The New Evangelicals - Who knew?

[Anonymous]

Maybe some on the left and some on the right aren't as far apart as we're being led to believe by Fox News. Yea!

The New Evangelicals
By MARCIA PALLY

Though public support for both major political parties is very low, one group of voters is usually exempted from this malaise: evangelicals. It’s assumed that at least these “values voters” are getting what they want. But we should look more carefully.

A sizable portion of evangelicals have left the right, so to speak, in what the theologian Scot McKnight called “the biggest change in the evangelical movement,” nothing less than the emergence of “a new kind of Christian social conscience.” These new evangelicals focus on economic justice, environmental protection and immigration reform — not exactly Republican strong points. The religious right remains a potent political force, but where once there was the appearance of an evangelical movement that sang out in one voice, there is now a robust polyphony.

In numbers, that means Christians who don’t think of themselves as part of the religious right come to roughly 24 percent of the population, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Subtract the Catholic left and you’ve got some 19 percent of the population distributed among the ‘60s evangelical left; younger, emergent progressive churches; and red-letter Christians, who focus on Jesus’ words in scripture (printed in red) and who lean towards progressive activism. Others have quietly broadened the activism associated with the religious right.

In a group that takes ethics seriously, still another reason for the change is new thinking about what matters most. The cavalier militarism and the justification of torture during the Bush years, along with the strident in-group-ism of the last four decades, prodded many evangelicals to re-examine themselves and their actions. George W. Bush may have fractured the Christian coalition that elected him.

Richard Cizik, president of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, describes the movement as a “slow earthquake.” A developing grassroots movement won’t have one overarching policy position, but the new evangelical concerns collect in a few areas. One is an embrace of church-state separation. “Let it be known unequivocally,” declared the 2008 Evangelical Manifesto, signed by over 70 evangelical leaders, “we are firmly opposed to the imposition of theocracy on our pluralistic society.”

Here's the rest of the short article:

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/the-new-evangelicals/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe some on the left and some on the right aren't as far apart as we're being led to believe by Fox News. Yea!

The New Evangelicals
By MARCIA PALLY

Though public support for both major political parties is very low, one group of voters is usually exempted from this malaise: evangelicals. It’s assumed that at least these “values voters” are getting what they want. But we should look more carefully.

A sizable portion of evangelicals have left the right, so to speak, in what the theologian Scot McKnight called “the biggest change in the evangelical movement,” nothing less than the emergence of “a new kind of Christian social conscience.” These new evangelicals focus on economic justice, environmental protection and immigration reform — not exactly Republican strong points. The religious right remains a potent political force, but where once there was the appearance of an evangelical movement that sang out in one voice, there is now a robust polyphony.

In numbers, that means Christians who don’t think of themselves as part of the religious right come to roughly 24 percent of the population, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Subtract the Catholic left and you’ve got some 19 percent of the population distributed among the ‘60s evangelical left; younger, emergent progressive churches; and red-letter Christians, who focus on Jesus’ words in scripture (printed in red) and who lean towards progressive activism. Others have quietly broadened the activism associated with the religious right.

In a group that takes ethics seriously, still another reason for the change is new thinking about what matters most. The cavalier militarism and the justification of torture during the Bush years, along with the strident in-group-ism of the last four decades, prodded many evangelicals to re-examine themselves and their actions. George W. Bush may have fractured the Christian coalition that elected him.

Richard Cizik, president of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, describes the movement as a “slow earthquake.” A developing grassroots movement won’t have one overarching policy position, but the new evangelical concerns collect in a few areas. One is an embrace of church-state separation. “Let it be known unequivocally,” declared the 2008 Evangelical Manifesto, signed by over 70 evangelical leaders, “we are firmly opposed to the imposition of theocracy on our pluralistic society.”

Here's the rest of the short article:

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/the-new-evangelicals/

Fox News is *shocked* to discover some Christians actually follow the teachings of Jesus and thus care about liberal causes. *SHOCKED* I tell you.

Actually, it's more than some.

[Anonymous]

this is full of bull shit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe some on the left and some on the right aren't as far apart as we're being led to believe by Fox News. Yea!

The New Evangelicals
By MARCIA PALLY

Though public support for both major political parties is very low, one group of voters is usually exempted from this malaise: evangelicals. It’s assumed that at least these “values voters” are getting what they want. But we should look more carefully.

A sizable portion of evangelicals have left the right, so to speak, in what the theologian Scot McKnight called “the biggest change in the evangelical movement,” nothing less than the emergence of “a new kind of Christian social conscience.” These new evangelicals focus on economic justice, environmental protection and immigration reform — not exactly Republican strong points. The religious right remains a potent political force, but where once there was the appearance of an evangelical movement that sang out in one voice, there is now a robust polyphony.

In numbers, that means Christians who don’t think of themselves as part of the religious right come to roughly 24 percent of the population, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Subtract the Catholic left and you’ve got some 19 percent of the population distributed among the ‘60s evangelical left; younger, emergent progressive churches; and red-letter Christians, who focus on Jesus’ words in scripture (printed in red) and who lean towards progressive activism. Others have quietly broadened the activism associated with the religious right.

In a group that takes ethics seriously, still another reason for the change is new thinking about what matters most. The cavalier militarism and the justification of torture during the Bush years, along with the strident in-group-ism of the last four decades, prodded many evangelicals to re-examine themselves and their actions. George W. Bush may have fractured the Christian coalition that elected him.

Richard Cizik, president of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, describes the movement as a “slow earthquake.” A developing grassroots movement won’t have one overarching policy position, but the new evangelical concerns collect in a few areas. One is an embrace of church-state separation. “Let it be known unequivocally,” declared the 2008 Evangelical Manifesto, signed by over 70 evangelical leaders, “we are firmly opposed to the imposition of theocracy on our pluralistic society.”

