-
Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report
May 17, 2013 | 117 comments
-
Transsexual Flights from Reality
May 3, 2013 | 91 comments
-
State Funerals and Christendom
April 23, 2013 | 12 comments
-
The Hero of Star Wars
April 19, 2013 | 45 comments
-
Margaret Thatcher the Methodist
April 9, 2013 | 38 comments
The Nation's Pulse
Evangelicals Prepare For 2012
With the now Soros-backed Religious Left angling for votes, will evangelicals stray from the Republican ticket?
Will evangelicals sustain their traditionally high level of support for Republicans in next year’s election, despite Evangelical Left exertions to peel away some evangelicals on issues like poverty and the environment?
Long-time Religious Left activist Jim Wallis is the chief cheerleader for shifting evangelicals leftward and has aired some of his talking points in recent debates with conservatives, including Southern Baptist leaders Al Mohler and Richard Land, plus Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute.
“God doesn’t mind prosperity as long as it is shared,” Wallis reassuringly admitted during his exchange with Brooks before the Christian Community Development Association (CCDA) in Indianapolis last month. “God doesn’t judge nations by their GNP, by their military fire power, or how much their popular culture is the envy of the world. God says I will judge you by how you treat the most vulnerable in your midst.”
It’s a constant theme for Wallis and the Religious Left that government’s central purpose is poverty alleviation, to be accomplished mainly through wealth redistribution. Although identifying with and appealing to evangelicals, who are America’s largest religious demographic, Walls and allies are the heirs of early 20th century Social Gospel progressivism. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. funded much of liberal Protestantism’s early work, building a whole cathedral in New York called Riverside Church to enthrone Harry Emerson Fosdick, the Social Gospel’s most mesmerizing preacher. Fosdick, like other liberal Protestants who confidently assumed they represented the future, rejected much of Christianity’s supernatural elements in favor endless trumpet calls for ethical reforms and social justice.
Of course, the institutional heirs of Social Gospel Protestantism are mostly dead or dying. Witness the emptying offices of the once prestigious National Council of Churches, located across the street from Riverside Church in another building built with Rockefeller largesse. Conservative Protestants, whom Fosdick, Rockefeller and others once thought permanently defeated, have surged for the last 60 years, now outnumbering Mainline Protestants, and necessitating the solicitous attentions of Jim Wallis and others and anxious for their votes.
Wallis has his own version of Rockefeller in George Soros, whose philanthropy recently granted Wallis another grant, despite last year’s controversy over revelations of earlier Soros grants, which Wallis initially denied. At least Rockefeller was a devout churchman, who kept to Baptist avoidance of liquor, cigarettes and public dancing, and who genuinely believed in the Social Gospel’s spiritual power. In contrast, Soros is an atheist with seemingly sees organized religion as only a potentially useful tool for advancing his leftist politics. Or, more likely, he hopes his philanthropy through Wallis and other Religious Left groups can at least partly neutralize the effectiveness of conservative religionists.
In his “dialogue” with Brooks, Wallis praised Occupy Wall Street and echoed its complaints about the “1%” and “the fundamental inequality that is greater than it’s ever been since the Great Depression.” Wallis’s publicly reported salary from his Sojourners group seems to place him at least in the top “2%,” and perhaps his royalties from popular books push him higher. An affective salesman and fundraiser, he undoubtedly earns his income. But complaints about the “1%” seem often to come from scribes and activists who are themselves in or close to that supposedly sinister bracket, and who are often backed by philanthropists who are well within it.
The Reverend Fosdick, even while inveighing against the wealthy from Riverside’s pulpit during the 1930s, readily admitted he was himself among America’s richest. His patron, Rockefeller, indulged him, though sometimes privately questioned the preacher’s condemnation of businessmen. Maybe Fosdick would have praised Occupy Wall Street, though it’s doubtful the starched collared Victorian clergyman would have personally visited or emotionally connected to the Occupiers as Wallis has.
Aligning with Occupy Wall Street is a little off message for the Wallis of recent years, who has sought a cozy centrist image to appeal beyond the Left. In his own account of his exchange this week at the National Press Club with Southern Baptist conservative Richard Land, Wallis more characteristically emphasized supposed common ground between them, citing immigration reform, reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and international aid. He celebrated that same-sex marriage and abortion never arose as topics. The Evangelical Left eagerly strives to minimize evangelical concerns about social issues is favor of a form of social justice that always involves expanding government regulation and taxation. And Wallis likes to portray himself as a great synthesizer of divergent views.
