God's Politics

God's Politics


Dinner with the Antichrist (by Jim Wallis)

posted by God's Politics

Last evening I attended a reception and dinner in Washington for evangelical Christian leaders, which is not an unusual event here. But the topic and, especially, the main speaker would seem highly unusual to many. The event, called “A Global Leaders Forum,” was hosted by the National Association of Evangelicals and the Micah Challenge, a global advocacy campaign focused on achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which are aimed at cutting extreme global poverty in half by 2015. The topics that brought 250 evangelical leaders together from around the U.S. and world were indeed global poverty and the urgent issue of climate change. Both issues are now firmly on the agenda of the evangelical mainstream, as last night’s impressive list of leaders demonstrated.


The speaker for the evening was none other than Ban-Ki Moon, the new secretary general of the United Nations, which is driving the MDG initiative. Growing up in the evangelical world, I remember the great debate about who was the real “Antichrist” as described in biblical prophecy–it was either the pope or the United Nations. As Washington Post writer Dana Milbanks noted this morning



In the wildly popular Left Behind series of evangelical Christian novels, the Antichrist takes the form of the secretary general of the United Nations, sets up an abortion-promoting world government and becomes the Global Community Supreme Potentate. Last night, the National Association of Evangelicals met for dinner at the Sheraton in Crystal City. The keynote speaker? Why, the Antichrist himself.


Last night, the supposed Antichrist was listening to gospel music, speaking of his own faith, quoting scripture, celebrating a new alliance with “the evangelical church” on the critical issues of poverty and global warming, and bringing the conservative Christian crowd to its feet in smiling agreement with the secretary’s agenda.


Indeed, leader after leader insisted this was a biblical agenda. A prominent leader from the Religious Right came up to sit right next to me, and then engaged me in an amazing conversation about finding common ground. This dramatic shift in the public agenda of the evangelical community is affecting American politics in very significant ways and promises to change them, especially if the political labels of left and right slowly slip away and are replaced by a common commitment to focus on the key moral issues of our time. Those issues are now defined more broadly and deeply than before and include the plight of God’s poorest children and the fragile state of God’s creation.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(58)
post a comment
I and I

posted October 12, 2007 at 12:10 pm


Thanks, Jim, for reminding us of the silliness that thinking Christians have to battle against in order for the Church to get any meaningful work done on global peace and poverty.
Perhaps Tim LaHaye is the anti-Christ himself, working against Christianity by making making it look foolish to non-believers and causing unnecessary strife among believers. (That was a joke.)



report abuse
 

justintime

posted October 12, 2007 at 1:19 pm


Run, Al, RUN!



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted October 12, 2007 at 1:53 pm


My first thought upon reading the headline was “I’m surprised that Wallis had dinner with President Bush”. LaHaye and Wallis are two sides of the same coin.



report abuse
 

aaron

posted October 12, 2007 at 1:57 pm


As a general rule I ignore anything that comes from the Left Behind series, more bad theology and assumptions than you can shake a stick at. :)
It’s neat to hear about Mr. Moon’s faith, I wonder how that will further guide his actions as Secretary General in the years to come.
Aaron Stewart



report abuse
 

greg in nc

posted October 12, 2007 at 2:40 pm


kevin s. said:
“My first thought upon reading the headline was “I’m surprised that Wallis had dinner with President Bush”. LaHaye and Wallis are two sides of the same coin. ”
See…like I said before…kevin s. finds a way to rip everything on this site. This article pokes fun at Left Behind, gives some interesting background on Moon, and then COMPLIMENTS someone from a more conservative perspective than he is…and kevin s. can’t just leave it be! What if he blogged about how cookies taste good…could that be left alone?



report abuse
 

Don

posted October 12, 2007 at 2:48 pm


“LaHaye and Wallis are two sides of the same coin.”
I have to wonder, Kevin, why you bother reading this stuff or posting here, if this is what you really believe? Your arguments and comments aren’t going to convince anyone here who thinks that Rev. Wallis has some worthwhile things to say.
I just can’t understand why you spend your time here trying to tell the rest of us how wrong we are. Can you enlighten us?
Peace,



report abuse
 

dynamo

posted October 12, 2007 at 2:52 pm


AMEN to Don!



