Conservative Progressives?

McLaren's 3 priorities address issues that affect far more people far more profoundly than abortion and gay marriage. These are more personal moral issues. McLaren's priorities address systemic societal issues and policies that have far-reaching implications for everyone on the planet. Where should we focus our finite energies? I vote for McLaren's 3 priorities.

Consider the raw weight (quantity) of Bible text devoted to the topics of climate change (i.e. creation care), war, and poverty as compared to the weight of text devoted to discussing abortion, gay marriage, and the size of government.

There are a few texts discussing each of the latter topics, but orders-of-magnitude more texts discussing the first set.

I think we were discussing whether McLaren's writing is something new or more of the "old and tired fights" he criticizes.

That depends on his reason for criticizing them. I don't read him much, but if he joins the PC crowd in railing against others for his brand of stereotypes then obviously that's hypocritical.

You seemed to say--"it's not more of the same if no one complains about it"

No, I just see the controversy itself as the problem rather than the controversial statements. So complaining about the type of statements that always causes unnecessary controversy is more of the same. If no one complained the problem would be solved.

The Moral Majority is a different animal. They didn't rely on getting the other side angry AFAIK; they focused on getting votes from people who would give them regardless of controversy.

I think we were discussing whether McLaren's writing is something new or more of the "old and tired fights" he criticizes.
Common Loon basically said--"more of the same"
You seemed to say--"it's not more of the same if no one complains about it"
I argued it does polarize because not only is the message positioned "in opposition" but if it does not oppose there is no message.
You seemed to come back and again say that if I didn't complain about it there is no problem.
So I came back to what I believe an analogy of another set of faith leaders who figured out a way to package a political message that amplified their voice (while polarizing)--and ask you consider if you wish to go down that path again.

That's my take.

I think it is polarizing because I believe McLaren, Wallis, and a contingent of others have found a new kind of wedge voice. To gain an amplified political-religious voice in the broader media and publishing world one must have a marketable message. It must have legs. They have found a voice of creative, middle-ground, "Not X", and "Not Y", and not religious right, and not secular left--but to make the voice distinctive they have to pit themselves against those other voices.

They criticize parties on all sides who do not seek the common good--but in the process pit themselves against all sides. Frankly, I don't think progressives care one whit more about the three issues he identifies than my dyed-in-the-wool conservative Republican parents (now deceased). But to say he was one and the same as my parents--would be to say progressivism is not--and his voice is not distinctive.

So they make controversial statements in order to sell their opinions more easily, and because they make money from these controversial statements you feel the need to make them controversial?

I think it is polarizing because I believe McLaren, Wallis, and a contingent of others have found a new kind of wedge voice. To gain an amplified political-religious voice in the broader media and publishing world one must have a marketable message. It must have legs. They have found a voice of creative, middle-ground, "Not X", and "Not Y", and not religious right, and not secular left--but to make the voice distinctive they have to pit themselves against those other voices.

They criticize parties on all sides who do not seek the common good--but in the process pit themselves against all sides. Frankly, I don't think progressives care one whit more about the three issues he identifies than my dyed-in-the-wool conservative Republican parents (now deceased). But to say he was one and the same as my parents--would be to say progressivism is not--and his voice is not distinctive.

In 1980 Jerry Falwell discovered a 'moral majority.' This moral majority existed before 1979. But he identified and labeled it and the media bought it as a great story--elevating him (and others) to something of a kingpin status. The Moral Majority is gone. Except all the people that were part -- are pretty much still around. They were here before 1980, during the 80's, and will be here tomorrow.

There was a great mistake in thinking that because media and politicians recognized this new-found block of faith-voters--that leaders could step forth and exercise political power. That the church had found a new way to manifest Gods ways.

And Evangelicals quickly became the conservative, Republican, Right voting block with spokespersons we obediently followed.

Oh, never mind the truth. That the Evangelical vote was a divided vote in the 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's.

You want to jump on board and do this same thing again?

OK, replace money with attention... Same message.

In 1980 Jerry Falwell discovered a 'moral majority.' This moral majority existed before 1979. But he identified and labeled it and the media bought it as a great story--elevating him (and others) to something of a kingpin status. The Moral Majority is gone. Except all the people that were part -- are pretty much still around. They were here before 1980, during the 80's, and will be here tomorrow.

There was a great mistake in thinking that because media and politicians recognized this new-found block of faith-voters--that leaders could step forth and exercise political power. That the church had found a new way to manifest Gods ways.

And Evangelicals quickly became the conservative, Republican, Right voting block with spokespersons we obediently followed.

Oh, never mind the truth. That the Evangelical vote was a divided vote in the 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's.

You want to jump on board and do this same thing again?

OK, replace money with attention... Same message.

What about Christians being a prophetic voice to all those in politics, instead of worrying about which ideological label to carry?

yes. brian, your books brought new insights... i loved them all. but as a clairvoyant, assuming to know the hearts and minds of others... well, don't quit your day job my brother ;)

Consider the raw weight (quantity) of Bible text devoted to the topics of climate change (i.e. creation care), war, and poverty as compared to the weight of text devoted to discussing abortion, gay marriage, and the size of government.

