Revdaniel,

I would like to make the point that labeling the successes of the faithful as the results of the efforts of the “left” is divisive and righteous.

The church has a history for social responsibility that is successful. To attemmpt to divide us by stereotyping those that were successful as “leftist” and those that weren’t as “rightist” makes politics out of faith.

I will resist the effort to make people wrong. I will stannd for what I believe in, and I can do that without stereotyping, or making people wrong for who they are and what they believe.

The Democrats (liberals) believe in sharing and helping those in need. The Republicans (conservatives) believe in individualism and the power to make a difference that begins first within me.

I supports both these views, and together they are the essence of being a Christian.

Dave, to your comment about how social justice and environmental issues don’t dovetail with being an evangelical.

Consider that the modern Evangelical movement had it’s roots in the early 20th century social upheavals that led to political progressivism. The early environmentalists (think Teddy Roosevelt) and early pushers of social justice (think women’s suffrage) all came out of a religious movement that became known as the second great awakening. The second great awakening led to the modern evangelical movement, and the founding of most of the major evangelical church groups. The United Pentecostals, the church of the 4-square Gospel and others all started then.

I would argue that the Bible does NOT celebrate individualism and individual achievement over all else. That is a very limited and simplistic view.

Jim Wallis is arguing that we’re on the edge of another Great Awakening. One that is going to move against the doctrine of selfish individuality and towards a new understanding of community, covenant, and social responsibility.

The, which came first, chicken and the egg debate of faith. Which comes first: delivering the word through love and caring (liberalism), or transformation of the individual itself (conservatism).

There is an answer, believe it or not. The egg comes first. Any transformation or change (genetic) begins with the egg. The chicken is the source of that life, yet the transformation to a new life form begins within the egg.

Jesus is the gift of eternal life, the source, yet the transformation begins first within the person.

Both are essential. One is first, yourself. You must learn to forgive and love yourself before you can forgive and love your neighbor. Jesus is here to remind us of this, and to forgive us and love us when we cannot forgive and love ourselves. Mathew 7:1-5

Do not collapse caring for your self with selfishness. Characterization of others as selfish would be a judgment. WWJD: care for himself and be generous in the same way.

I have to add that the whole “liberal vs. conservative” debate is a dstraction to Christianity.

We are taking two halves of the same whole and waging them against each other for the sake of righteousness.

This is exactly what God asked us not to do in the first story. Do not use the knowlege of “right and wrong.”

The religious right is neither. Nor have they ever been a majority, but always a most vocal minority.

Now by religious right, I am lumping Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, strict Protestant constructionists of all flavors: Survivalist, millennial Pentecostals, Catholics for whom a return to hierarchy, Latin and pro-life are the only issues, Zionist Jews, cultic Mormons and jihadi Muslims are all part of the religious right– in short, any sect which says “my way or the highway to hell” qualifies.

I call religious left anyone who believes in peaceful religious co-existence, a moral code based on love of God, neighbor and self, tolerance of differences, who believes it is sufficient, as Jesus and most prophets of different sects did, to worship God sincerely, to be and do good and the best for yourself, and help your fellow man as you are able. The rest is all addendum footnotes on dry leaves of dead scripture, which may be useful to consult, but aren’t soul marching orders. Most mainline Protestants, moderate to liberal Catholics, moderate to reform Jews, the overwhelming majority of Muslims and Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus, Confucists, and a passle of splinter religions, ethical groups, and even most non-cultic deistic humanists and New Agers share these traits. It doesn’t even matter if you call God your Higher Power, YHWH, Allah, the great Void, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Even amongst atheists, there are very few who are rudderless, with no belief system, even if that belief system doesn’t include the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God.

There are more things that unite the liberal religions than one usually thinks about; the same is true of the conservative religious right, once they get past their exclusionary labels. About the only real difference is that liberals are willing to give their neighbors the benefit of the doubt about their beliefs, and the conservatives are so convinced they have the only truth that they have drawn a tight circle around themselves, and don’t want to let people in or out.

Tell me again, why liberal religionists voting for Obama and the Dems is news? While you are at it, I’ve always wondered why the millenial Christians keep recruiting if only 144,000 of us are going to heaven.

Teresa, welcome

I could put it this way:

Religious Conservatives see doubt as a sin to be purged, while religious liberals see doubt as something to be explored and celebrated. The Religious conservatives (similar to the political conservatives) seem to have a hard time acknowledging the fundamental idea that they might be wrong, while the Religious liberal is more than willing to acknowledge that not only might they be wrong, but that someone else might be right.

By the way, before I get jumped for this: there are many on the extreme Left end who are just as “conservative” by my definitions above as many who consider themselves to be so.

Teresa,

That 144, 000 thousand I have recently begin researching and studying and praying for understanding because I was at one time sure that that number represented the number of total Jewish men that would be saved out of the world totally from the twelve tribes. Scripture does tell us that the 144,000 were MEN only.

But, upon further reading and research and hearing a number of different beliefs regarding the 144,000 men, I know now that I was wrong and had also been given much information from many different sources and different denominations and was never completely satisfied in my spirit that I had been given the correct information of who these men really were.

I stumbled upon this information concerning the 144,000. For the first time since my search for the answer of who these men will be, I am now pretty much at peace in my spirit that I now understand who these 144, 000 will be.

In your genuine search for understanding of God’s truths,in His timing He will give us understanding and clarity of all things. You can start here in your search for who these men will be. I think that you will appreciate this.

http://amazingbible.com/Documents/Bible_Prophecy/144000_Jews.htm

I am not advocating lberalism or conservativism as a choice that has to be made to be a believer.

For those who are so sure, Jesus was as well. Certainty, in and of it self, indicates nothing.

Would John the Baptist have been a liberal or a conservative? He seemed to have been very sure about his faith.

Here is a question I have for the Biblical scholars. Was John the Baptist a Christian?

Another, no, John the Baptist was not a Christian. He said of himself, after all, that he was not the Messiah, but the precursor or prophet. That doesn’t really matter, does it?

For those who have mentioned that these labels are limiting and really not appropriate…thank you. I’ve done some study on the Biblical concept of Unity. Unity, in the church, is NOT about agreement, or even really about understanding each other. Unity, is about having a common purpose. In the broad sense, then, Liberal, Conservative, mainline, independent, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptic ought to all be able to come together for the common purpose of the Kingdom of God, and be able to unite around the cross, shouldn’t we? If we can’t, what’s wrong with us?

hs,

I agree “that the Bible does NOT celebrate individualism and individual achievement over all else.” but, in each faith relationship with God, Jesus does. The evangelical good news from Jesus is that, in individual relationships with God and neighbor, proactive love is better than blind adherance to law. Jesus’ words are for individuals, not groups and Christ is the Word, not the Bible. This focus on individual God relationships is the essence of what evangelical christians are about.

There is nothing selfish about love. I can see evangelicals getting involved in environmental and social issues but I don’t see how such issues can be more important than their personal relationship with God.
My argument is that if evangelicals think they are serving something greater than themselves by devotion to the environment or social issues, they are not really evangelical christians.