report abuse
 

dynamo

posted October 12, 2007 at 2:56 pm


And AMEN also to greg



report abuse
 

Bruce Baker

posted October 12, 2007 at 3:02 pm


Sadly if you wish to call conservatives evil anti-Christ, you miss the fact that we do share the same faith in Jesus Christ.



report abuse
 

Hali

posted October 12, 2007 at 3:07 pm


kevin s. wrote,
“My first thought upon reading the headline was “I’m surprised that Wallis had dinner with President Bush”.”
Kevin, maybe instead of making such a judgmental assertion about Jim and Tim, you could take some time to examine the thinking and prejudices that lead you to this erroneous conclusion.



report abuse
 

michael

posted October 12, 2007 at 3:13 pm


i notice you mention him listening to gospel music and quoting scripture…the holy bible i assume. is there an inference that he is christian or just that he is versed in christianity?
does people feel he will represent the position with more integrity than kofi annan?
http://floatingaxhead.com/



report abuse
 

Karl

posted October 12, 2007 at 3:17 pm


kevin – Jim Wallis has never compared President Bush to the anti-christ. Joke or not, that’s an unfair statement to make.



report abuse
 

dave p.

posted October 12, 2007 at 3:22 pm


Seriously, Kevin? Get a life – save your criticisms of Wallis and sojo for REAL situations, not something as trivial as this. (BTW – I don’t even see what the problem is).



report abuse
 

justintime

posted October 12, 2007 at 3:47 pm


BREAKING: SCOTUS Declares Bush the Nobel Peace Prize Winner
Oslo: A review of the ballots in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize has shown that George W. Bush is the winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. James Baker III has been sent by the Bush Administration to coordinate efforts on the ground. The United States Supreme Court in a surprise vote of 5 to 4 have declared George W. Bush the winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
There’s more:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/12/11451/905



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted October 12, 2007 at 4:14 pm


Posted by: Don | October 12, 2007 2:48 PM
‘I just can’t understand why you spend your time here trying to tell the rest of us how wrong we are. Can you enlighten us?’
Did Wallis just write an article about not being so ‘blue or red’ on issues – we should be more ‘purple’. I have never claimed to be correct all the time – but you don’t think that Wallis might not be wrong on some issues? I wish Wallis would leave Bush alone – he only has about 18 months left and lets talk about poverty – Darfur – immigration – hunger. But all I am seeing is articles about any issue and then blaming Bush, conservatives, evangelicals, etc.
Yes – I am a ‘red-man’ but I love talking with ‘blue-people’.
Have a great weekend!
.



report abuse
 

I and I

posted October 12, 2007 at 4:22 pm


All right, everyone. Kevin makes one off-the-cuff statement and there are five or six responses to it. What happened to the original topic?
This is not a blog about Kevin. This is a blog about topics that Jim and his friends bring up. If everyone would just ignore these cheap statements by Kevin, and not give him the attention he craves, after a while he won’t make them. I propose all of you go for one week without responding to a single thing he says, and then perhaps he’ll go start his own blog, “Kevin’s Politics.” Or he’ll limit his posts to ones with substance.
Now let’s get back to the topic.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted October 12, 2007 at 4:44 pm


Posted by: I and I | October 12, 2007 4:22 PM
What happened to the original topic?
Maybe it’s because the origional topic reads more like a bad K-Tel record with the ‘Origional Artists’.
Your assessment of kevin s. is all wrong. I know kevin s and he is very articulate and focused. he asks the hard questions and points out flawed thinking sometimes on this site.
Might I respectfully say – lighten up.
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted October 12, 2007 at 4:59 pm


Jim Wallis took a cheap shot at LaHaye, which is fine, but Wallis has played fast and loose with his own interpretation of Revelation. I took a cheap shot at Wallis in a similar vein.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted October 12, 2007 at 5:21 pm


Speaking of the original topic, Mr Wallis wrote:
A prominent leader from the Religious Right came up to sit right next to me, and then engaged me in an amazing conversation about finding common ground.
See that, Conservatives? Dialougue does happen -when you actually engage in it. [-}



report abuse
 

daryll watson

posted October 12, 2007 at 5:40 pm


kevin s sickens me. let us spew his foul nastiness out of our mouth.



