Posted on 02/17/2007 6:23:04 AM PST by NYer
As I have traveled around the country, one line in my speeches always draws cheers: "The monologue of the Religious Right is over, and a new dialogue has now begun." We have now entered the post-Religious Right era. Though religion has had a negative image in the last few decades, the years ahead may be shaped by a dynamic and more progressive faith that will make needed social change more possible.
In the churches, a combination of deeper compassion and better theology has moved many pastors and congregations away from the partisan politics of the Religious Right. In politics, we are beginning to see a leveling of the playing field between the two parties on religion and "moral values," and the media are finally beginning to cover the many and diverse voices of faith. These are all big changes in American life, and the rest of the world is taking notice.
Evangelicals — especially the new generation of pastors and young people — are deserting the Religious Right in droves. The evangelical social agenda is now much broader and deeper, engaging issues like poverty and economic justice, global warming, HIV/AIDS, sex trafficking, genocide in Darfur and the ethics of the war in Iraq. Catholics are returning to their social teaching; mainline Protestants are asserting their faith more aggressively; a new generation of young black and Latino pastors are putting the focus on social justice; a Jewish renewal movement and more moderate Islam are also growing; and a whole new denomination has emerged, which might be called the "spiritual but not religious."
Even more amazing, the Left is starting to get it. Progressive politics is remembering its own religious history and recovering the language of faith. Democrats are learning to connect issues with values and are now engaging with the faith community. They are running more candidates who have been emboldened to come out of the closet as believers themselves. Meanwhile, many Republicans have had it with the Religious Right. Both sides are asking how to connect faith and values with politics. People know now that God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and we are all learning that religion should not be in the pocket of any political party; it calls all of us to moral accountability.
Most people I talk to think that politics isn't working in America and believe that the misuse of religion has been part of the problem. Politics is failing to resolve the big moral issues of our time, or even to seriously address them. And religion has too often been used as a wedge to divide people, rather than as a bridge to bring us together on those most critical questions. I believe (and many people I talk with agree) that politics could and should begin to really deal with the many crises we face. Whenever that happens, social movements often begin to emerge, usually focused on key moral issues. The best social movements always have spiritual foundations, because real change comes with the energy, commitment and hope that powerful faith and spirituality can bring.
It's time to remember the spiritual revivals that helped lead to the abolition of slavery in Britain and the United States; the black church's leadership during the American civil rights movement; the deeply Catholic roots of the Solidarity movement in Poland that led the overthrow of communism; the way liberation theology in Latin America helped pave the way for new democracies; how Desmond Tutu and the South African churches served to inspire victory over apartheid; how "People Power" joined with the priests and bishops to bring down down Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos; how the Dalai Lama keeps hope alive for millions of Tibetans; and, today, how the growing Evangelical and Pentecostal churches of the global South are mobilizing to addresse the injustices of globalization.
I believe we are seeing the beginning of movements like that again, right here in America, and that we are poised on the edge of what might become a revival that will bring about big changes in the world. Historically, social reform often requires spiritual revival. And that's what church historians always say about real revival — that it changes things in the society, not just in people's inner lives. I believe that what we are seeing now may be the beginning of a new revival — a revival for justice.
The era of the Religious Right is now past, and it's up to all of us to create a new day.
So to the Apostles of the Post-Modern Emerging Church I say--get behind me!
Bump for later reading of McCullough.
btt
Wallis always had so little sense of the gravity of Abortion. Clueless after so very many years.
Dr. Gary North, a conservative Presbyterian, asks Jim Wallis a number of very interesting questions about the un-Biblical nature of his liberalism, and the internal contradictions of his claims:
http://www.garynorth.com/public/department61.cfm
I highly recommend it. HERE IS A QUOTE FROM THE INRODUCTION:
"Wallis is a part-time instructor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government (p. 21). Harper published his book -- one of the major mainstream media publishers. It is owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Jim Wallis is in fact an Establishment insider who is playing the role of a prophetic outsider. He is to "prophetic Christianity" what Jimmy Carter was to "prophetic politics." A man can make a career of this if he is skilled at positional marketing. (For more information, click here.) Jim Wallis is a highly skilled practitioner of positional marketing.