Last month’s debate at Trinity Evangelical
Divinity School outside Chicago between Wallis and Al Mohler, who
heads the largest South Baptist seminary, focused on social
justice’s role in the Gospel. Mohler stressed
that salvation and holiness were the Gospel’s main
goals. Wallis referred to the Sermon on the Mount as the
“Magna Carta of the Kingdom” and to
Jesus’ announcement of “good news to the
poor” as his “Nazareth
Manifesto.” So Jesus was essentially announcing a
political program very similar to what Wallis summarized in his
presumptuously titled best-selling 2005 book and ongoing
blog, “God
Politics.”
Can Wallis and the Evangelical Left persuade most evangelicals that Rockefeller-backed religious progressives of 100 years ago were actually right in distilling the Gospel down to social reform? Probably not. But persuading only a minority could dramatically shift American politics.
About the Author
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (68) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Mark Tooley
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/07/evangelicals-prepare-for-2012
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Kelly Staples| 11.7.11 @ 6:44AM
Let us prey . . . on the credulous, the simple-minded, and the vulnerable. Ah! The joys of superstition! Thank goodness for the U.S. Constitution and for the wall of separation.
Mike Hawk| 11.7.11 @ 8:35AM
What wall of separation?? That is not in the Constition.
abb3w| 11.7.11 @ 4:13PM
While the phrase "wall of separation" is not in the Constitution, neither are the phrases "separation of powers", "checks and balances", nor " "limited government". The ideas underlying all four, however, are.
Quartermaster| 11.7.11 @ 5:24PM
Not so, actually. There are two aspects of religion in teh constitution in which government is limited (note *government*). FedGov can not create an established religion (e.g. The Church of England), nor can it prohibit the free exercise of any religion.
If the postmodern idea of the "wall of separation" were true, then anyone holding a religious belief would be allowed to vote. Fortunately for all of, the postmodernists lost that fight in 1787. Now if we just get back to the rule of law, the postmodernist will have lost the battle completely.
skip| 11.8.11 @ 12:11PM
Neither is "fair share", "internal revenue service", "social security number", "mandatory regulation", "stimulus", "entitlement", "a point where one earns enough", nor "fifth amendment does not apply in certain situations".
How many of the original 13 colonies to become states had an official state church at the time these states ratified the Constitution? (Hint: not more than half and not less than a half dozen.)
Mike Hawk| 11.7.11 @ 6:29PM
"Wall of Separation" comes from letter written to the Baptist Congregation of Danbury, Ct. It in no way was part of the Constitution. The Constitution was, according to Madison, for a 'moral and religous' people. The Constitution did not ban Christianity from the public square and civil society which is what the left claims.
Mike Hawk| 11.7.11 @ 6:31PM
The letter mentioned was writtenby Jefferson.
W| 11.7.11 @ 7:44PM
Jefferson's letter was cited by the Supreme Court, Justice Black, in its opinions as evidence of the Founders' views about limiting the government's support of any religion, such as direct aid to parochial schools and prayers in the public schools. It does not matter any more that it is not part of the Constitution because it is part of the Supreme Courts' basis for its decisions. Of course, the Court can modify its opinions and explain away the letter.
skip| 11.7.11 @ 2:17PM
"Providence has given to our people the choice of rulers, and it is the duty, as well as privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for our rulers." - John Jay
What would he know. He only authored the "Federalist Papers" with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton justifying the U.S. Constitution, besides being the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court protecting the U.S. Constitution.
Stop being an idiot with the wall of separation nonsense. Again.
abb3w| 11.7.11 @ 4:16PM
Of course, Jay was one of (if not simply) the most religious of the founders. In contrast, Madison had more than a few endorsements of "separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters" -- though as wasn't uncommon among the founders, he didn't always practice what he preached.
skip| 11.8.11 @ 12:01PM
What's the price of eggs in China?
Are you implying John Jay's, not just more religiousity, but Christianity than other founders is coincidental only? Reason and experience lead to the conclusion this factor is the primary reason he contributed to justifying the Constitution through the "Federalist Papers", and was selected as first Supreme Court Justice and Supreme Court Chief Justice
martin j smith| 11.7.11 @ 7:42AM
If Evangelicals vote Left, then they are no longer whatever religion they say they are. They are Socialists First. Good By.
Old Soldier| 11.7.11 @ 8:27AM
Pray to the State!