report abuse
 

sherry combs

posted October 12, 2007 at 5:46 pm


I pity kevin s. His must indeed be a dark bleak world, in which kind words, assumptions of good faith on the part of those he disagrees with, and Christian love have no place.
His is a Christianity of the old puritan, calvinist type–a hard, flinty faith predicated on belief in a vengeful Yahweh who has damned all of us and is itching to fight a bloody Armageddon.
In kevin’s manichaean outlook, those who are not with him are not simply against him, they are mortal enemies to whom no quarter can be given and who must be smashed and destroyed to expedite their assignation to Hell.
I shall pray for you kevin s.



report abuse
 

Don

posted October 12, 2007 at 5:49 pm


“but you don’t think that Wallis might not be wrong on some issues?”
I said that many believe Rev. Wallis has some valuable things to say. In your mind, is that the same as saying he is right all the time?
“Jim Wallis took a cheap shot at LaHaye,…”
Where?
…”which is fine, but Wallis has played fast and loose with his own interpretation of Revelation.
In your opinion. I thought what you quoted from him regarding the Beast was basically right on the mark. I believe I said as much earlier. And I think a long tradition of Revelation interpretation–much farther back than the tradition LaHaye’s interpretation falls back on–would back him up on that.
“I took a cheap shot at Wallis in a similar vein.”
Hmmmm, responding to an insult with an insult? If you think Rev. Wallis insulted Tim LaHaye (I have my doubts), why would you think it was appropriate to respond in kind?
Once again, why do you bother with Wallis if that’s what you think of him? Do you enjoy reading the responses you get here to your attacks? Is that it?
D



report abuse
 

bud duncan

posted October 12, 2007 at 5:57 pm


Clearly, Kevin S gets his cheap jollies from writing flaming entries on this blog that are intended to elicit angry responses. He delights in throwing bombs that will throw productive discussion threads off-track.
I have long thought Kevin S is really Donny. The character of Donny allows him to throw off all restraints. I can imagine him sitting at his computer, smirking and snickering like a junior high boy saying dirty words for the first time.



report abuse
 

bud duncan

posted October 12, 2007 at 5:57 pm


Clearly, Kevin S gets his cheap jollies from writing flaming entries on this blog that are intended to elicit angry responses. He delights in throwing bombs that will throw productive discussion threads off-track.
I have long thought Kevin S is really Donny. The character of Donny allows him to throw off all restraints. I can imagine him sitting at his computer, smirking and snickering like a junior high boy saying dirty words for the first time.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted October 12, 2007 at 6:03 pm


Bruce Baker,
“Sadly if you wish to call conservatives evil anti-Christ, you miss the fact that we do share the same faith in Jesus Christ.”
Where did anyone say that, either in the posts on this thread or in the article? I didn’t read it anywhere–help me out here. I don’t think you read very carefully…



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted October 12, 2007 at 6:19 pm


Moderatelad,
“Did Wallis just write an article about not being so ‘blue or red’ on issues – we should be more ‘purple’. I have never claimed to be correct all the time – but you don’t think that Wallis might not be wrong on some issues? I wish Wallis would leave Bush alone – he only has about 18 months left and lets talk about poverty – Darfur – immigration – hunger. But all I am seeing is articles about any issue and then blaming Bush, conservatives, evangelicals, etc.”
Your defense of Kevin is misplaced. His comment was snarky, rude, and totally uncalled for.
What does your above comment have to do with this article? Wallis doesn’t say one word about Bush, and I commend you to re-read his last paragraph, in which he brings up many of the concerns you raise in your comment. I’m not convinced you actually read the article this time, Moderatelad.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted October 12, 2007 at 6:22 pm


Kevin
“Jim Wallis took a cheap shot at LaHaye, which is fine, but Wallis has played fast and loose with his own interpretation of Revelation. I took a cheap shot at Wallis in a similar vein. ”
Ah yes, the tried and true “he started it” defense from that famous book “Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.”



report abuse
 

Bill Samuel

posted October 12, 2007 at 6:48 pm


I haven’t seen Wallis’ interpretation of Revelation, so I don’t know whether it is sound or not.
But the Left Behind series is indeed a threat to Christianity. Because it pretends to be Christian, it gives Christianity a bad name. It is another gospel as Paul warned us against in his 2nd letter to the Corinthians. It seems appropriate to note that this gathering highlights how ridiculous and contrary to the Gospel the Left Behind series is.



