An Evangelical Trojan Horse in the Democratic Party?

For Your Information...

Im brand-new to blogging and just heard about trackbacks, which I guess is a means for me to acknowledge your website through a linkback through my site. I discovered your internet site in the "currently buzzing" segment of one of the bookmarking si...

He was One of a kind, who passed truth on to those who were not one of
a kind. We're to pass it on (2 Tim 2:2).

Brian's thrust is that it is arrogant to say you have and know the truth. Well, Jesus didn't think so.

But Jesus DID have and know the truth, so of course he wasn't BEING arrogant. He did everything out of love. But he was one of a kind.

David -- I never said all can be known or that we know it fully. Not
sure how you came up with that. 1 Cor 13 says now "we know in part."
There is all sorts of mystery in God, His Son, and their work. Psalm
145 says "God's greatness is unsearchable;" and Scripture also says
"His judgments are unsearchable" and "His understanding is infinite."
He has revealed some things to us and we KNOW those things. In 1
Corinthinans it says "He has given us an understanding," and "we have
the mind of Christ." What I see in McLaren and the Emergent Church
stuff is fulfillment of the Scripture that says, "the time will come
when they will not endure sound doctrine." We can, from the
Scripture, know and understand sound doctrine.

David speaking by the Holy Spirit in Psalms says "I hate every false
way," and "I hate those who regard lying vanities." So there is some
tension in Scripture when you point to Luke 6:35 and "all Scripture is
given by inspiration of God..."

I find it a little strange that you come at me this way and then point
the finger at me for coming at McLaren etc in the same way. This love
thing is a blade that cuts in more than one direction. Anyway, I
never said I know it all or know it all fully, but I do know some
things, and that has nothing to do with arrogance. It has to with
"holding forth the word of life." Also, converting people is the work
of God, as it says in John 6. We can water and sow, but God gives the
increase. I love people enough to share truth with them and, as it
says in Psalm 19, "the word of the Lord converts the soul."

I'd have to study "the kingdom prepared for you thing... I don't know
off the top of my head and I'm heading to work now.

Having said all of this stuff. I do sense that you are a brother in
Christ, David. God bless you.

Well, I don't know. I asked some questions--so I am not sure I made an abundantly clear point. I think you may be acknowledging there are times when it is ethically legitimate to make an unwanted physical imposition on a person--without letting those words come out of your mouth.
An intervention to keep the woman from jumping might be legitimate. An intervention to keep a pregnant woman might be legitimate. They are, however, two distinct situations--and one does demand we consider the ethical status of the life she is carrying. A more frequent real scenario is women who are under court supervision who are pregnant and engaged in behaviors (e.g. drug abuse) harmful to the fetus. Is it justified for the Court to demand she adjust her behavior for the sake of the unborn??

Maybe it is not a "trap." Common Loon clearly asks for language that does not reinforce polarized extremes and false choices.

I think it good for daughter to be intentional with her sexuality. I assume there are men in the life of your family also exercising rights and responsibilities.

In my extended family there are 22 adults and nine marriages. So far we have managed life so all the children have been conceived and birthed in marriage; and with no abortions. I think this a great blessing and pray our family, all Jesus-followers, somehow give and richly receive from all those around us. I don't think this a rare story--but sometimes the media seems to portray such as odd.

Doesn't your intervention impose a demand on the woman's choice about her body. Your original statement was pretty absolutist so not sure how you get to the intervention??

OK, the scenario is dramatic. How much more dramatic though than the 100,000 November abortions--a practice, in aggregate, making women and men and sacred life whole??

Is a society nothing more that a whole bunch of me's guaranteeing I can do with me as I please. My life? God's life? My Baby? God's Baby? Our Baby?

What does it say? It "says" hypocrites, that's what. Yup, deny others but it's okay for them! LOL.

I was trying to confirm with Debbie whether she considered stopping a woman from killing herself and baby to be justified--or a wrongful coercion on the woman's right to do what she wanted to do with her body.

LJRD, I don't understand the point of your question. If someone were threatening to jump off a bridge, why would intervention depend on pregnancy, stage of pregnancy, or even the gender of the person threatening to jump?

Although, if your intervention took the form of talking her down, rather than grabbing her, then I suppose you might use the baby as a reason not to jump. Is that what you meant?

Jane

Sometimes your critics are your best critics brother. Truth delivered with a hammer is a lie.

When persons say the language is over the top they do not counter your conclusions nor assertions. They are speaking about your language.

Your language is a quite separate issue from the practice of abortion; and too is to be brought under the Lordship of Jesus.

Or, why not just everyone being honest and note that the Evangelical vote was, is,and will be split between Republicans and Democrats.

What changed is that we had a change election.

And what also changed is that we have a series of parties (journalists, Christian activists, pundits, writers and politicians), all of whom have vested interests in forever creating different political winds and interpretations--working very hard to recalibrate the political face of Evangelicalism, how journalists interpret that, and how the political parties respond.

mobilit branden dressing...

this site is worth a backlink and I backlinked to it to get more backlinks...

Or, why not just everyone being honest and note that the Evangelical vote was, is,and will be split between Republicans and Democrats.

What changed is that we had a change election.

And what also changed is that we have a series of parties (journalists, Christian activists, pundits, writers and politicians), all of whom have vested interests in forever creating different political winds and interpretations--working very hard to recalibrate the political face of Evangelicalism, how journalists interpret that, and how the political parties respond.

I think our biggest problem is that we use our political parties as weapons rather than tools, and our focus is on defining our differences.
Of course we're different. We need throw away all our slogans and catch phrases, and start going beyond quick, black and white answers to find real solutions. We have to get past the tribal mentality that has defined our parties for decades, and start finding solutions that actually are based on the best interests of the country as a whole.

