out more?”
If our goal is to bring people to Christ and promote the Kingdom of God, and many in the secular world are repelled because of the stereotype they are presented with by the Christian media (NOT the secular media), then why, indeed, don’t we speak out? Are we called to be polite and shut up when our brothers and sisters are wrong? We are to speak the truth in love, but we are to speak the truth.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted August 7, 2007 at 2:52 pm


Sorry–above post posted by Squeaky



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 7, 2007 at 3:10 pm


Posted by: squeaky | August 7, 2007 2:52 PM
We are to speak the truth in love, but we are to speak the truth.
Yes – speak the truth in love. I have at one time or another supported various ‘Christian TV Ministers’ because they were dealing with an issue of project that I wanted to support. I never supported PTL or the Kroush’s on any project. I also never ‘dis’ them in public. I looked at it as being on seperate – parrell tracks when it came to ministry. I know of people in my own church that have come to Christ through these ministries. They also grew in their faith to realize that there was more to faith than what PTL told them.
Side-bar…
Interesting that this site can have one of their writers put together an article on A.N. Smith who was a bottle blonde and wore too much make-up but nothing is written about another bottle blonde with too much make-up – Tammy Faye Bakker Messner.
I personally tried to find out what brand of make-up she used – I would have invested in it. (humor – yuck, yuck, yuck)
Have a great day –
.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 7, 2007 at 3:41 pm


Wolverine says,”I’m still interested in hearing what this guy Hagee actually says (and not just how some third party describes his event) and why evangelical Christians are supposed to tarred with his brush…”
The letter from Christians United for Israel, whose leader, Pastor John Hagee, was a keynote speaker at AIPAC’s Washington policy conference this year, lectured Bush, “Simply stated, land for peace is a failed policy of the past that has produced nothing but more war. Under the current circumstances, we feel a two-state solution would be unwise.”
Wolverine says “There’s that microwaved cat smell again. Where the heck could that be coming from?”
Check your microwave, Wolverine.
There may be a cat in there.



report abuse
 

jesse

posted August 7, 2007 at 3:54 pm


re: Robertson and the popular media assumption that he is the leader of christian conservatives or evangelicals, it is worth pointing out that polls have shown that most evangelicals have a negative view of him and were actually more likely to have a positive view of pope JP II. also, I think it’s safe to say that most evangelicals have not heard of Hagee, and he represents a small minority of evangelicals.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 7, 2007 at 3:58 pm


For Wolverine, who apparently lacks the ability to google:
CQ Weekly. You’ve also opposed the two-state solution in Israel. Why?
Hagee. “The road map to peace is a flawed model. It has our government giving millions to Fatah, which is a terrorist organization and is so profoundly corrupt that their own people invited another terrorist organization, Hamas, to take them over. It’s one group of thugs ruling another.”
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqw/weeklyreport110-000002561303.html
More quotes from John Hagee
“I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God … I believe that Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.” (Fresh Air, 9/18/2006)
“Those who live by the Quran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews.” (Fresh Air, 9/18/2006)
“I would hope the United States would join Israel in a military pre-emptive strike to take out the nuclear capability of Iran for the salvation of Western civilization.” (Jerusalem Post, 3/21/2006)



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 7, 2007 at 4:01 pm


Jesse says: “re: Robertson and the popular media assumption that he is the leader of christian conservatives or evangelicals, it is worth pointing out that polls have shown that most evangelicals have a negative view of him and were actually more likely to have a positive view of pope JP II. also, I think it’s safe to say that most evangelicals have not heard of Hagee, and he represents a small minority of evangelicals.”
Jesse, How could ‘most evangelicals’ have a negative view of John Hagee if they have never heard of him?



report abuse
 

Hali

posted August 7, 2007 at 5:10 pm


Guess what, people! This blog is on Beliefnet! Do you know what that is? You can actually go to their home page and read what other people are saying about their OWN religions, so you don’t have to make crazy, ignorant assertions :)
I especially recommend that you read the Jewish bloggers if you are making claims as to what it means to be God’s chosen people. Also, since Jesus was a Jew, you will probably pick up some stuff that would be helpful in understanding the Gospels. (And the Tanakh!)
See if you can find the source of this quotation:
“A kind word with forgiveness is preferred over charity followed by injury.”
Shalom!