report abuse
 

Trent

posted October 12, 2007 at 7:02 pm


Hey guys, leave kevin s alone on this one. He’s not been venomous or abusive and has copped unfair criticism.
I must confess I had the same response to the title of the article (before reading it) that Kevin had. Who did you imagine Wallis was refering to as the anti-christ before you read the piece? (and if you say the UN Sec Gen I won’t believe you).
It ended up being funnier and more positively upbeat than that. I also think the Left Behind books leave themselves open to the sort of pun Wallis makes, and that without being an insult to LaHaye (they are fiction right?).
Be Blessed,



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted October 12, 2007 at 7:13 pm


“Your defense of Kevin is misplaced. His comment was snarky, rude, and totally uncalled for.”
Snarky, yes. Rude, maybe. Uncalled for? I dunno. Tim LaHaye was simply trying to envision a scenario in which his bizarre eschatological leanings might play out. He chose an institution that has the power to enact global mandates, and with whom LaHaye’s politics certainly often clash. LaHaye did not intend to suggest that whomever led the United Nations was the anti-Christ.
Wallis came carelessly close (at best) to declaring Bush the anti-Christ in his book. His interpretation of revelation is equally peculiar. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, yes?
To the broader point, Wallis seems to insinuate here that Christians hold the viewpoint that the United Nations is evil. This is not the case. However, many of the actions of this organization have given me real cause for concern. To the extent that Ban-Ki Moon represents a reversal of recent trends, I applaud his efforts.
“The character of Donny allows him to throw off all restraints. I can imagine him sitting at his computer, smirking and snickering like a junior high boy saying dirty words for the first time.”
This was my favorite.



report abuse
 

Don

posted October 12, 2007 at 7:20 pm


Kevin wrote:
“To the broader point, Wallis seems to insinuate here that Christians hold the viewpoint that the United Nations is evil.”
Rev. Wallis wrote:
“Growing up in the evangelical world, I remember the great debate about who was the real “Antichrist” as described in biblical prophecy–it was either the pope or the United Nations.”
Not sure where you get your “insinuation,” Kevin. Wallis was saying that in the evangelical circles he grew up in, the Antichrist was either the pope or the UN. That’s hardly an insinuation, and it’s hardly saying it applied even then to Christians in general.



report abuse
 

Don

posted October 12, 2007 at 7:26 pm


Kevin wrote:
“To the broader point, Wallis seems to insinuate here that Christians hold the viewpoint that the United Nations is evil.”
Rev. Wallis wrote:
“Growing up in the evangelical world, I remember the great debate about who was the real “Antichrist” as described in biblical prophecy–it was either the pope or the United Nations.”
Not sure where you get your “insinuation,” Kevin. Wallis is saying that in the evangelical circles he grew up in, the Antichrist was either the pope or the UN. It’s pretty clear, wouldn’t you say? That’s hardly an insinuation, and it’s hardly saying that these attitudes applied even then to Christians in general.
And further, can’t Rev. Wallis be tongue-in-cheek without being attacked? It’s an indisputable fact that the Left Behind series portrays the Antichrist as the UN Sec-Gen, right? So why can’t Wallis have some fun at the expense of a best-selling series of books as well as an old debate he had grown up hearing, regardless of the theological issues involved? I hardly think this was a cheap shot at LaHaye. Rather, it was an attempt to create some humor. Okay, Wallis isn’t a comedian, but so what?



report abuse
 

linda

posted October 12, 2007 at 7:29 pm


Seeing the U.N. as the “anti-Christ”??? As I grew up in N.Y., I remember
reading of U.N. personalities/staff for years. Among these people were
Christians, from the mainline Christian denominations – city people – who devoted their lives to the work of Christ through the U.N. for decades. These were people from our churches and neighborhoods.
By supporting the anti-U.N. propaganda of the Republican political machine, the Evangelicals have become one of the most destructive forces in America.



report abuse
 

Don

posted October 12, 2007 at 9:05 pm


Linda, I think that Rev. Wallis is talking about debates that occurred in some evangelical circles decades before the religious conservatives got hooked up with the Republican political machine. This would have been a time when most evangelical Christians were actually quite uninvolved in US politics.
A list of all the persons or institutions who have ever been accused in one place or time of being Antichrist would be puzzling, disturbing, and in some cases, quite humorous.
Peace!



