Dave, what I think is happening, is that the younger evangelicals in particular, are expanding their external focus into other areas. They are seeing and coming to understand that their faith informs their actions and their public priorities beyond abortion and gay marriage. They are reading their Bibles and finding a lot in there about their responsibilities to be good stewards of what God has given, to be concerned about the plight of the very poor, to be bothered intensely by the death penalty and how it’s administered, and so on.

That isn’t to say that they put these issues ABOVE their faith. They are putting their faith into action in these areas. They are, to put it bluntly, keeping their evangelical zeal, but removing it from the politics of their parents.

hs,

Unity is a good point to make. Relatedness is the source of our relationship with God. To act to label and divide and make others wrong for who they are is to be at odds with our relationship with God.

The common purpose is to be in a relationship with others, and that relationship brings us into the presence of God. When we turn away from another, we are turing away from God. When we turn towards another we are turning towards God.

The most challenging purpose we have as beings is to be in the presence of God. When we struggle to accept others, it is the presence of God we are fearing. We hide from this, the fear is not of God, but of who we are in the presence of God.

The easiest and most self righteous way to dismiss another human being is to label them.

Another,

Whether I am in the presence of other people or not, I feel I have more to fear if God is not with me than if He is. I suspect most of us feel the same way.

“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.”

hs, you are a good and fair poster, but I have to disagree with this. The regilious liberal is just as sure that they are correct in their assessment of the Bible and the Word as any other segment of the religious spectrum. No one group has a monopoly on that. I know many on the left side religiously (and politically for that matter) and every one of them knows they are correct…just like I know I am correct

I do agree with you that working on issues like enviromentalism is an outward expression of how the Word of God has touched their lives and how they feel they are being called to act. Again, all segments of the spectrum do this, just not on the same issues.

The key question really that should come out of this whole discussion is why we haven’t all rallied around the Word of God together. That’s a doozie that is hard to answer…

Regarding the idea of the ever-reforming church:

In essentials unity
In nonessentials liberty
In all things charity

This is a credo of evangelical Christianity. Regardless of labels, the thing to remember is that all of these statements are equal. We cannot disagree on essential doctrine (i.e. there are things worth dividing on), we should allow disagreement without division (and yet still rigorously debate) non-essential doctrines. The trick is deciding which is essential and which is non-essential with love and respect for one another. If it’s ever-reforming we want, let’s make sure a reform is a reform, not just change.

Don’t fall into the “doctrine divides” nonsense. That brand of liberal theology will destroy the body of Christ if allowed to persist.

More on topic, I mourn the day that the environment takes first seat from the greatest of all mass killings in history. I know evangelicals feel a little used by the right on abortion, and they are getting tired of one-issue voting. But it is a one-issue that rightly trumps all others that I can readily think of.

I can see the appeal of the new and different, but after 4 years, we may remember why we took strong stands where we did.

God is always with you.

My point is: you may or may not be present to him.

Fear who you choose to fear. If you must fear, it is best to fear God.

Tim, you quoted me, but not completely. I noted in my next paragraph that many hard end liberals fail this test of admitting they might be wrong just as blindly as many on the hard right do.

Since abortion got dragged into this, I’ll make this comment that I’ve made many times before: There are a small number of cases where I believe a case can be made that an abortion is only one of several evils. In those cases, the people involved need to be free to make the best decision they are able to make without having outsiders passing judgment on the decision.

What are the essential tenets of the Christian faith? Good question…and one that has yet to be settled after 2000 years of argument

Showme,

You make a good point. My view is slightly different. I believe Jesus was killed because he challenged their authority. Their authority: to declare what it will be, what is right for others. A way of being for human beings that will always result in abuse.

Greed is only one outcome.

Power is a good thing, and Jesus is here to show us another way with it, a more authentic relationship of power. One that comes from within, that can be trusted and shared.

I believe Jesus was hear to engage us in a conversation with God to ongingly guide each of us in our choices. The threat of a power that comes from within each of us is what created the fear that caused others to kill Jesus.

Acknowledging that source of power requires a trust, strength, and faith in each other that is difficult to generate. People know themselves, they have little faith in others. Jesus is here to shows us: it is possible, the sacrifice it requires, and the love it produces.

“What are the essential tenets of the Christian faith? Good question…and one that has yet to be settled after 2000 years of argument ”

Not really. Not for anybody that accepts the authority of scripture. Throughout the history of the church, the various creeds have pretty well laid it out. And we pretty much get the same results through a logical reading of scripture.

The confusion is usually around making a biggrer deal out of a nonessential doctrince than we need to. But I don’t see a lot of variance around the essentials, but I do see a lack of uniting around what we need to unite around, even though we already agree. We would rather divide on things that don’t have any bearing on salvation.

I agree that Jesus is clear about what he is sharing with us. It is his purpose. When he speaks, it is clear.

One clear recommendation, do not judge.

Of all, it is the most difficult. When judgment is present, love is not.

God’s guidance to us is clear, do not partake in the knowledge of “right and wrong.” The manifestation of the use of this knowledge of sin is judgment. This is the first tenet, and the most conveniently forgotten.

I suggest the confusion comes from taking our choices, and declaring them the “right” choices, for ourselves and others.

It begs the question, if I am not compelled to do the “right” thing to glorify God, what else could be my purpose?

That space, that emptiness. that void, that clearing of nothingness is what frightens Christians the most.

It is a conversation that the leadership of some religions think the common believer can not take on and they begin to generate doctrine for us, morality, as if Jesus and God can not speak for themselves.