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 7, 2007 at 5:13 pm


You are correct. What Kennedy – Dobson have to say resonates with the majority of Christians today. They can inspire their base and challenge them to become active in any number of issues. Wallis and people like him and their message, not that their message is wrong or bad.
Truth is not determined by majority rule or the biggest budget. I don’t listen to either Kennedy or Dobson because I believe they speak “with forked tongues,” and besides, they’re the only voices that some folks hear.
They use the ‘bash Bush’ and the ‘Dobson is for Dummies’ argument too much. There are several items that I could get on board with Mr. Wallis – but the way he talks, and writes I might add, I have to discredit what I like about Kennedy and Dobson in order to support Wallis.
Your arguments contradict each other, because Dobson (for sure) and Kennedy (likely) do not countenance dissent. They see everybody, even fellow Christians, who don’t think like them as enemies — you’re either totally with or against them, no middle ground. Wallis, on the other hand, clearly isn’t like that (witness this blog). And besides, it’s not about “bashing” anyone — there are some things from the conservative camp that are just nonsensical and deserve criticism.
If God did not want Kennedy’s message out there for all to hear – Kennedy would be a modest preacher in an average church and Wallis would have the pully pulpit that he desires so much. God put people into areas of influence and He can remove them.
You don’t understand how God works. We look at budgets and access; however, He desires that we speak his truth and He will take care of the rest. Rod Parsley made the very same mistake you just did — on an issue of ABC before the last general election, he bragged about how strong his organization was compared to the “liberals” on the other side. Well, as we all know, the Republicans had their heads handed to them.
Furthermore, prophets are never popular in their day — just because they’re vilified then doesn’t mean their message isn’t valid; it just takes a while for people to get it. Martin Luther King Jr. was such a man — people don’t realize that his message was in his time not universally accepted in the black community either.
I doubt that he will be the spearhead in the Christian community and spokesperson that he so wants to be.
That’s sheer projection on your part. Wallis has been preaching this message or something like it since the mid-1970s, long before most of these other guys came on the scene. If he were interested in “tickling ears” he would have done it a long, long time ago.



report abuse
 

jesse

posted August 7, 2007 at 5:18 pm


“Jesse, How could ‘most evangelicals’ have a negative view of John Hagee if they have never heard of him?”
–Most have a negative view of Robertson, not Hagee. Most haven’t heard of Hagee.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 7, 2007 at 9:43 pm


Now I understand what you’re saying jesse.
But anyone with a TeeVee set has seen a John Hagee performance, maybe just long enough to change the channel.
As Wolverine put it, ‘Hagee is a blowhard’ – with a big megaphone, I might add.
It’s hard to completely miss John Hagee, if you own a TeeVee set.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 7, 2007 at 10:32 pm


Posted by: | August 7, 2007 5:13 PM
Truth is not determined by majority rule or the biggest budget.
Dah – it has nothing to do with their budgets etc. It has everything to do with their message and how the challenge the faithful. Wallis’ message – right, wrong or forked – does not communicate to the average person and comes off as a pusedo intelectual at times.
They see everybody, even fellow Christians, who don’t think like them as enemies
Bull – there are issues that I and may of my friends are not in ‘total agreement’ with these gentlemen on and we are not the enemy.
You don’t understand how God works.
I think I understand and we will have to disagree on this one – respectfully.
Furthermore, prophets are never popular in their day
Sorry – Wallis is not a prophet and neither was MLK Jr. If Wallis has had the same message since the 70’s – so have Kennedy and Dobson. I believe that scope of their perspective ministries -Wallis, Dobson and Kennedy – not their budgets says who has been blessed and who is not so blessed.
You can have your opinion and so can the rest of us.
.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 8, 2007 at 12:00 am


Wallis’ message – right, wrong or forked – does not communicate to the average person and comes off as a pusedo intelectual at times.
Actually, it is reaching more and more people, whether you want to admit it or not. Just because it may not reach you personally doesn’t mean he’s not having an impact.
…there are issues that I and may of my friends are not in ‘total agreement’ with these gentlemen on and we are not the enemy.
You have not heard their rhetoric, nor have you been on the other side of them, so how would you know? Have you read the book “Blinded by Might” by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, no relation to Jim? He specifically named Thomas as a critic.
You don’t understand how God works.
I think I understand and we will have to disagree on this one — respectfully.
No, I really don’t think you do. If you did, you wouldn’t judge a ministry by how “big” it appears — that’s why I mentioned the anecdote about Parsley. Besides, certain people are supposed to reach only so far according to His specific plan. Besides, error has crept into many a ministry — dispensationalism, for one example, on another thread — and some folks defend that error to the death. Influential, popular — and wrong.
Sorry – Wallis is not a prophet and neither was MLK Jr.
By the classic definition of prophecy, King certainly was, contrary to what you believe; it’s too soon to tell in Wallis’ case.
I believe that scope of their perspective ministries -Wallis, Dobson and Kennedy – not their budgets says who has been blessed and who is not so blessed.
This is a major error on your part and eventually will be shown as such. What if Wallis eventually “surpasses” Dobson and Kennedy? Will you then admit that his message was ordained by God? And besides, what about the pastor of that small church who nevertheless feeds his few sheep faithfully and never compromises on truth? He’s doing God’s will and may disciple someone who eventually becomes “big.” Really, with all due respect, you need a little more vision that includes people who think differently.