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted October 12, 2007 at 9:34 pm


Posted by: squeaky | October 12, 2007 6:19 PM
I’m not convinced you actually read the article this time, Moderatelad.
I have read the article. I find Wallis style of writing quite uninspiring and overly self promoting. In reading Wallis on any number of topics he uses too many and lengthly quotes from someone else to flesh out the article and I have this picture of him when I am reading his articles of the donkey in Shrek jumping up and down saying ‘pick me – pick me!’
I am going to sit down in Dec and again for the 4th time try to get through God Politics – he could have used a better editor. I have had text books on mirco biology capture my attention better.
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted October 12, 2007 at 9:49 pm


“And further, can’t Rev. Wallis be tongue-in-cheek without being attacked? ”
Can I be tongue-in-cheek in response to his being tongue-in-cheek? If he dishes it, can he take it? I’m sorry that Wallis’ debate regarding the anti-Christ has been so limited.
“I hardly think this was a cheap shot at LaHaye. ”
How was it not? It certainly cannot be considered a nuanced analysis of LaHaye’s theology as it relates to the United Nations. He is poking fun. I am poking fun.
“His is a Christianity of the old puritan, calvinist type”
I just saw this. I lean toward open-theism. I would suggest, however, that you probably improperly understand Calvinism.



report abuse
 

bren

posted October 12, 2007 at 10:24 pm


Although it appears that a few posters know each other (moderatelad apparently knows Kevin S.) most of us do not know each other personally. That means that we can only work with the words we read to figure out whether the writer is angry, ironic, dismissive, so convinced of his/her position that s/he can’t possibly consider another point of view, or is seeking common ground between his/her position and the position of another.
What complicates this for me is those people who need to figure out (or guess, since you don’t know the individuals personally) whether the writer is a liberal, a conservative, a whatever, before determining whether a statement is even worth consideration.
I have always assumed that there will be disagreement on this blog. Posters come from different countries, and from different parts of the same country.
What I never expected were posters who would feel the need not merely to dissent from or try to rebut viewpoints but actually to belittle individuals (esp. Jim Wallis) with whose viewpoints they disagree. What prompts so much vitriol? [It certainly comes across to me as vitriol.]
I read this blog in the hopes that I can find common ground with Evangelical Christians. Quite frankly, Evangelical Christians like the highly political Christian Zionists scare me. Other Evangelical Christians scare me, but less than the Christian Zionists do. Jim Wallis will never win the Nobel Prize for Literature. However, he definitely deserves a prize for the myriad ways he encourages us to look for common ground, especially with those with whom we appear to disagree.



report abuse
 

letjusticerolldown

posted October 13, 2007 at 12:20 am


The Beliefnet ad at the top of this page is for the epic conclusion of the Left Behind Series by Tim LaHaye. The ad at the bottom is a book by Beverly LaHaye.
Thank God someone makes some money.



report abuse
 

Trent

posted October 13, 2007 at 7:11 am


For what it’s worth in recent years I’ve heard Christians in Australia theorising that either the UN or the pope were the anti-christ.
I also attended until asked to leave an SDA congregation where I was taught that the Catholic Church and the US of A were the third and fourth beasts of Daniel, and how the final battle of revelation would be the true christians vs the US.
Saw a shirt today that read, ‘there’s nothing more powerful that stupid people in a pack.’
Be Blessed,



report abuse
 

Trent

posted October 13, 2007 at 7:29 am


Moderatelad,
I’m going to suggest that you read Call to Conversion before you try to read God’s Politics again.
If you don’t get that groundworking of Wallis’s theology then all you’ll find in God’s Politics is things to disagree with.
I really believe that in many of these discussions we’re missing what is undergirding the differences of opinion we have.
Be Blessed,



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted October 13, 2007 at 12:56 pm


Moderatelad,
“I have read the article. ”
You read the article, but your original post had nothing to do with the article. Plus, you brought up issues that you wish Wallis would address, but if you had read the article, you might have noticed that he did bring up those issues, and in fact, said he was heartened by the discussion with people who didn’t agree with him politically, but with whom he could find common ground. Stay on topic! You tend to bring in your laundry list of issues you have with Wallis, rather than addressing what is actually said. I’m getting the impression you would rather use this forum to take pot-shots at Wallis than to actually discuss issues, find common ground, and find solutions. I think if you start making the effort to do the latter, maybe you will find this blog a more fruitful use of your time. Leave your agendas at the cyber-door.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted October 13, 2007 at 4:27 pm