RND| 11.7.11 @ 12:43PM
Martin J. Smith, correct.
If memory serves correctly, it was the 1976 Democratic National Convention in San Francisco that cemented abortion into the Democratic Party Platform.
It has never been removed.
Thus, no Christian who sincerely claims to understand his/her mission as an ambassador for Christ Jesus, no Christian can ever support, fund, aid or vote Democratic Party.
It is truly that simple.
abb3w| 11.7.11 @ 4:17PM
Ah, "no true Christian"....
Quartermaster| 11.7.11 @ 5:26PM
Perhaps you are beginning to understand.
Cynthia Pestka| 11.7.11 @ 7:44AM
Okay Kelly, I was gonna respond, but then Isaw that I wasn't supposed to "feed the trolls". Sorry!
Wes| 11.7.11 @ 8:48AM
Cynthia, it's just as well that you didn't respond to Kelly's post.
You would have nothing intelligent to say on the subject. You would trot out the usual response Am Spectators employ, "The Bible says..."
skip| 11.7.11 @ 2:28PM
How about my response to Kelly Staples?
The Bible says:
"A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions." (Proverbs 18:2)
PJ| 11.7.11 @ 8:45AM
As a Christian, 1 can not argue against Jim Wallis' words (except his abortion & same-sex marriage ideas). But 1 can argue how to put those words into action.
"God says I will judge you by how you treat the most vulnerable in your midst." This is very true. But we know that downsizing government & lowering the taxes will bring many more people out of poverty than if we do the opposite. Wallis believes that high taxation & large govn't will help the unfortunate.
"Wallis referred to the Sermon on the Mount as the "Magna Carta of the Kingdom...." Again this is very true as long as we do not reject the Old Laws, such as the 10 Commandments. It seems to me that many of those OWS protesters are disregarding many of those Commandments. People like Wallis the preacher, who are at least sympathizers are encouraging such misguided actions.
Jim Wallis does not practice what he preaches which makes him irrelevant. He is complicit w/George Soros' evil scheme of grabbing power, an idea that Jesus Christ is against.
florin| 11.7.11 @ 11:36AM
If Jim Wallis truly supports the 'most vulnerable' in our midst why then does he advocate for the mass killing of preborn human babies??? He, like Obama, picks and chooses what he wants from the Bible...his buddy Obama not only advocates for the killing of the preborn baby but also for the baby who happens to survive the attempt to kill him which is called infanticide. Obama also supported and praised George Tiller, the baby killer - so named because most of the preborn babies he cut to pieces in the womb were full term...slime begets slime and Obama, Wallis and Tiller are of the same cloth...
PJ| 11.7.11 @ 1:48PM
I think you need to reread my 1st sentence. You don't need to get "LOUD" with all those question marks!!!!
Ryan| 11.7.11 @ 9:21AM
I'm continuously confused as to how the left is in any way "evangelical." They don't preach about sin or salvation, or about the need for Christ's work on the Cross.
I am as ecumenical as a conservative tends to get, but it is extremely difficult to understand how their theology is anything but heresy.
9thID| 11.7.11 @ 10:29AM
It is unfortunate that Tooley and others use the expression "Evangelical Left" as it is an oxymoron that only muddies the waters of the debate...
rendite| 11.7.11 @ 12:52PM
Thank you 9thID (Crossed Rifles!).
I also have no idea why Mr. Tooley says Evangelical Left.
There is no such thing. Sure, the false gospel egotists like Wallis seek advantage in that label, but it is delusional.
An Evangelical:
1. Holds his nose and maybe votes Republican.
2. Hopes that somehow the Tea Party effort brings forth some honest Christian candidates.
3. Often realizes on days like November 8, 2011 and November 6, 2012, there are NO good choices in the voting booth.
4. Maybe just sits out election days in utter disgust.
5. The Evangelical prays A LOT. For our leaders even when we know them to be evil to the bone.
6. And the Evangelical focuses on the things in his or her immediate surroundings that can be positively done for Christ Jesus and His Kingdom.
abb3w| 11.7.11 @ 4:24PM
An evangelical is one who evangelizes; that is, who preaches the Gospel. Those on the left harp more on the parts about forgiveness and helping others; those on the right, more on the wrath of God on sinners.
Any place where one sect differs from another is a point where the belief of one is a heresy from the other. Protestant fundamentalists are all heretics from the standpoint of the Catholic church, for failing to acknowledge the authority of the Petrine succession.