report abuse
 

Deryll

posted August 8, 2007 at 12:06 am


[Sorry – Wallis is not a prophet and neither was MLK Jr….
You can have your opinion and so can the rest of us.]
As one of the “rest of us,” I have an opinion. MLK was definitely a prophet; as is JW. Do I consider either to be without flaws? Of course not.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 8, 2007 at 12:24 am


Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 8, 2007 12:00 AM
What if Wallis eventually “surpasses” Dobson and Kennedy? Will you then admit that his message was ordained by God?
I did not say that Wallis’ message was not ordained. I believe that he is doing what he believes God wants him to do. It is just that he seems to be the unruly Yorkshire Terrier that keeps barking but you become accustom to the yipping and move on. If in fact him ministry does move on and becomes bigger than Kennedy or Dobson – then it is his season.
If Wallis was really interested in just having a ministry that impacted lives and wanted to keep his ability for all to listen and respect what he says even if they disagree. He lost that ability when he accepted giving the Sat response to the Pres address for the Dem. Party. I don’t think that Dobson or Kennedy would have accepted that position with the Rep. during the Clinton adm.
Respectfully disagreeing with your accessment.
.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 8, 2007 at 12:43 am


“It’s hard to completely miss John Hagee, if you own a TeeVee set.”
I have DirectTV and had no idea…



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 8, 2007 at 8:00 am


It is just that he seems to be the unruly Yorkshire Terrier that keeps barking but you become accustom to the yipping and move on. If in fact him ministry does move on and becomes bigger than Kennedy or Dobson – then it is his season.
You perfectly described both the role of the prophet and how most people react to him — at first.
He lost that ability when he accepted giving the Sat response to the Pres address for the Dem. Party. I don’t think that Dobson or Kennedy would have accepted that position with the Rep. during the Clinton adm.
I questioned that myself. But Dobson and Kennedy would never have needed to go on the air in the same fashion — their ideological sympathies are well-known. In fact, then-right-wing journalist David Brock once appeared on “Focus on the Family” for writing exposes (which later turned out to be false) about Clinton, Dobson even saying he was doing “God’s work.” (It came out later that Brock was gay.)



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 8, 2007 at 8:25 am


You perfectly described both the role…’
No – the role of the prophet has a much bigger role – Wallis’ is not a prophet – period. Maybe in the minds of some but not many.
But Dobson and Kennedy would never have needed to go on the air in the same fashion…
Could that be because they have developed their network of influence. Could it be because God has blessed their ministry because they are doing work that needs to be done.
‘…writing exposes (which later turned out to be false) about Clinton…’
You have gone down this road before – so I am to understand that every woman that accused Clinton was a liar – correct me if I am wrong. Clinton as a Pres was not a bad one – he wasn’t a great one either. I think the worst time for our country in recent histroy was Carter and the double digit inflation and recession. But Clinton will go down as the Pres that was the most immoral person to have the office. But if you are correct that all the women that accused him were liars and sluts for conservatives – then I could be wrong. I don’t think I am.
Have a great day.
.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 8, 2007 at 9:29 am


Posted by: | August 8, 2007 8:25 AM
This is my post. Not sure why it is not picking up my name at times – it is the first thing that I put in when responding.
Blessings –
.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 8, 2007 at 9:36 am


Kevin: “‘It’s hard to completely miss John Hagee, if you own a TeeVee set.’
I have DirectTV and had no idea… ”
So do I, Kevin.
Hagee’s on there, along with the other 20 or 30 God shows.
Maybe you should be a little more curious about the information that’s available for you in the big wide world.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 8, 2007 at 9:48 am


