"he wanted folks to see the sort of Christianity we espouse, and went on to say, on a very personal note, that if he had seen this sort of movement, he may not have left Christianity behind."

I'll pray, as you ask, that your article will bear redemptive fruit.

I am curious if Jim Wallis and Sojourners support the sort of Christianity espoused in a movement recently put forth as the "Manhattan Declaration," which draws a line between rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars', but not what is Gods'. Take a look at it. It is signed by a range of Christians with various doctrinal positions.

http://manhattandeclaration.org/decdocs/Manhatt...

"I am curious if Jim Wallis and Sojourners support the sort of Christianity espoused...."

And I am curious as to how this paragraph and accompanying link respond in any way to Shane Claiborne's article.

Jane

The Manhatten Declaration is a stand by Christians that likely is the
opposite of side of the coin from what the world finds acceptable.
I'm just curious to what liberal Christians think about this
movement. Shane was pleased with the way his article was accepted,
and the impact it may have. I'm curious about this. That is the
connection, although admittedly really, really weak. Really weak.
Anyway, have a good day.

It in fact reflects much of the world spirit, which has nothing do to with political, social or moral "positions." Keep in mind that Christianity (and Judaism before that) had to do with thinking and acting differently than the world. In other words, you don't need to be a Christian to adopt any of those positions.

And here's a question: Who wrote, signed and endorsed it? That may speak volumes.

Good points. I think there are 150 signatures from major players
within Catholicism, Orthodox traditions, Evangelicals etc. Not sure
of names. I know Chuck Colson wrote part of it and the thrust of the
declaration has ties to writings of the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer. I
think Sojourners should address it.

Well, Sojourners isn't the least bit interested in that kind of religion -- the kind more focused on cultural authority than service -- so I don't see why or how how it would do so. It just reads so partisan.

Political action from Focus on the Family is religion focused on cultural authority and political action from Sojourners is service.

This isn't clear thinking or writing BD.

What side of the bed did you crawl out on this morning?

I think the list of signers indicates Sojourners and Wallis would be aware of this document; and I do think it legitimate to ask why they chose to sign or not sign. Ron Sider signed.

Political action from Focus on the Family is religion focused on cultural authority and political action from Sojourners is service.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Just look at how much reach in Christian media each has -- no comparison.

BTW, I've been an ESA member for over 20 years, but I don't always agree with Ron Sider.

So, just for clarity--did you read the document?

Yeah, I did. It started out well enough, but when it got into defending Biblical "positions" and subsequent persecution it lost me. What I read was "Why should we undergo persecution for speaking Biblical truth?" I would respond, "Why shouldn't we undergo persecution for speaking Biblical truth?" I mean, if even Jesus said it would happen, perhaps we should just roll with it. Besides, I can't think of any time where conservative evangelicals were concerned with anyone's rights except their own.

And I think that gets into part of Shane's message.

We're losing our freedoms to forces that oppose God.

I don't agree at all -- because, first, Christians' freedom comes from knowing Him. And freedom without justice is only license.

Blue -- Corruption is not confined to capitalism. Socialism is
equally corrupt, but capitalism results in the most prosperity for the
most people and incentivizes productivity and stimulates human
potential. Socialism and welfare thwart human potential. And anyway,
who are these great moral people who run governments who are able to
decide who gets what and how much. What I see happening in our
country makes me want to throw up. Governments are run by sinful,
evil people (like me) and because of that they need to be limited in
their power. What we are seeing now is an attempt to expand
government control over virtually everything. The result of that will
be good only for those socialists who are at the top of the pile. The
role of government should be limited to providing for national
defense, restraining lawlessness, and maintaining a stable currency.
Government should not be in the welfare business at all. Social
security and medicare are going bankrupt. Our national deficits are
off the charts. Ghettos throughout the country are the result of
social and welfare programs. We need to wake up. By the way, I also
do not fall in line with so many of the people on Sojourners who seem
to think that government is the answer. Well, it is not the answer.
It is the problem. Your buddy, Winston

Completely irrelevant, especially to non-believers. That's just what I'm talking about, marrying cultural and political positions to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; you do that and you end up watering down such Gospel. Do you think it's any accident that it's harder to preach the Gospel in affluent Western society? Perhaps that's because much of the evangelical church has sold out to it! We're supposed to be a counterweight, and this is the best we can do?