Ryan| 11.8.11 @ 8:31AM
I would respond here that there's something of a point to be made about helping others; however, the "evangelical" left really does not evangelize much. They tend not to send missionaries; they actually don't proselytize all that much; and they have an incorrect view of the requirements of forgiveness and its relationship to sin and repentance.
I sort of agree on the Catholic Church point, except I think that could be a "who you ask" deal. I don't know that they would say I am going to hell right now, when some in the past might.
Alert1201| 11.7.11 @ 9:23AM
I attended a very conservative evangelical seminary in the late 80s and early 90s. I was stunned at how gullible many of them were and subject to shifting political winds. I would say 1/3 of the men I shared a dorm with voted for Clinton along with a number of professors. No matter how much pleading I did with these men they were stuck on stupid. I can only imagine its gotten worse since then.
RND| 11.7.11 @ 1:03PM
So, Alert1201, sounds like you were in Dallas, no?
Alas, you are correct.
There ought to be a 4 + 2 + 2 + 3 Program before we allow a man to enter seminary and be considered for the pastorate.
*4 years military duty
*2 years inner city missions Christian service in the nearest over 1 million sized city to the "candidate's" hometown.
*2 years overseas mission in a similarly completely impoverished location, e.g. Lagos, Nigeria, Liberia, or Uganda's capital.
*3 years working in Washington, D.C.
You probably get the point. The last 3 years? Three years working in government ought to be enough time for any thinking man to see that government and its liberal humanitarian ideas never solves any of the problems he witnessed in the middle 4 years of this vital preparation program.
vb| 11.7.11 @ 10:33AM
God says I will judge you on how you treat the most vulnerable in your midst.
Isn't part of the problem that many do-gooders do all they can to remove the vulnerable from their midst, where they have to be seen as the individuals they are. Instead, they are sent to welfare offices. More money is allocated to their failing schools while children of the not vulnerable attend private schools or those in well-off suburbs. All sorts of status symbols are used to remind the vulnerable that they don't belong with their betters.
Somehow I suspect that small town clingers may be better at helping those in their midst.
big bob| 11.7.11 @ 1:45PM
Where does He say that? Please show us the reference? Because my Bible says that apart from "His righteousness, we are as filthy rags", (Romans) I don't see anywhere in my Bible that vlunerability has anything to do with God's judgement!! Is that right next to the passage that says "God helps those who help themselves"??? Just askin'!!
Ryan| 11.7.11 @ 1:53PM
vb makes a good point, but I'm not sure which side he's arguing from. I would say his argument condemns the left moreso...
Matt 25: 41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not [e]take care of You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Doctor Right| 11.7.11 @ 10:36AM
Jim Wallis is a fool.
How we as a nation treat the most vulnerable among us is NOT based on how many freebies and hand-outs we give to them.
Hand-outs and freebies are the EASY way out of the problem, but they make the person giving the hand-out feel all swell about himself, and to a leftist, that's really the most important thing.
A proper Christian attitude towards the underprivileged is to help them become self-sufficient and productive, NOT become permanent wards of the state.
The Bible also says in 2 Thessalonians 3:10
10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
...I don't think Mr. Wallis ever mentions this passage...
Nick| 11.7.11 @ 1:38PM
Excellent points, Doctor Right.
I couldn't have stated it better myself!
God Bless!
skip| 11.7.11 @ 2:49PM
Of note for all the bleeding heart liberals is that 2 Thessalonians 3:10 is from the 'turn the other cheek' New Testament and not from the 'eye for an eye' Old Testament.
C Smith| 11.7.11 @ 11:00AM
"Will evangelicals sustain their traditionally high level of support for Republicans"?
Get real! True evangelicals have long ago concluded, "the Republican Party doesn't have a prayer."
Will probably go to the polls as usual and write-in: "Lt. Col. Oliver North"
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2010
Literally won’t have a Prayer
A letter to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott during the Senate impeachment trial of President William Jefferson Clinton:
The Honorable Senator Trent Lott
The Senate of the United States
Washington D.C. 20510
Date. Jan 1, 1999
Dear Sir,
On the first Tuesday in November, 1992, I went to Republican Headquarters. My wife was there making calls on one of many phones. I recognized others too. Surprisingly, every phone was manned by someone from either my church or the Christian school my children attend. Even the woman coordinating the entire affair was a dear friend who worshipped with us. I remember reminiscing as I contemplated what the coming hours would determine: I recalled how my children had in the preceding weeks carried campaign literature door to door. I remember how my wife flawlessly hand addressed literally thousands of letters for local Republican candidates. I wondered what would come of the Saturday after Saturday I had spent with so many others of conviction in platform committee meetings, addressing the spiritual direction of the party. And I remembered the flyers in plastic baggies that I distributed in the rain the night before. Senator Lott, this was typical of the passion and conviction that believers once had for the Republican Party… passion and conviction that has all too often been replaced by feelings of violation, abandonment, and betrayal.