Moderatelad:
“You have gone down this road before – so I am to understand that every woman that accused Clinton was a liar – correct me if I am wrong. Clinton as a Pres was not a bad one – he wasn’t a great one either. I think the worst time for our country in recent histroy was Carter and the double digit inflation and recession. But Clinton will go down as the Pres that was the most immoral person to have the office. But if you are correct that all the women that accused him were liars and sluts for conservatives – then I could be wrong. I don’t think I am.”
Moderatelad plays his Clinton card.
When conservatives get backed into a corner and nothing else works for them, they will usually try to play the Clinton card.
Someone should tell moderatelad – Clinton cards don’t work anymore.
Why do worshipers of the radical Bush administration call themselves moderate?
No one is fooled.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 8, 2007 at 9:51 am


Posted by: justintime | August 8, 2007 9:36 AM
along with the other 20 or 30 God shows.
So all ‘God shows’ are just like Hagee and therefore are bad?
Does EWTN also fall in that area?
Does Hour of Power fall in that area?
Maybe you should define what is a ‘God show’ in your estimation. There are many preachers / evangelists on cable and broadcast that are very good. Given the oppertunity – Wallis would jump at the chance to have his own cable show with an audience the size of TBN. I believe that he would, like them, do anything to make it happen and keep it going.
Blessings –
.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 8, 2007 at 10:01 am


So all ‘God shows’ are just like Hagee and therefore are bad?
Does EWTN also fall in that area?
Does Hour of Power fall in that area?
_____________________________
Do you ever send them money, ML?
What is EWTN?
I’ll check these out and get back to you.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 8, 2007 at 10:31 am


No — the role of the prophet has a much bigger role — Wallis’ is not a prophet — period. Maybe in the minds of some but not many.
You clearly don’t even know what the role of the “prophet” is, and what’s worse is that you think you do. The fact that you can’t stand Wallis is a sign that he is for sure. Dobson and Kennedy, on the other hand, definitely don’t fit because they making a lot of $$$ telling people what they want to hear, arrogantly blaming “outsiders” for our nation’s ills instead of looking inward and toward God. And from what I can tell, even after the election “disaster” of November, they’re still in complete denial.
Could that be because they have developed their network of influence. Could it be because God has blessed their ministry because they are doing work that needs to be done.
That is not, repeat NOT, how God judges faithfulness to Him, and certainly not according to your “standards of influence.” As I said, truth is not determined by majority rule, and many people may be sincere — but ultimately completely wrong — in what they believe. As Jesus Himself said, each man’s work will be tested by fire.
You have gone down this road before — so I am to understand that every woman that accused Clinton was a liar — correct me if I am wrong.
Gladly — because that was part of the smear. There turned out to be no evidence at all that he, for example, had a 12-year affair with Gennifer Flowers or raped Juanita Broaddrick. That said, how or why would a true “man of God” broadcast such propaganda, which many right-wing media “ministers” did, based on shoddy evidence unless he saw a political payoff?
Given the opportunity — Wallis would jump at the chance to have his own cable show with an audience the size of TBN. I believe that he would, like them, do anything to make it happen and keep it going.
Once again you’re projecting because that’s what you would do were you in his shoes. You see, however, Wallis understands that his message isn’t going to be popular with the masses right now — witness your appearance on this blog. As such, he would have to water down that message in order to make it more acceptable, but today he’s doing fine as it is. On top of that, he would have been there, done that already.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 8, 2007 at 10:36 am


Posted by: justintime | August 8, 2007 10:01 AM
Do you ever send them money, ML?
I have over the years sent any number of ministries on TV money for a specific cause or issues that I wanted to assist them in advancing.
What is EWTN?
It is the Catholic Station out of AL – Eternal Word of Truth Network. I really like Mother Angelica. (I am not Catholic – think everyone knows that one)
I worked for BGEA for over 10+ years and even I did not agree with everything the Graham Assoc. did. But using what I see as your paradgyme – since I did not agree with them 100% – I should not have supported him much less worked for him.
Later –
.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 8, 2007 at 10:59 am