Mick–I didn’t read your back and forth with Rick Nowlin over racism. To tell you the truth, I caught it at the end, and I couldn’t fully understand where either of you were coming from, and you both has such long posts, that frankly, I just couldn’t take the time to fully understand the discussion. Hence, I didn’t attempt to contribute.
Perhaps you are right that I focus more on conservatives, but I know I have done the same to liberals, as well, and I have made many calls for respectful dialogue from both sides of the aisle. One thing I should stop doing is giving any attention to the more radical conservative voices who don’t wish to actually dialogue, but prefer to just drop bombs. I make the mistake of thinking they can be reasoned with, when clearly they aren’t interested in learning. You, however, and Moderatelad, are people I would want to have more of a discussion with, and thus my attempts at getting us to try to understand each other better without all the ideological jabs. I’m tired of that, no matter who it comes from. I’ll try to do better at pointing it out in those who I may have similar views with.



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted October 13, 2007 at 7:05 pm


Look, I think its interesting how the UN General Secretary is a Christian. I’d like to read more about that, and less about the Left Behind books suck.
Wolverine



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted October 13, 2007 at 7:29 pm


Agreed, Wolverine.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted October 14, 2007 at 12:04 pm


Look, I think its interesting how the UN General Secretary is a Christian. I’d like to read more about that, and less about the Left Behind books suck.Wolverine
Do your own research. Leave this blog if you don’t like it.



report abuse
 

Mike Hayes

posted October 14, 2007 at 1:29 pm


Bren said,
“… I read this blog in the hopes that I can find common ground with Evangelical Christians. Quite frankly, Evangelical Christians like the highly political Christian Zionists scare me. Other Evangelical Christians scare me, but less than the Christian Zionists do. Jim Wallis will never win the Nobel Prize for Literature. However, he definitely deserves a prize for the myriad ways he encourages us to look for common ground, especially with those with whom we appear to disagree…”
I would like to find out whether persons who appear to disagree might in fact agree on many of the values of “God’s Politics” and might work together in our legislative and congressional districts and states to “change the wind” and convince members of state legislatures and members of congress that there is support for an end to preemptive war and executions and some approach to bring about “The End of (extreme)Poverty”. I think Sojourners and other similar organizations could enable us to do that but apparently are hesitant to do it.
Mike Hayes



report abuse
 

JCinSunnyLA

posted October 14, 2007 at 3:25 pm


I never would have guessed that Kevin S. is a writer by profession. Enough said on that subject.
Mick:
I also missed your discussion on racism, but I know that you are opposed to affirmative action. I myself am opposed to quotas for reasons that should be obvious to anyone, but I will tell you this:
I once met a young white guy would was in tears because he would never be considered for an apprenticeship. All apprenticeships in our area were reserved for approved minority applicants for the next few years. At the time, there was an age limit to enter the program and he would be too old by the time whites could be considered. I do believe that affirmative action has gone too far at times, and there is the question of just when it is no longer necessary to address injustices of the past. I can see why more people have come to believe that we have reached that tipping point.
However, I can assure you that Buffalo is indeed a racist town. Or more accurately, Western New York is racist because most of the whites who could afford to move out to the suburbs did so long ago. Certain suburban communities in this area are well-known for making traffic stops of Black drivers simply because they look out of place in an otherwise colorless landscape. I have Black friends who have been routinely subjected to drive-by insults in their own neighborhoods. And I have experienced occasions, while talking to a complete stranger on a street corner about nothing more incendiary than Buffalo’s changeable weather, when the person spies a Black person walking down the other side of the street and immediately changes the subject to all the faults and shortcomings of “those people”. This topic seems to be almost as popular among whites as chauvinist attitudes about women is with jocks.
My own daughter has moved to Raleigh, NC, because she does not want to raise my grand-daughter, who is half Nigerian, in such an atmosphere of fear and prejudice. In her new home, she has made many new friends—both Black and White—who are committed to the Christian principle of “love thy neighbor as thyself”. Would that we all could do the same. I believe that you are one who tries—more so than Kevin S.—and that is all I can ask of anyone.
As for the Left Behind series, it is fiction of course, but dangerous all the same. More and more Christians have come to believe that they will be magically removed from the Earth before all Hell breaks loose. This could well be the strong delusion spoken of in the Bible—the lie that we will not die in this life when “it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.” (Hebrews 9:27)
Only two men in all of history have left Earth without suffering the sting of death—Enoch and Elijah. I believe that these two were called to be the two witnesses during the Tribulation and will die at that time.