Wallis is editor of Sojourners, a magazine of considerable prominence in liberal political circles. Don't get me wrong. Political liberals do not actually read Sojourners, but they know it is out there, softening up the hearts and minds of an ecclesiastically isolated and politically marginal group of evangelicals. To do what? To vote for the next Democratic candidate for President...
...Jim Wallis totally misunderstands at least two things: economic theory and what the Bible specifically teaches about economics. I say this as someone who has published over 8,000 pages of verse-by-verse commentaries on the economics of the Bible. I have done my homework. Jim Wallis has not done his.
In God's Politics, Mr. Wallis says that he is getting invitations to be interviewed by evangelical radio talk show hosts, which he says is a new phenomenon for him (pp. 225-26). I have therefore prepared a series of questions for these talk show hosts to ask Mr. Wallis when they get the opportunity.
Jim Wallis lectures and teaches at Harvard, which appreciates his message in God's Politics. This is understandable. Mr. Wallis' politics and economics match the conclusions of the liberal political establishment. This is why he has great difficulty getting a hearing among Bible-believing Christians. No one can successfully play the role of John the Baptist for both Harvard and the Bible Belt, but he tries."
Another way I've heard...if you mix a gallon of ice cream and a gallon of cow manure, will it taste more like ice cream or manure?
Exactly my attitude. I want Hunter. I'll take Rudy. I'm not sure about Romney. I'm horrified that McCain is even under discussion. I love Newt but his negatives are higher than Hillary's and there's no way he'll get elected.
One other thing: As much as I don't like him for president, I suspect Rudy's character is such that that the Congressional RINO's stabbing our troops in the back are unfit to shine his shoes.
Few of us do want this.
However, the Constitution requires each state to recognize the acts of all other states. So if MA allows homosexuals to marry, FL and MT will be required to recognize as married those homosexuals who have been declared to be married in MA.
Essentially, leaving family law in "the jurisdiction of the states" means that the every state will be required to recognize whatever variant of marriage the most liberal and debauched state recognizes.
This could very easily lead to recognition of group marriage, short-term temporary marriage and other practices the vast majority of Americans oppose. Should none of them have a voice, or should two or three judges found using court-shoppping methods be allowed to decide such issues for us all?
Judges of this type violate the plain word and spirit of the constitution every day, then their supporters argue that we shouldn't use the only tool left to us, a Constitutional amendment, because we "shouldn't mess withe Constitution."
I absolutely agree, we shouldn't. You first. If you don't, I will have no desire to do so. I like it just fine the way it is.
I read quite a bit on the Web Site but saw nothing about Jesus. Sounds like Jim Wallis would more aptly be called Jim Jones.
And .. "bare shelves" are a precursor to come in America if Hellery is elected.
The terrorists have already told us THEIR MAIN GOAL IS TO SHUT DOWN OUR ECONOMY!!
Hello!! Is anybody out there really paying attention ..?? We know nobody in Congres is!
We are the silent majority, we have not left the building, wishful thinking of the atheist staff of Time who is going down the financial tubes.
LOL. Nah, just countering your contention that somehow morality is a Christian concept and that Christians created a Christian nation. I merely pointed out that it took 200 years for all this morality and justice established by Christians, as you say, to be finally corrected.
Cheers!
I think you got that backward. It is they who want to rid the Party of those of us who believe that prayer in school, evolution, stem cell research, and homosexuality are not the issues of importance to most Americans. Nor is that 42% you quote remotely representative of the much smaller activist religious right that is attempting to play a major role in the electoral process.
In fact, I welcome all into the Republican Party, the Party of Lincoln. It is the religious right that wants it cleansed of anyone not committed to a Christian oriented nation.
It took you an hour and a half to come up with that?
That's not true. The Defense of Marriage Act enacted pursuant to Article IV of the Constitution precludes any other jurisdiction from having to recognize any marriage other than between one man and one woman. There is no danger to traditional marriage in any state that recognizes only traditional marriage. The issue in Massachusetts is one for the people of that state to resolve, and no federal constitutional amendment is required.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.