“You clearly don’t even know what the role of the “prophet” is, and what’s worse is that you think you do. The fact that you can’t stand Wallis is a sign that he is for sure. ”
That is a ludicrous statement. Simply disagreeing with someone does not make you a prophet. Wallis essentially functions as a religious spokesperson for the Democratic party (whether he was disinvited to the Clinton White House or not). That does not make him a prophet.
Wallis receives criticism not because people are turning away from God’s commands, but because his theology is muddled beyond all reason. He takes the liberal ideology, and conforms his views on scripture accordingly.
Some conservatives do this as well. Fine. I’m not calling them prophets either. However, the notion that Dobson is simply telling people what they want to hear, while Wallis is bravely challenging everyone is nonsense. He simply sits on the left side of the aisle, and tells lefties what they want to hear.
Dobson gets plenty of criticism as well, especially from Wallis, who disagrees with Dobson on every issue his organization supports.
“arrogantly blaming “outsiders” for our nation’s ills instead of looking inward and toward God”
You have outsiders in quotes here. When did Dobson use that term?
“As Jesus Himself said, each man’s work will be tested by fire.”
Why would Dobson’s work not escape the fire? The strongest argument I have heard is that he is too much focused on a narrow range of political issues. Find me the scriptural reference that says that only advocating certain policy changes, at the expense of others, is not worthy of God.
Really, what you are saying is the conservatives aren’t doing God’s work. You are insinuating the very same argument you decry.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 8, 2007 at 11:11 am


Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 8, 2007 10:31 AM
First off – your ‘I’m correct – you’re wrong’ attitute is very arrorgant – take it down a step.
‘…fact that you can’t stand Wallis is a…’
Not true. I have praised him several times and encouraged him to do what he believes God has called him to do. I may disagree with his message, I may agree but disagree with the tone. Wallis is the one that has attacked the Dobson’s and Kennedy’s in his own articles.
‘…and many people may be sincere — but ultimately completely wrong…
So – we that like the Dobsons and Kennedys of the world might have the majority but are wrong. We are just following them and like Jim Jones – someday we will be asked to drink the Kool-Aid. I believe that God raises people to promince at His will. Dobson and Kennedy and others have been faithful to their calling and what they believe God wants them to do and therefore have a pulpit of influence that Wallis craves. Has nothing to do with numbers and money.
‘…with Gennifer Flowers or raped Juanita Broaddrick…’
So hours of security camera video tapes of him going into Flowers apt. lied. They were computer generated fakes. Broaddrick was and is a Dem in AK and worked for his election committee. Kathleen, Paula, lied through their teeth. How do you size up Monica? She was someones daughter – I think her parents had higher aspirations for her than to be known and the one who ‘did the big guy’.
you’re projecting because that’s what you would do were you…’
No – because of the way he has written about Kennedy and Dobson as well as others – he communicated that he is envious of them and their ministries. He is a little dog mad that the big dogs won’t let him play.
‘…he would have to water down that message in order to make it more acceptable…’
I have never said that he should ‘water down’ his message. I would never ask the other to do the same nor have they. Kennedy is extreamly direct in his message. Dobson is very focused on his vision. Their delivery is very different to Wallis and compells people to take a look and see what can be done for all with their help. Wallis needs someone that can take a negative situation and phrase it in a manner that gives a positive conclusion. Sadly – he is encapable of doing that because what I read is concived and delivered in a very negative manner. After listening to him or reading his articles – I feel wiped and caned to the point that I miss the message because of the delivery. Once I am done recoiling – I have at times come to an understanding that something needs to be changed. I have saught out ways that I could effect change on that very issue – but not with Wallis – because I do not want to get beaten again and again and again.
He could have a ministry that is second to none – but he is his own worst enemy.
Sorry for the long posting –
Blessings –
.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 8, 2007 at 11:40 am


ML: “I have over the years sent any number of ministries on TV money for a specific cause or issues that I wanted to assist them in advancing.”
Ever send money to Sojourners?
ML: “I worked for BGEA for over 10+ years and even I did not agree with everything the Graham Assoc. did. But using what I see as your paradgyme – since I did not agree with them 100% – I should not have supported him much less worked for him.”
What’s BGEA?



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 8, 2007 at 11:44 am


ML: What specific cause or issue did you reach into your wallet for?