There are a few texts discussing each of the latter topics, but orders-of-magnitude more texts discussing the first set.

I think we were discussing whether McLaren's writing is something new or more of the "old and tired fights" he criticizes.
Common Loon basically said--"more of the same"
You seemed to say--"it's not more of the same if no one complains about it"
I argued it does polarize because not only is the message positioned "in opposition" but if it does not oppose there is no message.
You seemed to come back and again say that if I didn't complain about it there is no problem.
So I came back to what I believe an analogy of another set of faith leaders who figured out a way to package a political message that amplified their voice (while polarizing)--and ask you consider if you wish to go down that path again.

That's my take.

I have heard people speak about people of color is such ways that demean their humanity because of their beliefs based on their supposedly expectations of political beliefs . Most people in our culture find that offensive .

Take the politics out of this , does not anyone else find the inappropriateness of this essay from a Christian perspective. From a secual perspective . Just from what our Moms and Dads taught us perspective.
I would think all of us would ?

Millstones come to mind.

God Loves you Brian. He does!

I forgot to add that Brian's point that the conversation needs to change; the old arguements are no longer helpful (if they ever were), is an excellent point. The 3 points he brings up are right on the money from my view, but from a conservative point of view they may be seen as inaccurate right from the start: there is still belief that Global warming is a hoax; some I talk to don't think of the economic imbalance as a problem; and see the "endless wars of Terrorism" as necessary. That thinking is hard to change. Too many people on BOTH sides have difficulty listening, let alone considering that they might be wrong

I'm not sure whether I'm a conservative progressive or a progressive conservative, but the gist of this article is something I'm trying to work against too.

1. Libertarians suggest altering land rights so land is (at least partly) a public resource. They argue that tort claims should be raised by members of the community who suffer from pollution - in a stream, for instance.

2. Thomas Jefferson had an objective of preserving the middle class too, but he was somewhere between conservative and libertarian. I'm not sure whether welfare is necessary now that we aren't stealing land, but one thing that hurts this cause is that the rich elite get most of the political offices. To fix this, we can reform campaign finance and experiment on the state level with other methods of election.

3. I think we'll probably have less wars when we get ordinary folks in office per #2.

And to solve the root of these problems - that is, the polarized political atmosphere - we need to start talking with each other more. Right now we have discussions within ideologies that's civil, but the ideology divide is like the language one. When you cross it, everything is foreign to you and you're foreign to everything. We need liberals who understand conservatism and conservatives who understand liberalism. Then we need to refine both to be consistent and put the best of each side in the other.

Note to liberals: Conservatives will have a really hard time listening as long as you attack us for paying attention to the pundits you love to hate. So far I have received satisfactory explanations for most of your pet peeves. The main thing that you need to grasp, I think, is that a lot of those pundits are very sarcastic and dry. Don't take everything they say as something they're saying seriously. When you find something this might apply to, go ask a conservative community before giving the pundit a black mark.

Where did he ever bring color into this? This article is about reconciliation and you're bringing politics back into it. Granted, he only addresses progressives - but this is a progressive site.

Lol. Well, I have an empty board that I'm working to populate with conservatives. You can go ahead and join, but it's just me and maybe two others so far. See my Disqus profile for the address. (I know the policy regarding liberals is strict; hopefully it can be changed once the board's personality is established.)

I'm not convinced of climate change, but I'll work with libs to find conservative solutions that will satisfy them. As for terrorism, I'm not totally sure. Bush's security measures were/are wrong, and invading Iraq was wrong. Invading Afghanistan was right, but maybe we're now fighting wrong over there.

But yes, many conservatives are horrible listeners. They have trouble even listening to my suggestions that we should listen to you.

Lol. Well, I have an empty board that I'm working to populate with conservatives. You can go ahead and join, but it's just me and maybe two others so far. See my Disqus profile for the address. (I know the policy regarding liberals is strict; hopefully it can be changed once the board's personality is established.)

. This is reconciliation ? Color was brought into because he is stereotyping people of Faith , and if you can not see the wrong in that , which I guess you were not able to , I thought perhaps if I suggested used another way people wrongly judge people it would help.

You found the following reconciliatory ? Interesting.

"What would a conservative wing of the progressive party stand for? First, I think, they would be staunchly secular, deeply suspicious of progressive Evangelicals and Catholics being "out of the closet" about their faith in party circles. Second, they would be nervous about progressive religious Democrats who do not favor criminalizing abortion but are deeply committed to abortion reduction. Third, they would be concerned if these Evangelical and Catholic Democrats wanted the same kinds of accountability for big government that they want for big business."

It's ironic that in light of his efforts to move beyond "old and tired fights and litmus tests that polarize, paralyze, and never lead anywhere," Brian himself has become a polarizing politico-religious figure.

Perhaps this has something to do with the contrast between Brian's encouragement of "faith-based energy and passion" when it comes to addressing certain highly complex public policy issues on one hand (climate change, war, poverty) and his simultaneous dismissal of those same energies and passions when the discussion concerns other highly complex public policy issues (abortion, gay marriage, the size of government).

I still consider myself a progressive evangelical with a left-of-center political viewpoint, but Brian does not speak for me anymore. He is adding to the polarization, not alleviating it.