Here's the rest of the short article:

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/the-new-evangelicals/

Fox News is *shocked* to discover some Christians actually follow the teachings of Jesus and thus care about liberal causes. *SHOCKED* I tell you.

Actually, it's more than some.

oh yeah , the new york times is horibbley left , even further from center than Faux News

[Anonymous]

Jesus wouldn't support killing babies. Hitler would. Blake your pick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jesus wouldn't support killing babies. Hitler would. Blake your pick.

Jesus never commented on abortion, even though it went on in Biblical times.

However he did comment quite a bit on poverty and social justice. It's a shame that conservatives praise Jesus all day long but stick him with the job of taking care of the poor and suffering. When Jesus says, "not everyone who says Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven, he's talking about these people. I'm glad to see that the younger evangelicals are returning to the Gospel. I can accept the fact that they will not agree with me on everything but at least they are listening to his words.

I find it appalling that you can use abortion in a cheap attempt to invalidate the other pressing social issues that these new evangelicals represent.

[Anonymous]

Freakonomics authors proved that liberal abortion laws led to lower crime. So maybe killing the right "babies" is good for society.

[Anonymous]

To 8:50, remind me what Jesus had to say about getting involved in Ceasar's affairs. Matt 22:21

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:Jesus wouldn't support killing babies. Hitler would. Blake your pick.

May I try to give some helpful feedback? Although I am pro-choice, there are arguments against abortion that I think have merit. But what you wrote above bears the same relation to such arguments as masturbation does to sex, all you are doing is trying to convince yourself, and nobody else is affected by it.

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus wouldn't support killing babies. Hitler would. Blake your pick.

May I try to give some helpful feedback? Although I am pro-choice, there are arguments against abortion that I think have merit. But what you wrote above bears the same relation to such arguments as masturbation does to sex, all you are doing is trying to convince yourself, and nobody else is affected by it.

Not helpful.

First, you speak only for yourself. While SOME surely agree with you - you can't make such half assed statements as "nobody else is affected by it"

Second, I get that you don't think abortion kills babies. If you don't think abortion kills babies, then pro-choice is the only logical position. So, without discussion of whether abortion kills babies, there is no room for debate. I'm sure that it is more comfortable to ignore what abortion involves. When I was pro-choice I did just that. Then I learned the details of abortion and could no longer ignore the reality that abortion kills babies. It's not a comfortable discussion, but I refuse to be like those in the U.S. who knew what was going on in Germany and chose to ignore it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus wouldn't support killing babies. Hitler would. Blake your pick.

May I try to give some helpful feedback? Although I am pro-choice, there are arguments against abortion that I think have merit. But what you wrote above bears the same relation to such arguments as masturbation does to sex, all you are doing is trying to convince yourself, and nobody else is affected by it.

Not helpful.

First, you speak only for yourself. While SOME surely agree with you - you can't make such half assed statements as "nobody else is affected by it"

Second, I get that you don't think abortion kills babies. If you don't think abortion kills babies, then pro-choice is the only logical position. So, without discussion of whether abortion kills babies, there is no room for debate. I'm sure that it is more comfortable to ignore what abortion involves. When I was pro-choice I did just that. Then I learned the details of abortion and could no longer ignore the reality that abortion kills babies. It's not a comfortable discussion, but I refuse to be like those in the U.S. who knew what was going on in Germany and chose to ignore it.

NP. What I don't get is why you interjected with abortion. The new evangelicals are still anti-abortion. The old evangelicals are anti-abortion. So WTF are you doing bringing up abortion, except to hijack a thread on a legitimate subject???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus wouldn't support killing babies. Hitler would. Blake your pick.

Jesus never commented on abortion, even though it went on in Biblical times.

However he did comment quite a bit on poverty and social justice. It's a shame that conservatives praise Jesus all day long but stick him with the job of taking care of the poor and suffering. When Jesus says, "not everyone who says Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven, he's talking about these people. I'm glad to see that the younger evangelicals are returning to the Gospel. I can accept the fact that they will not agree with me on everything but at least they are listening to his words.

I find it appalling that you can use abortion in a cheap attempt to invalidate the other pressing social issues that these new evangelicals represent.

Jesus holds whatever particular set of beliefs I happen to have woken up with this morning. That's the beauty of the "Jesus in your heart" scam: it binds the Creator of the Universe with your own unexamined prejudices. (i.e. Gays will burn in Hell, but there's nothing wrong with women speaking in Church).

[Anonymous]

Lay interpretations of Christian theology should be trusted as much as one would trust a plumber to do heart surgery.

The Christian message is almost incomprehensible to those immersed in our secular world. It takes time to appreciate the radical concept that we are all members of one body. But it is only with that depth of understanding that teachings such as “one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple” make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lay interpretations of Christian theology should be trusted as much as one would trust a plumber to do heart surgery.

The Christian message is almost incomprehensible to those immersed in our secular world. It takes time to appreciate the radical concept that we are all members of one body. But it is only with that depth of understanding that teachings such as “one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple” make sense.

Your point on this is kind of obscured by the fact that you are providing a lay interpretation of Christian Theology. Can you be direct about what you believe that passage means?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lay interpretations of Christian theology should be trusted as much as one would trust a plumber to do heart surgery.

The Christian message is almost incomprehensible to those immersed in our secular world. It takes time to appreciate the radical concept that we are all members of one body. But it is only with that depth of understanding that teachings such as “one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple” make sense.

Martin Luther disagrees with you.