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 8, 2007 at 12:08 pm


Wallis essentially functions as a religious spokesperson for the Democratic Party (whether he was disinvited to the Clinton White House or not). That does not make him a prophet.
Once again, you have completely ignored that he has been speaking this message since at least the Carter Administration, but I’m sure you hadn’t heard about him then. If he were such he would have been recognized as such. He is hot today in Democratic circles, but the times have changed — he hasn’t.
However, the notion that Dobson is simply telling people what they want to hear, while Wallis is bravely challenging everyone is nonsense. He simply sits on the left side of the aisle, and tells lefties what they want to hear.
Ever read “God’s Politics”? He doesn’t do that. And quit projecting!
You have outsiders in quotes here. When did Dobson use that term?
I was using it generally. But Ed Dobson has mentioned that he, among others, has been blamed for moral rot because of what some have called “weak preaching.”
Why would Dobson’s work not escape the fire?
The question is, “Will it last?” It might not. It’s not so much an issue of policy but attitude — if you think that scapegoating certain people will bring moral renewal to this country you’re in for a big disappointment. Yet Dobson has made a career out of doing just that.
Really, what you are saying is the conservatives aren’t doing God’s work.
We have a winner! Seriously, that’s what I’ve been saying for over a quarter-century because they’ve been focused on power and authority for themselves, not the Kingdom of God.
First off – your ‘I’m correct – you’re wrong’ attitute is very arrorgant – take it down a step.
Don’t do it yourself and stop thinking that you know everything, because much of what you belive is factually wrong by any standard — my attitude has nothing to do with it.
[Wallis] communicated that he is envious of them and their ministries. He is a little dog mad that the big dogs won’t let him play.
Again, you’re projecting onto him attitudes he may not have, and as I have said before: 1) His message, and not his delivery, is the issue here, and 2) He’s been delivering it for over 30 years. If he had wanted a huge ministry a la Dobson he would have one. And besides, I think it’s appropriate to point out errors in other people’s public pronouncements; they’re fair game.
As for the Clinton “scandals,” I know all about them in detail, far more than most people, and thus won’t bother with them further — because we’re already off-topic.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 8, 2007 at 12:17 pm


BGEA stands for the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 8, 2007 at 12:20 pm


Posted by: justintime | August 8, 2007 11:40 AM
Ever send money to Sojourners?
No – I have not be motivated to do so – so far.
What’s BGEA?
The ‘Billy Graham Evangelistic Association’
ML: What specific cause or issue did you reach into your wallet for?
Amsterdam 2000 – Hospitality House Youth Ventures – MN Teen Challenge – my church – Hutchcraft Ministries – just to name a few.
Later –
.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted August 8, 2007 at 12:51 pm


Kevin: “Wallis essentially functions as a religious spokesperson for the Democratic party (whether he was disinvited to the Clinton White House or not). That does not make him a prophet. Wallis receives criticism not because people are turning away from God’s commands, but because his theology is muddled beyond all reason. He takes the liberal ideology, and conforms his views on scripture accordingly.”
‘moderate’lad: “Wallis and people like him and their message, not that their message is wrong or bad. They are just uninspiring in their delivery. They use the ‘bash Bush’ and the ‘Dobson is for Dummies’ argument too much. There are several items that I could get on board with Mr. Wallis – but the way he talks, and writes I might add, I have to discredit what I like about Kennedy and Dobson inorder to support Wallis. I can not do that. I know of more people that have had their life effected in a very positive manner by these ministries.Wallis needs someone that can take a negative situation and phrase it in a manner that gives a positive conclusion. Sadly – he is encapable of doing that because what I read is concived and delivered in a very negative manner. After listening to him or reading his articles – I feel wiped and caned to the point that I miss the message because of the delivery. Once I am done recoiling – I have at times come to an understanding that something needs to be changed. I have saught out ways that I could effect change on that very issue – but not with Wallis – because I do not want to get beaten again and again and again.”
___________________________________________
So why are you guys wasting your (and our) precious time on Jim Wallis’ God’s Politics blog?



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 8, 2007 at 1:15 pm


Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 8, 2007 12:08 PM
You call is projecting I look at it as accessment.
Wallis I believe views himself as the ‘under-dog’ and thus gives him the ability to wine and claim things are unfair. Wallis in my accessment is the Pat Robertson for the left – plan and simple. I really don’t care how long he has been delivering his message. If length of time was important – there would be a lot of people in that same boat that have a message that is not worth listening to. Wallis is no better or worse than the Dobson and Kennedys of the world.
they’ve been focused on power and authority for themselves, not the Kingdom…’
Bull! So much of what I have done as a conservative Christian has very little to do with me. If I were focused on me – I would have a better can and house and IRA. It is because of my faith in Christ and I seek to share the Salvation message. I am into ‘evangelising’ not franchising like so many on both sides of the fence.
‘…stop thinking that you know everything,…’
No – I am the one that will say that ‘I do not agree with you.’ You are the one that makes the statement ‘you’re wrong.’
Clinton – who cares. If a Republican was in the White House with the morals of a Clinton and had as many women accuse them of ‘whatever’. NOW and so many other groups would be out in front demanding for the Pres resignation. You have to remember – women do not lie about sexual harrassment.
Later –
.