report abuse
 

JCinSunnyLA

posted October 14, 2007 at 3:31 pm


PS:
There will of course be a few Christians still alive when Christ returns, particularly the 144,000 who have been sealed by God in Chapter 7 of the Book of Revelation.



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted October 14, 2007 at 3:47 pm


I’m tired of that, no matter who it comes from. I’ll try to do better at pointing it out in those who I may have similar views with.
Posted by: squeaky
God Bless , you are so cool .
You can read these blogs and know one thing , religious right = intolerance, bigotry, ingornace , etc . So far except for people like you, a few others Squeaky , I see this organization as more negative then positive to the Gospel of Christ . I don’t see the difference with religious liberals in their polices then I do Planned Parenthood , Human Rights Campaign , ACLU , Media Matters and MoveonOrg .
In fact if the left could as you say move to some common ground , I could for sure . As if republicans have anything to be holier then thou about these days or ever . I just don’t see democrats being better .
Perfect example I believe , if the religious left could see this as being important you would be surprised how many Evangelicals would jump to your side !!!!!!!!
Why is not Comprehensive sex education taught under the premise that the participants will be in the confines of marriage .
If education is the real purpose , why would that not be acceptable to the secularists who are primary the supporters of this .
Information would be learned , most of us conservatives would have to shut up , I would still advocate for respecting the natural modesty of kids , because that is a tool of abstinence , having boys in one class and girls in the other .
But if the information was presented in the context of marriage , if the kids wanted to and as many do, deviate from the game plan , they would still have the information needed to be “safer” . There is a direct assault on Western Civilization , people no longer are concerned about even following Christian principles , in the past regardless of your faith , the culture followed those cultural norms .
Its not the education , its the way the education is provided .
Most Evangelcials I know find this to be a important issue . I don’t think it is to the religious left . I see it as something that will change our culture for the worse , in fact this changing culture has already done this , cause more poverty and misery , and even hurt religious freedoms in this nation .
Most Evangelicals I know have little knowledge of political happenings , which I guess causes the liberal involved Christians great frustration and at times even criticism of the right . Perhaps that is a valid criticism , but right and wrong does not always take intelligence and a strong knowledge of current political
happenings . My friends understand this problem and it how it negativily shapes the views of people .



report abuse
 

JCinSunnyLA

posted October 14, 2007 at 8:53 pm


I don’t know who put up the last anonymous post, but he is obviously a coward since he can’t even come up with some kind of screen name. I believe Mick to be sincere in his beliefs, although he sometimes has a tendency to pigeonhole liberals. Many of the other bloggers have done the same to conservatives. It really doesn’t matter who was the first to do it. Someone has to be the first to stop it.
Mick:
I have no objection to teaching sex education in the context of marriage, and I hope we can all agree on that. It would certainly be preferable to what we have now. Unfortunately, abstinence seems to be the only thing that many Evangelicals (at least the ones who would call themselves conservative) want taught. You, I see, are thoughtful enough to understand that is not a realistic alternative, if we are to reduce unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases among those who have not reached maturity in their knowledge and understanding of God’s purpose in Creation. Any true Christian knows that none of us is perfect, and deserves a chance to repent and change his/her ways while there is still time to avoid self-destruction.
Many conservatives feel that liberals hate God and country and want to build a hedonistic society with no rules. I try not to be judgmental, but I sometimes feel that some conservatives are secretly happy to see a sinner suffer the consequences before he can repent. We should all resist the temptation to say “I told you so”. We can come to enjoy it so much that we may actually wish for another’s downfall to give us the opportunity.
By the way, I consider myself to be moderately liberal in social policy and moderately conservative in fiscal policy. I guess that would make me moderately moderate.



