After Falwell, evangelicals at crossroads, Movement in transition --LINK

[Blackhatjack]

This article sums up the challenge Repubs will face in marshalling a unified RW Conservative Fundamentalists base in the 2008 election.
***********

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18792074/

After Falwell, evangelicals at crossroads
Movement in state of transition; faces schism between old, new generation

<snip>

When Falwell dissolved the Moral Majority in 1989, the leadership torch was picked up by Robertson at the Christian Coalition. After that group ran into financial and management problems in the late 1990s, leadership passed to Dobson's radio ministry, Focus on the Family.

"Falwell's death highlights the inevitable change in the leadership of conservative Christians," Green said. "The big question is whether there will be one prominent leader for this movement, as there was most of the time in the past, or whether there will be many leaders, making the movement more diffuse and perhaps less influential."

DeMoss said he thinks "there will never be such a single, dominant leader of the movement again."
Page agrees. "We're in an anti-hero age. People shoot at anybody who comes to a certain level of prominence," he said. "We're in a time of real doubt and disturbing lack of loyalty to causes. We see people having a hard time pulling together."

MORE

[Goblinmonger]

1. What I am really waiting for with Falwell's death

is the liberal Christians to actually use this as a means to discuss what Christianity is all about and denounce the hatred of the right-wing Christians. Sadly, I have not seen that happen.

[Bluerthanblue]

3. liberal christians.

have been doing more than 'discussing' what christianity is all about- they've been living it out. We've also been 'denouncing' hatred where ever it comes from.

I'm sorry you haven't 'seen' it happening. That doesn't mean it isn't happening. The world doesn't see what DU and Peace Action, what VAW and so many other groups are doing to try and change the path this administration has taken the US on, but that doesn't mean we're not here- we're not trying, or that we are willingly complicit in what the 'world' sees as "American".

peace,
blu

[Goblinmonger]

4. OK, I get the living the lifestyle bit

but don't you think that the message that Falwell and his brand of Christianity is just completely hate-filled and inconsistent with Christ is going to come a lot more easily from fellow Christians than from non-Christians. Just look at the reaction that Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris get with that message. That is the type of message I am talking about. Hell, there are fundies that come into R/T and spout literalist interpretations and they are only met with resistance by non-Christians. The liberal Christians are nowhere to be read.

[Bluerthanblue]

7. i couldn't speak to

"falwell's brand of christianity"- falwell himself, seemed to be fixated on what other people "should" and "shouldn't" do- he was all about pointing fingers, and looking at other peoples lives to find reasons to explain what often defies explanation.

He said:
"God" does terrible things to the world because of the 'bad actions' of others???
I ask:
What does that say about "God"'s love for each one of us as individuals then???

He said:
"disasters and catastrophes befall us, because we don't stop the 'sinning' that our fellow citizens are doing- we 'tolerate' their 'sin', so we are being judged as guilty"

I ask:
What did Jesus say to the "religious "good-do-be' squad" about judging others according to 'the bible'?

I'd be wrong to try and comment on those who might fall into the general: "his brand of christianity" slot-
I've learned by experience that with sweeping generalizations- 'innocent' people are often swept up and victims of blanket condemnations or commendations, neither of which are right.

I also have to say I don't know too much about the three men you mention- Given what little i do know, i would tend to think that they seem to represent the 'yang' to falwells 'yin'-

While some religious people cannot tolerate the freedom each one of us has (or should have to hold truths, beliefs, understandings, moral concepts etc, without constantly having to challenge and torment 'non-religious' people,
there are alsothose who claim to have no 'spiritual' beliefs and cannot tolerate those who hold truths, beliefs, understandings and moral concepts that do not mesh with their own 'scientific' 'logic-based' 'grounding'.

That isn't what i desire in a 'just' community- a society that allows, and celebrates a wide variety of people, but unite in common connectedness.

As for arguing in R/T about literal or creationist beliefs,.... well, I don't feel that forcing other people to embrace my own personal 'ideology' is something anyone should have to do-

Being religious or atheist shouldn't require that others either become submissive, be forced to deny their own 'truth' in order to not be harassed or bullied.

If someone believes that the earth was formed by hands that were similar to these at the end of my arms- why should that be something i'd demand they stop doing? If they tried to force me to agree to 'believe' what they do, what would they really be able to do??? Even if i were forced to say the words with my mouth, would it change my 'beliefs'- if anything it might strengthen them.

If you'd like me to give you some sources for people i know and admire doing some pretty amazing things in this world, and finding inspiration and personal encouragement through their 'spiritual' beliefs - i'd be glad to- They areout there, but like much of the 'positive' actions in this society, there doesn't seem to be much of a market for non-controversial news.

thanks for the discussion-:hi:
peace,
blu

[AnneD]

6. It has been going on....

the media just doesn't cover it. When our radical pastor retired, we got a young conservative type in. After a year with us-he has softened his stance. The hard core CCs that had taken over our bible study group and had driven out several of our legacy members (their families founded the church) have sought a church that was more in line with their philosophies after our elders spoke with them (some of our Elders are CC but they are not mean spirited like these folks were).
After this time of spiritual distress, we now have more members in addition to the return of those that were driven out. Sunday is once again the highlight of my week. My teenage daughter loves to come to my adult classes.
The sad part about the CC movement is that it has given Christians a bad name. The thought of Christians as being both liberal and progressive was, until the 80's and the "Moral Majority', a political given. Many of the laws regarding safe food, safe water, tenements,compulsory education,and child labour have their roots in the Progressive Christian movement.

[rurallib]

2. Someday they may even return to Christ's teachings

something that hasn't been tried for a long time.

[Blackhatjack]

5. What the public does not understand is there are a lot of moderate/liberal Christians...

The Leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention was 'taken over' by fundamentalist conservatives, but Churches are autonomous and decide what they will do at that level.

Many moderates/liberals have withdrawn from 'friendly cooperation' with the SBC, but they started their own Cooperative Baptist Fellowship --which the SBC vehemently opposes.

Many moderate/liberal CHurches have not officially withdrawn, but they reject the positions of the SBC on many issues and see no need to withdraw from an organization that has no direct authority over them.

Liberal/Moderate CHristians are everywhere, but you will not see them highlighted in the MSM because they are focused on issues like AIDS, homelessness, hunger, the poor, etc. And they do not send out blowhards to trumpet issues connected directly to Republican campaign talking points.