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted August 8, 2007 at 2:18 pm


justintime:
In the thread above, you misquote me twice.
First time:
Wolverine says,”I’m still interested in hearing what this guy Hagee actually says (and not just how some third party describes his event) and why evangelical Christians are supposed to tarred with his brush…”
Actually that quote was originally from Eric.
Second time:
As Wolverine put it, ‘Hagee is a blowhard’ – with a big megaphone, I might add.
What I actually wrote was “Hagee does strike me as a bit of a blowhard. But then again, I’m an Anglican, and we’re used to sermons that are several decibels lower than what evangelicals are used to.”
I would have let the second one slide but I don’t want this to turn into a pattern. Please pay closer attention to what we’re actually writing. It’s misunderstandings and misquotes like this that lead to “cat-in-the-microwave” stories in the first place.
Anyway, do you have a link to the “Christians United for Israel” letter. I’d like to see it for myself if you don’t mind.
Wolverine



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 8, 2007 at 2:48 pm


Moderatelad — I’m not going to continue this discussion with you. You come here onto this blog spouting what I know to be right-wing nonsense and then get all huffy when someone challenges it (which, of course, I do willingly). Get with the real world, because you’re not in control here and you’ve established that you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 8, 2007 at 3:14 pm


Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 8, 2007 2:48 PM
Whatever – you are the one who is sooooo free with the ‘you’re wrong’ statement. It seems that the ‘right wing’ is to blame for all the troubles in your world. The world is a little greyer than you see it – so enjoy you perspective – I may not agree with it but I have never said that you were wrong.
Later –



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 8, 2007 at 3:38 pm


Posted by: justintime | August 8, 2007 12:51 PM
So why are you guys wasting your (and our) precious time on Jim Wallis’ God’s Politics blog?
So – you only want Wallis’ groupies on this blog. Only people that think and believe the way you do. No discussion – interaction – verbal volleyball so to hone our convictions on. So – I should only associate with conservatives and leave the liberals alone. So much for seeking common ground and issues that we can work together on for the betterment of all mankind.
So – again just so I get it straight.
Sojo is for Liberals only – others need not get involved – correct?
Whatever –
.



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted August 9, 2007 at 12:35 am


Rick ,
You say some things that show Bibical Discernment , But politically you promote smear and defend smear . Sometimes good people just have different opinions , and sometimes the leaders we support , just are not honest people .
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Jan. 22) — President Bill Clinton in sworn testimony has acknowledged he had a sexual relationship with Gennifer Flowers during his tenure as Arkansas governor, something he flatly denied in the 1992 presidential campaign, sources have told CNN.



report abuse
 

Robert Alu

posted August 9, 2007 at 2:03 am


Hi all,
To read some of the comments on this page one might imagine that they were a reaction to some provincial event somewhere in America. (And well they may be. After all Daoud Kuttab is commending some American evangelical leaders for a specific letter that they wrote to President G W Bush).
The irrelevance of the responses to Daoud’s comments and the degeneration into all sorts of unpleasant, unChristlike exchanges makes me wonder … This is ‘God’s Politics’, a Christian blogsite about “a new dialogue”, yet the REAL issues can be made to dissapear, just like that … Why is there a preoccupation with labels and pettiness?
Some of us choose to read ‘God’s Politics’ because of the soberly written articles. The opportunity for sensible debate via our comments is lost by all this negativity …
Do we really care? Do we even know why Daoud Kuttab has called his article “Good News For Palestinian CHRISTIANS”? Is it possible that the letter by the 34 evangelical leaders is good news for Palestinian Christians but bad news for some American Christians? Have we actually read the letter?
What would we all lose if we engaged in a little thinking through before we responded to posts here?
Shalom!
Alu



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 9, 2007 at 10:34 am


Why is there a preoccupation with labels and pettiness?
Because, that way, it’s easier to fight, which some people live to do. As you may have noticed, some of the people who post on this blog miss no opportunity to tweak anyone and anything (including this entry) that challenges their worldview, which to them is propositional truth. Check the very first post here as an example. Basically, we live in a world where the winds of change have been blowing for the last three years or so, where tightly-held assumptions about the way things are supposed to be are now threatened. Simply put, the “new dialogue” you refer to scares them.
That said, I just skimmed the actual letter — after reading Kuttab’s commentary — and I found nothing particularly troubling. I decided to look at it precisely because he mentioned that the president of the Christian & Missionary Alliance signed it (I attend an Alliance church and my pastor is or was a vice president and has served as acting president). Anyway, over the past few years he has moved the denomination toward issues of reconciliation because it was absolutely necessary to address in our church, and for that reason I was glad to see it. That’s vitally important because the denomination is a leading supplier of missionaries all over the world, and as such we need to have our theology right, avoiding eschatological controversies that profit nothing.