Over the last six years, the Republican Party has proven that conviction and courage are a rare commodity: Republican leadership allowed a pro-abortion governor to deliver the State of the Union response. Republicans failed to oppose the nomination of a Supreme Court justice whose opinions often resemble those of early 20th Century anarchists. The 96 Republican campaign was little more than a "going away party" for a nice old man who reportedly bragged that he had not even read the Republican Platform. I could go on Senator Lott, but I think you can see why I didn’t even bother to go to Republican Headquarters this last election… AND I WASN’T ALONE!
We now stand at the crossroads Senator Lott. The House has HONORABLY determined that it is the rule of law, not public opinion, that must be followed. The house has resolved that there IS to be a trial. And you also have said: "We [the Senate] need to go forward and do our CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to hear the evidence.'' (emphasis added) Yet, a day or two later, you proposed the means for terminating the implicit constitutional mandate for a full Senate trial! Senator Lott, how can you take what you have called your "constitutional duty" so lightly, the "constitutional duty" you swore in an oath with your hand upon the Bible? Senator Lott, have you forgotten that it is the "oaths" that we honor or dishonor, that is the substance of the matter that now confronts the Senate?
The Constitution gives the Senate "the sole Power to try" the President. No other authority on earth has that Power and no other individual has greater Power and responsibility in holding this man accountable then you do as Senate Majority Leader. Our President has forgotten his oaths…Senator Lott have you forgotten yours?
Your leadership in this matter will determine the future of the Republican Party. It will determine whether it is the party of conviction or merely the "moral" equivalent of its opposition. If you take a stand for a full Senate trial with witnesses and the admission of all relevant evidence, it will cost you something. Courage and conviction always cost something. The coliseum in Rome is still stained with the blood of those who refused to betray their convictions… and their contemporaries will not betray them now. Your leadership will determine whether those who have made the most significant contributions to the Republican Party will remain part of it or will consider it an abomination. Sadly, if the latter, the Republican Party literally "WON'T HAVE A PRAYER"!
http://popularapostasy.blogspo.....?q=senator
nohussein| 11.7.11 @ 11:28AM
Religious commies, unbelievable.
abb3w| 11.7.11 @ 4:28PM
Not so unbelievable, really.
"They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."
Acts 2:42-47.
Ryan| 11.8.11 @ 8:35AM
By common agreement, not government enforcement. That's the common misinterpretation by the left of those verses.
Despite its history at times, being a Christian has always theologically been a voluntary religion (unlike others, such as Islam).
Now, there can be a point made from those verses that Christians don't always necessarily do a great job of taking care of their own when it requires sacrifice; but there's a lot more good done when you look for it...
florin| 11.7.11 @ 11:33AM
Jim Wallis is nothing more than a tool of Obama and his comrades...Obama is pulling out all of his left wing comrades to try again to deceive the American people who, he said, "cling to their guns and their religion"...the only 'religion' Obama wants people to cling to is his radicalized version...not going to work this time! Obama, the emperor with no clothes on has been revealed for the incompetent left wing radical that he is and has always been...
JR| 11.7.11 @ 1:04PM
Social Justice: Being charitable with someone else's money.
RND| 11.7.11 @ 1:23PM
JR, you are right.
However, the fallacy of it and weakness of it is truly this: Slothfullness.
The common term for this today is laziness or just being a serial "slacker."
Taking tax dollars and expecting anonymous workers to "clean up" a social problem or poverty in one's locale is LAZY.
Caring and loving are sweat verbs. Action. Charity is not a concept; it is back-breaking work.
It costs a man far more to use his own hands, feet, effort, time, and money to fix the social ills that lie within his city or county.
But that is what we are to do. This is what Jesus expects. Not contracting the "fix effort" to someone who has no stake in its overwatch and success.
Taxation and government programs as efforts to remedy societal problems is slothfulness.
