The New Evangelical Agenda

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/the-new-evangelical-agend_b_2137388.html

Jim WallisChristian leader for social change

The New Evangelical Agenda
Posted: 11/15/2012 10:48 am

The day after the election, Southern Baptist Seminary President Albert Mohler said, "I think this was an evangelical disaster."

Not really. But it was a disaster for the religious right, which had again tied its faith to the partisan political agenda of the Republican Party -- which did lose the election. But Nov. 6 was an even deeper disaster for the religious right's leaders, because they will no longer be able to control or easily co-opt the meaning of the term "evangelical."

During this election, much of the media continued to use the word as a political term -- as a key constituency of the Republican conservative base. But what the media really means when they use term "evangelical" is "conservative white evangelical." All other kinds of evangelicals are just never counted.

Just as the 2012 electoral results finally revealed the demographic transformation of America -- which has been occurring for quite some time -- it also dramatically demonstrated how the meaning of the word "evangelical" is being transformed.

more at link

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Wallis has been a long-time fighter for social justice.

I've posted his screeds here on more than one occasion, only to be trashed by the ideological purists who can't handle his religious conservatives.

I guess they don't understand the concept of "fellow travelers."

As a deistic Unitarian, I find I can travel pretty far down the road with Wallis before we hit a practical (as opposed to philosophical) diverging point.

[cbayer]

2. I like him and have posted his articles frequently.

We have some good people participating here who recognize the value of forming alliances to advance shared goals.

I agree with you. We do not have to let philosophical differences block our path to practical solutions.

[trotsky]

4. So apparently those who support full LGBT rights aren't "good people"?

How very judgmental of you.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. You're putting words in the mouths of others and distorting what they said.

You can't get to judgmentalism from what was posted.

[trotsky]

8. Oh? Then perhaps cbayer can explain what she meant by "good people" who support working with Wallis

and what the specific use of that term implies about people who have a problem with him.

Because it sure as hell looks like yet another passive-aggressive dig at those she doesn't agree with.

[trotsky]

3. The biggest problem with Wallis is his lack of support for marriage equality.

If insisting on equal rights for LGBTers makes me an "ideological purist" then so be it. I'm not OK with sacrificing anyone's rights.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Just because I disagree vehemently with someone on certain points--

and in this case LGBT rights is certainly one of them--doesn't mean I can't make common cause on a lot of other issues.

[trotsky]

7. I'm not OK with putting aside LGBT rights.

We will just agree to disagree on this I guess.

[Jackpine Radical]

9. No, I'll fight for LGBT rights when that is the issue.

Meanwhile, I won't kick anyone to the curb who is on my side on many other issues.

[trotsky]

10. Equal rights for all is the CENTRAL issue for progressives.

How are you supposed to set that aside to work on "other issues"?

[Thats my opinion]

11. Wallis, like most of the rest of us, is right about many things and wrong about a few.

I celebrate the former--which are overwhelmingly positive, and criticize him about the rest.

[Jackpine Radical]

12. Thank you.

That's pretty much what I was hoping to get across.