"That faulty diagnosis seems to be shared in recent speculation that the Stupak amendment - which went beyond the abortion neutrality called for by all the Christian progressives I'm aware of - was added to the House health-care bill as part of a long-standing plan by progressive religious forces"
--This amendment was supported by the Catholic church and very many "Christian progressives," including many Democrats (perhaps you only know pro-choice Christian progressives?). It basically used the same language as the Hyde amendment in prohibiting federal money to cover abortions....even Factcheck said that the healthcare plan would include govt funding of abortions. This amendment was very necessary and anyone who is prolife supported it.

"The Republican Party is still the only party for them: abortion, gay marriage, and freedom of corporations from governmental accountability (which is what "small government" often means in practice) are their three litmus test issues, trumping all other issues to the level of annoying distractions - whether we're talking about preserving the planet for future generations, working for justice for the poor, or pursuing peace through means other than military and economic domination."
--What strikes me about much of McLaren's writing is that it is often infused with what appears to be grace, humility, and charity. This veneer is dropped altogether when he writes about evangelicals (whom he abandoned a long time ago, at least theologically) or Christian conservatives. This paragraph demonstrates his lack of charity very well.

It is clear he sees Christian conservatives as the enemy (rather than fellow brothers and sisters) and seeks to portray them in the worst light possible. He writes so often about the need to understand other people, to not assume the worst in others, and to reach out and seek to understand Muslims, terrorists, and leaders of oppressive regimes. The love and charity end when he talks about evangelicals or Christian conservatives.

I think our biggest problem is that we use our political parties as weapons rather than tools, and our focus is on defining our differences.
Of course we're different. We need throw away all our slogans and catch phrases, and start going beyond quick, black and white answers to find real solutions. We have to get past the tribal mentality that has defined our parties for decades, and start finding solutions that actually are based on the best interests of the country as a whole.

"That faulty diagnosis seems to be shared in recent speculation that the Stupak amendment - which went beyond the abortion neutrality called for by all the Christian progressives I'm aware of - was added to the House health-care bill as part of a long-standing plan by progressive religious forces"
--This amendment was supported by the Catholic church and very many "Christian progressives," including many Democrats (perhaps you only know pro-choice Christian progressives?). It basically used the same language as the Hyde amendment in prohibiting federal money to cover abortions....even Factcheck said that the healthcare plan would include govt funding of abortions. This amendment was very necessary and anyone who is prolife supported it.

"The Republican Party is still the only party for them: abortion, gay marriage, and freedom of corporations from governmental accountability (which is what "small government" often means in practice) are their three litmus test issues, trumping all other issues to the level of annoying distractions - whether we're talking about preserving the planet for future generations, working for justice for the poor, or pursuing peace through means other than military and economic domination."
--What strikes me about much of McLaren's writing is that it is often infused with what appears to be grace, humility, and charity. This veneer is dropped altogether when he writes about evangelicals (whom he abandoned a long time ago, at least theologically) or Christian conservatives. This paragraph demonstrates his lack of charity very well.

It is clear he sees Christian conservatives as the enemy (rather than fellow brothers and sisters) and seeks to portray them in the worst light possible. He writes so often about the need to understand other people, to not assume the worst in others, and to reach out and seek to understand Muslims, terrorists, and leaders of oppressive regimes. The love and charity end when he talks about evangelicals or Christian conservatives.

It is clear he sees Christian conservatives as the enemy (rather than fellow brothers and sisters) and seeks to portray them in the worst light possible. He writes so often about the need to understand other people, to not assume the worst in others, and to reach out and seek to understand Muslims, terrorists, and leaders of oppressive regimes. The love and charity end when he talks about evangelicals or Christian conservatives.

I think that overstates what McLaren writes; however, if that indeed be true, a large part of that has to do with conservative evangelicals' attitudes toward "apostates" such as himself and there's nothing he can do to change them (and I've heard and read what some have said about him); you can do only so much reaching out and getting your hands slapped before you have to turn away. It's not that he considers them the "enemy"; more accurately, they consider him the enemy because he doesn't subscribe to every jot and tittle of their leaders' absolutist agenda -- which, basically, is worship.

I don't really care for the Sojo political methodology, but McLaren seems to "get it" when it comes to not supporting a party necessarily but supporting any party that follows principled ethics and is faithful to the Scriptures. I'm not sure Sojourners as an organization does this very well, but their philosophy is properly on course.

It is clear he sees Christian conservatives as the enemy (rather than fellow brothers and sisters) and seeks to portray them in the worst light possible. He writes so often about the need to understand other people, to not assume the worst in others, and to reach out and seek to understand Muslims, terrorists, and leaders of oppressive regimes. The love and charity end when he talks about evangelicals or Christian conservatives.

I think that overstates what McLaren writes; however, if that indeed be true, a large part of that has to do with conservative evangelicals' attitudes toward "apostates" such as himself and there's nothing he can do to change them (and I've heard and read what some have said about him); you can do only so much reaching out and getting your hands slapped before you have to turn away. It's not that he considers them the "enemy"; more accurately, they consider him the enemy because he doesn't subscribe to every jot and tittle of their leaders' absolutist agenda -- which, basically, is worship.

I don't really care for the Sojo political methodology, but McLaren seems to "get it" when it comes to not supporting a party necessarily but supporting any party that follows principled ethics and is faithful to the Scriptures. I'm not sure Sojourners as an organization does this very well, but their philosophy is properly on course.

Oh yess. First we infiltrate your party, then we turn it into a den of wicked conservatism, and you will be powerless to stop us!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

LV

*Igor* Yes, master - it is your best plan yet!