Merlin| 11.7.11 @ 11:09PM
RND
Unfortunately, you are right. God's commands for us the help the poor, etc. are not satisified by paying for the welfare state. Or should I say paying for part of it and borrowing the rest, with serious doubts about ever being able to pay it back. That sounds like theft . . . .
Marko| 11.7.11 @ 1:25PM
A key phrase for me in Tooley's article is where he says that Fosdick "...rejected much of Christianity's supernatural elements in favor [of] endless trumpet calls for ethical reforms and social justice."
To me the issue is whether Evangelicals should be focusing on the here and now, and trying to create a "heaven on earth" (Utopia), or whether they should be focusing on the hereafter and getting as many people saved as possible (the "supernatural" element).
The gospel of Jesus Christ is about the latter more than the former. Jesus said that he came to "seek and save what was lost". Seek? Save? Lost? There are important words from our Savior's mouth. Everything he taught and said and did revolve around what he meant by them.
In the end, the supernatural part of what Christ had to say is all that matters. Wallis, et al, shift the focus away from that and to the things of this world. One could even say, borrowing from a theme of "The Screwtape Letters" by C. S. Lewis, that they are doing the Devil's work, by distracting from the real message of sin and salvation.
Ryan| 11.7.11 @ 1:57PM
I would say that salvation and service are indeterminably linked together. One should NOT happen without the other; and true salvation produces the fruit of good works.
One of the failings, honestly, of many evangelical churches is the failure to disciple new believers. We cannot expect them to fend for themselves after they "walk the aisle."
Cromulent| 11.7.11 @ 1:47PM
heheheheheheh: Fosdick.
Dixie Pixie| 11.7.11 @ 6:01PM
I take it that “Beavis and Butthead” are back on the air.
Watch for the episode where Cornholio becomes a SecState Clinton staffer and jump-starts the “Arab Spring”
J. Knox rocks| 11.8.11 @ 1:04PM
Dixie P., you can't be serious. Maybe I interpret wrong, but maybe you watch Beavis and Butthead?
You cannot be serious. Is "Get a life" in order here? You can never retrieve that TV 1/2 hour lost -- forever. Remember the phrase: A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Plus here we are talking about what Christianity is. Deeds don't save us but faith without works is DEAD.
If you're watching the tube, how does that help God's Kingdom? Tube watching is ZIP. It is being mentally and physically lazy.
I sincerely hope that I misunderstand your remark above at 6:01 PM. Any poster here watching Beavis & Butthead..?? Oh my. Maturity?
big bob| 11.7.11 @ 1:55PM
Mr. Tooley, there IS no such thing as an Evangelical "left", any more than there is a "same-sex" marriage. You are playing with terms that obfuscate the difference between the left and right. They are socialists first, and religionists second. That they associate with Christians (evangelicals by definition) who take the Bible literally, but DON'T take the Bible literally is a non-starter. They are using religion for their own political purposes, just as the Sierra Club does with environmental issues, and the Greenies do with economic issues , etc. But please do not classify them as any sort of "Evangelical"!!
abb3w| 11.7.11 @ 4:37PM
While those are strongly religious and believe in the Inerrancy of the Bible are disproportionately conservative, there's still among them a minority (10-20% of strongly Religious Inerrants, based on the General Social Survey data available on-line) who are liberal, in some cases because of their strong religious focus on Christ's message of helping others.
Merlin| 11.7.11 @ 11:13PM
abb3w,
See RND @ 11.7.11 1:23pm
GregA| 11.7.11 @ 4:49PM
Wallis has turned into a political whore. The use of religion by both left and right is abhorent.
Tina B| 11.7.11 @ 5:25PM
I think several people have already posted the essense of what I also feel. The Evangelical is one who brings the Gospel, and that Good News is we have a Savior who came to us, while we are still sinners, and died for our sins.
We are now free, and He has many promises for His children.
Any other news, if it is not totally centered in the Cross, the death of Christ and His Resurrection, our repentance and ultimate salvation, is merely secondary. The primary focus must be bringing the message of Salvation, it is Christ who is the Bread of Life. He is our all in all, all that we need. Everything else is gravy.
