I see little value in thinking in those terms at all. They are only different views of the same thing. I would think we could generate more than two. Of course that glove fits the “right” and “wrong” hand.

Imagine a world with out “right” or “wrong” (and I don’t mean chaos). the two party system wouldn’t work.

I think the religious left has always been there, just without the fanfare and attention that is paid to their right brethren. And that doesn’t surprise me given (in my opinion) the tendency of the media to lean to the left. What good would it do to focus on religion as an issue if there are as many Democrats that are religious as Republicans?

One other comment: You seem to think that conservatives don’t care about social justice? I find that interesting…

Some clarifications:

I think the fact that we’ve seen evangelicals speak out more broadly on social justice actually shows that conservatives do care deeply about these issues. I would suspect “younger evangelicals” would still, in the big picture, consider themselves conservative, theologically and politically. That’s why I think the “labels” are no longer accurate. I apologize if the post implied otherwise.

Beliefnet has developed a “methodology” (their word) for understanding religious political demographics called the “Twelve Tribes of American Politics” (http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/The-Twelve-Tribes-of-American-Politics-in-the-2008-Election.aspx). That might get us closer to an accurate view rather than the dualities of “left” and “right” or “right” and “wrong.”

I suspect whether we christians are religious right or left depends on how we see Jesus.

If we see him as someone who shows us how to have a personal relationship with God and we cherish the freedom to innovate and show the glory of God through personal endeavor, we are probably religious right. The religious right demands limited government to preserve resources for individual use. However, in this society, the Bush administration has shown that the Federal government has been too limited with regard to stock leveraging and bank lending. Consequently, resources available for individual use have been diminished and the dogma for limited government has be discredited.

The religious left - I don’t identify with them - seems to go beyond a personal relationship with God and, somehow, see Jesus as someone whose relationship with God means social justice.

Until we determine how limited government should be - a free economy cannot be a free-for-all economy - we on the right are going to have to suffer though the religious left’s endeavors to get resourves for personal use by redistribution of wealth. Hopefully this period of historically failed policies will not last too long.

Dave, not bad. The Social Justice that is generally referred to by the religious left is understood through the pervasive presence throughout scripture of the poor, the widow, the orphan, and others on the fringes, and the demands placed on those with the resources to help them.

One can read the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats as a literal statement of judgment against NATIONS, not individuals.

After all, one of my favorite Old Testament texts is Micah 6:8. “…And what does the LORD require of you, o man, but to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God”. If I am not working for justice, I’m missing one of the major points.

We can get into a political argument about the best way to bring Justice into practice if you like…..but that isn’t really the point. There are also significant Biblical texts that talk about the requirements, duties, and responsibilities of civil authority. Creating environments where the poor and disadvantaged are treated fairly goes all the way back to Deuteronomy.

“I would point to is the generational shift we seem to be seeing among evangelicals. Younger evangelicals are much more drawn to issues of social justice and the environment (think Jim Wallis) than their older counterparts (think Jerry Falwell).

“So much so that perhaps it’s no longer very helpful to think, at least in political-religious terms, of “left” and “right.”

Well Rev. Scholl, it may be convenient, but I think it ignores reality. I think the generational shift you refer to has to do with some evangelicals leaning left instead of all evangelicals leaning right.

And I think you overlook the impact of liberal religion, which has acted as the research and development wing for Christianity since Emerson.

And let us not forget!

It was religious liberals who preached abolition of slavery, not the conservatives who pointed to biblical passages condoning it. It was religious liberals who crusaded for temperance, and against child labor, not conservatives who complained about possible damage to the economy. It was religious liberals who worked for penal reform while the conservatives said prisoners deserved what they got. It was religious liberals who pressed for women’s and black’s suffrage, not conservatives who complained those two groups were not ready for the privilege of voting.

It was religious liberals like my grand-daddy, the Rev. Thamer Waldo Simer who— along with hundreds of liberal clergy— marched in Selma, Alabama with Dr. King while religious conservatives stressed the need for racial apartheid.

More recently, it is religious liberals who affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person— including gays and lesbians— by encouraging social recognition of their union, while religious conservatives would deny them that pursuit of happiness.

It religious liberals who have worked for a more inclusive and pluralistic society, while religious conservatives have attempted to thwart that process. To gloss centuries of work by religious liberals or to appropriate it to the convenience of the mainline is misleading.

To make a sweeping generalization, religious progressives seek to broaden our understanding and to question the emperor’s wardrobe. Religious conservatives try and take us back to our core values.

This has always been a tension in American religious life, and I don’t see it ending anytime soon.

As the lead minister of the largest Unitarian church in Missouri, this has been something I have paid particular attention to.

Thank you for your thoughts,

revdaniel

you need a correction on a huge logical error(aside from making stupid assumptions about only liberals valuing individuals): “Since religious liberalism has done good, all religious liberalism is good.”

Change is good in and only in that it move toward something good, and away from something bad.

Liberalism just moves-it moves “forward” implying “good” but this is not necessarily true; forward can be as bad and worse than backwards. In the past christian “liberals” were moving towards a truer understanding of God and the Bible. “Religious conservatives try and take us back to our core values” - I hope so. Any sane person would call a good thing because the core values of Christianity are based in absolute good. The “liberals” you want to talk about were doing that exact thing, not moving away from core values…so you are making several severe logic flaws. your liberals were doing what you accuse conservatives of.

Travis, and others, what I see is that the Church is shifting. As a Presbyterian, I always remember the old formula: Ecclesia Reforma, Semper Reformanda. Church Reformed and Always Reforming.

I see the American Church changing. The change I see is an increased focus on Mission, in it’s broadest sense. And that, to me, is a good thing. If that is a “liberal” direction for the church to go, so be it. We talk a lot about division in the church, and despair of healing the divisions. The divisions will not be healed by fine tuning of doctrine, or by finally agreeing on the right way to interpret scripture. The divisions will be healed as we go out into the world, together, and work for the Kingdom of God. As I’ve commented before: when you’re sharing an evening meal in a dining tent in a work camp after hanging drywall in southern Mississippi in June, you get a new understanding of what the term “Brother or Sister in Christ” means. We don’t have to agree on doctrine. We do, however, have to understand that each of us is called to service, and it is through service that our faith becomes whole.

Social justice and environmental preservation is not something Jesus demands. The passage “render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar” comes to mind, Matthew 22:20-22. Everyone has their own relationship to God. It is hard for me to see good news, born again evangelicals being drawn to social justice and environmental activism as part of their faith. We may have to redefine “evangelical”.

I would remind Evangelical Christians that Jesus was killed by the Establishment because he challenged their greed and power. One of Jesus’ last acts before he was crucified was his drive of the money-changers from the Temple.