report abuse
 

StevoR

posted August 16, 2007 at 9:41 am


My view is that the Palestineans are in Shakespeare’s words : ” … far more sinned against than sinning.”
About asthird of them are Christians, almost all of them have live sblighted by theoccupationof thenation and the deals, double-deals and betarayals of others.
I think Israel & its Jewish lobbies & apologists need to accept that the Palestineans do have alegitimate case, that they have been done agrave injustice & that the original 1947-8 UN partition plan granted them a sovereign territory of 45% of the Mandate of Palestine – not a Ghetto in Gaza that has become a hellish, hope-less prison plus maybe a few Apartheid era South African style bantustans in the West Bank. They are human beings who deserve our love and compassion -our neighbours every bit as much as the Jews.
It is time we stopped demonising them & started treating them witha bit more respect and concern.
It is worrying to see how many here have used Palestinean and Islam in a derogatory vastly over-genralised sense. There are many differing views and perspectives among Palestineans and Muslims. They are not all the same.
But again in Shakespeare’s words : “Prick them and they bleed, wrong them they shall seek revenge.”
They are like you, like me, humans with feelings and spiritual beliefs as diverse as us here. Some of them are so hopeless, so dedicated or so suicidal that they are lost to the evil that is religious extremism and terrorising others and themselves. Again are we so different?
Perhaps we like to believe we are…
But are we & are we treating them as our Neighbours, our brothers?
Would we be done by as we have done and continue doing unto the Palestineans?



report abuse
 

StevoR (take II - typos correct'n)

posted August 16, 2007 at 10:06 am


– Corrected version of post above – apologies if this is bad form can’t edit here alas —
My view is that the Palestineans are in Shakespeare’s words :
“…far more sinned against than sinning.”
About a third of them are Christians, almost all of them have lives severely blighted by the occupation of their nation and the multitudinous deals, double-deals and betrayals of others.
I think Israel & its Jewish lobbies & apologists need to accept that the Palestineans do have a legitimate case, that they have suffered a grave injustice & recall that the original 1947-8 UN partition plan granted the Palestineans a sovereign territory of 45% of the Mandate of Palestine – their own territory lets not forget! Not a Ghetto in Gaza that has become a hellish, hope-less open-air prison plus maybe a few Apartheid era South African style bantustans in the West Bank.
I support the original partition plan – a Palestine living in peace with Israel taking up the Gaza strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem with full rights of any nation – it should and can exist if people stop the extremism on both sides -in America as well as in Israel / Palestine. Unfortunately, a huge ‘If’ …
The Palestineans are human beings who deserve our love and compassion – they are our neighbours every bit as much as the Jews.
Would we be done by as we have done and continue doing unto the Palestineans?
It is time we stopped demonising them & started treating them witha bit more respect and concern.
It is worrying to see how many here have used Palestinean and Islam in a derogatory vastly over-genralised sense. There are many differing views and perspectives among Palestineans and Muslims. They are not all the same.
But as is human & again in Shakespeare’s words : “Prick us,do we not bleed, wrong us, shall we not seek revenge?”
(From Shylock, in ‘The Merchant of Venice'; a play sometimes accused of being anti-semitic but I veiw as quite the opposite & a call for Humanity and fairness in treating others.)
Palestineans are like you, like me, humans with feelings and spiritual beliefs as diverse as us here. Some of them are so hope-less, so traumatised and damaged by their experiences of occupation, persecution and dehumanisation that they are lost to the evil that is religious extremism and adopt the self-destructive and counter-productive strategy of terrorising others and themselves. Again are we so different?
Are sucicide bombers that different from air-strikes that kill by-standers and sometimes only innocents? Is dropping bombs from a height out of personal danger onto unseen victims, often innocnet children, women and men that much more ethical?
Are people who occupy other people’s territory -who run over and crush to death with tank-bulldozer hydbrids peace activists like Rachel Corrie, who spout platituides about respecting life (and boasting of not having a death penalty)while ordering extrajudicial killings of political opponents, torture and ethnic cleansing by slow ghetto-isation, de-development and economic blockade that much better..?
Perhaps we Westerners like to believe we are… But are we? Are we treating these others esp. Palestineans and Iraqis as our Neighbours, our Sisters & Brothers in Humanity and in God?



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.