Bible Idolator| 11.7.11 @ 5:41PM
"We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and with a propitious Eye beholds His subjects assuming that freedom of thought and dignity of self-direction which He bestowed on them. From the rising to the setting sun, may His Kingdom come!" - Samuel Adams, After signing the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
"He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all. Our forefathers threw off the yoke of Popery in religion; for you is reserved the honor of leveling the popery of politics. They opened the Bible to all, and maintained the capacity of every man to judge for himself in religion." - Samuel Adams, Speech at the State House, Philadelphia, August 1, 1776
"For God is one, also there is one Mediator
of God and of men, the Man Christ Jesus, the One having given Himself a ransom
on behalf of all, the testimony to be given
in its own time.." 1 Tim. 2:5 & 6.
Nick| 11.7.11 @ 7:20PM
Margie,
Who cares about Samuel Adams' views on the Catholic Church?
Dan| 11.7.11 @ 5:43PM
Margie, you told us you were outta here and gone. So you change your name and return.
Nick| 11.7.11 @ 7:02PM
Dan,
Margie said she was leaving?
How did I miss that one?
Dan| 11.7.11 @ 7:49PM
Nick, about a week or ten days ago, in a commen to an article written Quin, she complained she had been banned in the past and this site has been taken over by we papists. She is using different names since then.
Dixie Pixie| 11.7.11 @ 5:53PM
What a bizarre article linking Fearless Fosdick of Li”l Abner comics with George Soros through Jim Wallis.
Granted that Fearless Fosdick was the prototype of the Liberal Religious Avenger as Detective Fosdick was notorious for gunning down hundreds of innocent bystanders just to stop one unlicensed balloon vender.
The Left took to heart a poor penniless hero who performed his public duties always pure of heart and to riddle and be riddled with bullets.
Yes, Fosdick give the Religious Left the model to follow as it is better to slaughter hundreds so that they never be subjected to even one commercial contact with the evil capitalist venders.
Granted, Fearless Fosdick is the perfect role model of a public official for George Soros, aka “Mr Scary Dude”.
A person like Soros who started his career stealing the property of gassed Jews needs as a model a public servant who will unhesitatingly kill tens, hundreds even thousands of the common people in the pursuit of Socialist goals.
After all Soros has learned it is much harder to steal from the living (who can fight back) and the dead ( who can not).
But having a population who is spiritually dead is even better as they can be plundered again and again, over and over, unlike the dead who can only be plundered once.
Thus the necessity of Jim Wallis to “Re-brand” Socialist methodology as Christen principals.
After all a dead soul is a captive soul and one who will easily disgorge the goodies.
Or am I totally off the base with this one?
Steve| 11.7.11 @ 7:50PM
Dix, you are trying too hard for laughs.
Dixie Pixie| 11.8.11 @ 12:46AM
Steve...I could not resist the Fearless Fosdick hook.
It was too good to pass up.
The funny thing is, Fearless Fosdick would be a Soros type of guy.
Enjoy.
Nite| 11.7.11 @ 9:23PM
The so called religious left is hardly religious. That applies to Jim Wallis. So to think he is going to pull Evangelicals from the Republican Conservatives is absurd and delusional.
jpelligrino| 11.8.11 @ 1:25AM
Oh come on. Soros is the most evil Nazi in America. For some reason he is hell-bent in bringing this country down, but I doubt that some phoney baloney lefty religious types will sway anyone from voting for ANYONE but his boy. How long can this guy possibly live?
POST American| 11.8.11 @ 3:11AM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
----This isn't even a side show by '90's show'
standards.
MEANWHILE, as FUKISHIMA goes into
its 9th month of Globalist media cover up,
the subject of EUGENICS and Social
Darwinism supplanting Christ uttered doctrine
---doesn't even rate a glance.
NOT LOOKIN' GOOD KIDDIES-----------------------
-------GMO nachos and weaponized vaccines-------
------------------WAY NOT LOOKIN' GOOD
M. Simon | 11.18.11 @ 3:23AM
"In contrast, Soros is an atheist with seemingly sees organized religion as only a potentially useful tool for advancing his leftist politics. "
Drug Prohibition has put more people on the left than almost any other program I can think of. So Soros is correct about organized religion.
I think he is on the other side in the Drug War just to make social conservatives fight it harder. And you know how the ending of the last Prohibition turned out.
M. Simon | 11.18.11 @ 3:29AM
Dixie Pixie| 11.7.11 @ 5:53PM
How does denying medicine to those in need (veterans with PTSD problems helped by medpot http://classicalvalues.com/201.....oad-block/ ) in order to keep hippies from having fun with the stuff, fit into your scheme?
Where I used to come from veterans were the closet thing to sacred you could find here on earth.