Blue, You make some good points. I find that a lot of this new
Emergent Church stuff that appears to be widespread of late dismisses
the actual gospel message for a lot of social and worship activity
devoid of substance. The main attack in that movement is on the
inerrancy and authority of Scripture, which, once undermined, destroys
the entire foundation of Christianity. I find a lot of the writing in
Sojourners seems to be involved heavily with cultural and political
positions. I am all for reaching out to non-believers in all sorts of
creative ways, but not at the expense of truth. Jesus said "I have
not come to give peace, but rather division." When everything is all
nice and peaceful, truth is not being proclaimed because truth
divides. Jesus proclaimed truth and ended up being crucified for it.
He said "the world hates me because I testify of it that its deeds are
evil." That is not the Jesus that Sojourners seems to be comfortable
with. They like the nice, all-including, non-judgmental Jesus that
they create in their own minds. That is not Jesus. That is the Jesus
of 2 Cor 11 "another" Jesus. Anyway, you make good points.
Appreciate your input, Blue. You are a good man, in the sense that
anyone is a good man. God bless. Winston

Well, look at it this way. Some of us who are not political/ideological
conservatives certainly aren't "peaceful" by those standards -- we're
passionate and try to live what we believe. This one tries his best not to
confuse Bible with culture -- which has been a problem in Western society,
even thanks to the Protestant Reformation, which was as much about power
politics as, if not more than, reclaiming the historic Christian faith. There
is a lot, in retrospect, that Calvin got wrong and we're still paying the
price for that.

For this reason, you simply cannot pull out a few verses or chapters and
construct an entire theology on behavioral or moral issues. For openers, the
spirit of God cannot work properly when you do that because the focus ceases
to be on Him. Then, when you argue that certain sins are particularly bad --
which just happens to be the ones you generally don't commit -- you actually
undermine the whole of it. And one thing I personally resent is the entire
"culture war" argument, that we would "lose our place" if we don't somehow
defend "Christian values" in the public square; if that be the case, we need
to ask then how did we get sucked into the "world system" in the first place.

Yes, Jesus says, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated Me
first." That said, let's not give the "world" any ammunition and be willing
to accept legitimate criticism because it might be from God Himself. That's
one thing I have always hated about the "religious right" -- it doesn't
understand that non-believers have real gripes about its attitude towards its
perceived enemies. After all (and I intend never to forget this), I was once
one of God's enemies, and there but for the grace of God ...

Blue, I agree with a lot of what you say. All sorts of inconsistencies and problems with we Christians, me included for sure. I was just saying that the Bible is clear on those things, which it is. God bless. Winston

"I find that a lot of this new
Emergent Church stuff that appears to be widespread of late dismisses
the actual gospel message for a lot of social and worship activity
devoid of substance. "

I am replying here because there is no room to reply to the actual comment.

So the message that God loves you and wants to be part of your life is superficial. And you had to hijack this thread with the real gospel, which is to preach against abortion and gay marriage. In fact, it is those two issues which are social and cultural.

Jane

How do you know it reflects the world spirit and not know who who wrote and signed it--since reading it to the bottom would make quite evident who wrote it??????

Because part of the problem with the kind of Christianity the declaration represents is that it desires cultural preeminence -- that is, "because WE say this it must be true and everybody, believers or not, must fall in line with us." That's not how the early church operated -- heck, not even ancient Israel took that tack because it knew full well it was different and meant to be so. As I said, it really has nothing do with specific positions on Biblical issues; the Scripture makes clear that, absent the spirit of God, you really can't obey them anyway.