Dave

Thanks. I'm probably not qualified for that responsibility.

There was one persistent idea that really frustrated me. And that was that two individuals with different religious and political views could not unite for a common and worthwhile goal without incurring the wrath and suspicion of “true believers.”

Employing that kind of logic would have us eschewing the man who dared to associate with publicans and tax collectors.

I never said that Dave Donaldson was a bad person, or that the charity he heads does not deserve support. Others might have, but that wasn't me and I'd appreciate it if you would at least keep that much straight.

In the political realm you can choose your allies but you don't always get to decide who your rivals will be or set their agenda for them. I know you'd love to live in a world where the right was defined by relative moderates like Donaldson who are encouraged by the Obama administration. I'd love to live in a world where Blanche Lincoln (a moderate Democratic Senator from Arkansas) defined the extreme left. That universe doesn't exist either.

At some point you have to let your opponents speak for themselves. You can call Dave Donaldson “conservative” 'til the cows come home. But he doesn't speak for me and he doesn't speak for other conservative commenters here.

Since nobody is calling for any sanctions against Donaldson for any of his actual views, Joe McCarthy has nothing to do with any of this. Good heavens, you'd think that on a progressive blog there would be far worse things one could say than “Hey, that guy doesn't seem all that conservative to me!”

Am I the only one who sees the irony in all this?

LV

This makes no sense at all.

“…but he doesn't strike me as a compassionate conservative.”

With the single exception of his association with Wallis you offered no evidence for that statement.

“For one thing, it is entirely possible for liberals and conservatives to cooperate, especially on non-partisan, non-political activities.”

That is precisely what Donaldson and Wallis are doing and that is what raised the hackles of you and a few others.

“…and while his association with Jim Walllis might provoke an occasional eye-roll,…”

Why would this association provoke anything other than respect and admiration for their cooperative work?

“I think there are people who are conservative on theological issues but progressive on politics, and Donaldson's article looks like something out of that line. And that's okay.”

Nothing on Donaldson's original post or his (recent) response would suggest that his politics are not as conservative as his theology. Moreover, nothing that any of the negative bloggers wrote included any evidence that he is anything but conservative on any of the issues that political conservatives consider to be important. You and others who were so critical of this gentleman solely because of his association with Wallis are invited to visit his web site and the web site of the Assemblies of God and produce one shred of evidence that he is not both theologically conservative and politically conservative.

Has Senator Joseph Mccarthy been reincarnated?

In India, Japan, Africa, and some other places, some churches have split with others over the issue of caste. People of higher castes don't want to be “polluted” by having to belong to a church that doesn't support the institution of the “traditional, centuries-old” caste system that states that some people are “untouchable” because of having been born into certain castes.

Here is a site that describes the caste systems that exist around the world:

http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/3...

Here is one quote from the article:

“Converts to Christianity [in India] have retained the old caste practices. In particular, Dalit Christians are regarded as an undercaste by upper caste Christian clergy and nuns and are discriminated against in society.”

On the main topic of this entire thread: Mr. Donaldson, you make some good points and I admire your efforts. My church joins in with other churches of different denominations and beliefs on certain common issues.

Really? So do you still believe that marriage is supposed to be the sort of economic/political arrangement that it frequently was during historical times? Should people now refrain from marrying out of love and instead, should prospective marriage partners consult doctors, match-makers and/or social scientists on whether or not their marriage would benefit the particular political/economic/community situation?

And of course, why should non-fertile couples be allowed to marry at all? After all, they cannot reproduce and therefore wouldn't be able to contribute to building a community or affecting its politcal/social/religious/economic status.

“As for marrying someone of a different race, that doesn't compare.”

I hate to say it, but many would disagree; they would say that it compares. I was around — and quite active — in the civil rights struggles of the 1960s and 1970s. I remember the violence that happened back then over the idea of inter-racial marriage between heterosexual couples. Two people were arrested and jailed in Virginia because they dared to get married to each other when they were of different races. Virginia Loving is one of the defendants who appealed to the Supreme Court — and that “activist” court over-ruled the people's will and voided Virginia's miscengeny laws and allowed her to marry. She is still alive (her husband died a few years ago) has openly supported marriage between people of the same gender.

Just as the people who would still disagree with inter-racial heterosexual marriage, you are free to disagree with same-gender marriage. No one is forced to marry anyone of different races or same genders. No one is forced to endorse or recognize any of these marriages eather.

However, it is beginning to happen, just as inter-racial marriage has happened. We will over come!

To get back to my original point: I still don't understand why lack of respect for the poor (which is Ezekials characterization of one of the Sins of Sodom; the other sin was arrogance) doesn't cause churches to split off and leave dioceses.

I remember the days when churches split apart over slavery and racial segregation — fortunately that rarely happens any longer in the U.S. However, churches are still splitting off and leaving dioceses over gender issues, as if gender issues were so much more important than issues such as lack of respect for the poor.

Now it might be possible that Blue Deacon fits the description i.e. being more concerned with sex, gender, and who possesses which body-parts than with such issues as helping the poor or fighting social injustice. I still was trying to avoid labeling him as a specific person.

This is the problem with applying labels to other people. People's views on different issues are much more complicated than pundits and commentators would like everyone to believe. Not everyone falls into strict “red” and “blue” boxes.

But I don't think that we have resolved the central issue here: Can a man who comes from a theologically conservative church (a church which includes in its Statement of Fundamental Truths that the Scriptures are a revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct and a church whose public staements on social issues are decidedly conservative) – can that same man join forces with a man who is not conservative without having his conservative credentials challenged?

Throughout this land that God has abundantly blessed, liberals and conservatives daily join forces. The work side-by-side in PTA, Little League, storm devastated areas, cancer fund drives, and the battle-fields of Iraq – all without compromising their beliefs. So why have we singled out this one area in which two people with vastly different backgrounds and political beliefs have joined forces for a common cause? How has Mr. Donaldson sullied his conservative credentials by accepting the help of Sojo and Jim Wallis? It's really easy to dismiss them as “lacking integrity”, but it was the Samaritan who stopped to render assistance. If just a cup of water He places within our hand; then just a cup of water is all that He demands. The hungry and thirsty cannot distinguish its source.

As for marrying someone of a different race, that doesn't compare. Moses'
second wife was such and that caused some problems for many Israelites;
however, it never invalidated the marriage.

Whatever happened to “til death do we part?” Is this true only in your mind if the people have the “correct” body parts and are of the “correct” gender? Are you saying that fidelity within a long-term relationship is sinful if the partner isn't of the “correct” gender?

I remember the days when people were told that they were supposed to desert their long-term loving partners and were not allowed to marry them because they were of the “wrong” race.

You also wrote: “marriage elsewhere exists for the preservation of the 'tribe,' which in many cases partners are chosen by family, usually parents.”

Is marriage only for reproduction? What about couples who cannot reproduce? Is it sinful for them to express their love for each other in an intimate way?

Once more it seems that many of the so-called “conservatives” are more concerned with sex, gender, and who possesses which body-parts than they are with such issues as helping the poor or fighting social injustice.

Well — in fact, it is. The reason why He never said anything about it during His earthly life was because He generally was addressing the Jewish people, who generally were not participating in homosexual behavior (which was, of course, forbidden in Jewish law); Paul, by contrast, often dealt with Gentiles who were.

And in fact, same-gender marriage is only a modern Western construct precisely because, in our culture, it's based on attraction; marriage elsewhere exists for the preservation of the “tribe,” which in many cases partners are chosen by family, usually parents.