report abuse
 

JCinSunnyLA

posted October 14, 2007 at 8:56 pm


PS:
Its not the education , its the way the education is provided .
Truer words were never spoken, Mick.
Peace



report abuse
 

scott

posted October 15, 2007 at 3:51 am


On the whole Antichrist topic…
For what it is worth, I was at the event with the Secretary General. Rich Cizik first made the Antichrist comment that evening, as a joke. The Washington Post picked it up and ran with it. The Washington Post writer is the only one who references LaHaye.
Wallis is certainly not taking a cheap shot at LaHaye. Read the Washington Post article to understand the context of the comment.



report abuse
 

I and I

posted October 15, 2007 at 9:23 am


How nice of you folks to give the “nattering nabobs of negativism” the attention they so crave, by responding to the cheap shots rather than ignoring them.
Thanks to those who actually responded to the original topic, with posts that had some substance. I found seven or eight, maybe ten, out of sixty.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted October 15, 2007 at 9:34 am


Anonomous Bomb Dropper–
That was rude, and if you have read the posts of Mick, you would see that he does try to engage in fruitful discussions.
Mick,
I think you have some points in your observation that the Christian left makes some of the same mistakes of the Right.
I may have an explanation, although it is anecdotal and completely unscientific. I think there are many here who are like myself, who have been on the Right, and finally realized it didn’t fit. I know for myself, I slowly began to learn how legalism has affected me, and as I have come out of that background, I tend to still have some bitterness over it. So I think what happens is I tend to see things in a more negative light than is really true. I am trying to find more balance. The words from the Right have sounded extremely judgemental to me, even though my experience with Christians on the Right has not been that way. I wish words could truly match actions. Nevertheless, my struggle is to not be judgemental against those who I see as judgemental. Anyway, I’m not very coherent this morning, so I don’t know how much sense that makes.



report abuse
 

Chuck

posted October 15, 2007 at 1:36 pm


No, he can’t be the Anti-Christ. The Anti-Christ is someone who is supposed to be taken seriously and pretty much leaves out anyone associated with the UN.



report abuse
 

El Petey

posted October 25, 2007 at 4:07 pm


Every now and then I scroll down to read the comments. I swore I’d never participate in commenting again after having madea couple of impassioned posts and getting attacked, sentence by sentence, by the snide, condescending, and arrogant Kevin S. I don’t think for a moment that either Kevin S.or “Donny” are posting for reasons other than to sabotage or to at least inflame the dialogue.
I wonder if the Donnys and Kevin S. types ever stop to think that they, too, will suffer terribly as will the rest of us when the inevitable blowback from this administration’s policy hits our country.
I have recently reading about the apparitions of the Virgin Mary in Medjugorje in the former Yugoslavia. As a lapsed Catholic and former hardcore agnostic, I’m not easily swayed, but I’m currently having a leap of faith: I think something miraculous has happened there (and probably elsewhere). The messages from Our Lady give witness to a loving, forgiving, and egalitarian God;read alongside the rhetoric of the leading “Patriot Pastors” of our era, said pastors seem downright satanic.
I urge Sojourners of any donomination to investigate the Medjugorje apparations open-mindedly, and then to determine if the messages re-define the concept of “gospel” in wondrous way.
Neuro-nurse has been prophetic:peace is paramount in following Jesus; take it from his Mom. Why don’t the well-intentioned, peace-seekers who post here simply exchange e-mail addresses, and leave this pointless, argumentative chat behind?
It would appear that Kevin S., Donny, and others choose to remain hard-hearted, ignorant, or both. Wipe the sand from your sandals, bless ‘em, and move on.
El Petey



report abuse
 

Steve

posted October 26, 2007 at 5:00 am


The Antichrist will be seen by humanity first as a “Good Guy”. He will be quite popular. Only later his true intent will be clear.
So, don’t look for a “villain” when you are looking for the Antichrist. Look for a “hero”.



report abuse
 

The Pre-wrath Tribune

posted December 25, 2007 at 10:56 pm


Chuck said “No, he can’t be the Anti-Christ. The Anti-Christ is someone who is supposed to be taken seriously and pretty much leaves out anyone associated with the UN.”
HA! That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all day!
http://thepre-wrathtribune.blogspot.com/
Dave



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.