I hope the lack of comments on this diavlog does not mean it has been passed over by viewers here. It was a good conversation and one that can be educational to those who take a narrow view of Evangelicals.

Quoting jh in sd: I hope the lack of comments on this diavlog does not mean it has been passed over by viewers here. It was a good conversation and one that can be educational to those who take a narrow view of Evangelicals.

I watched it. I thought Richard had a couple of interesting things to say, and I was happy to hear him speak so forcefully against excessive politicking in churches, but on the whole, I didn't learn much of anything from either. Whether that means my view of Evangelicals is not so narrow or is excessively narrow, I'll leave for you to say.

I think there will be more comments when the talk goes up on the home page screen. I am a big fan of Jim Wallis, so I found these guys quite interesting. I don't really have a stereotype of Evangelicals as necessarily right wing, since I've worked with quite a few Evangelical Christians in the peace movement going back several decades. I thought Richard had some insight into the conflation of nation and religion. Although many people have noted it before, the analogy between extreme right wing Americans to Nazis is powerful, coming from someone who's associated with the religious right. On the other hand, reading between the lines this dialogue is also an example of why most Evangelicals will never vote for a Democrat. Richard makes clear that "sanctity of life" issue (i.e., abortion) will ultimately remain a litmus test for all the Evangelical vote. It's too bad that abortion is the deal breaker because I think Democrats (with all their hawkish warts) are a less violent political culture with a more sophisticated Christian sense of social justice.

What's the deal with posting diavlogs now? This time the diavlog was four or five down the list on the left hand side. Are we posting for posting sake now?

In the context of their discussion on gambling, Land brought a social checks and balances system to imitate the political one between the three branches of the Federal government. In comparative political terms, what he's advocated comes closest to both Christian democracy and corporatism. Any form of community-based politics has been DOA in national politics, no matter how relevant it stays in localities, since the end of the 60s. It's a more useful start for a dialogue with progressives than libertarian, neoconservatives, and nationalist conservatism.

Mr land objects to the notion that a catholic can be an evangelical. Maybe not in his mind, but there are certainly Catholics who view themselves as such. I once heard a presumably Protestant evangelical explain that Mr Romney is not a Christian and went on to point out that neither are catholics Christian; funny if were not so sad.

I just wanted to say, the first section of this diavlog is really awesome, and I think these guys are great. "America's not as divided as you think." Something positive, oh my god...

Without having looked at this dialog yet, I want to simply make the point that this guy Richard Land is suspect as a spokesman for anything remotely defensible as upholding in our times the spirit of Jesus Christ. Aside from the fact that his particular denomination was founded on the theological defense of America's "original sin", slavery, and would not otherwise exist - or the fact that they didn't accept women pastors until 2000 and demonize homosexuals despite their protestations about "loving the sinner - Land was responsible for cooking up a "Christian just war" defense of his buddy Bush's invasion of Iraq: http://erlc.com/article/the-so-called-land-letter Land is a very shady, slippery character who represents a group more notable over the life of their sect for adherence to the most extreme moral and cultural relativism than attempting, however imperfectly, to vindicate the Christ who comes forth in the book of Matthew.

Once again I am baffled by the logic that insists that supporting equal rights and civil liberties in the style of Mr. Land (in the days of Martin Luther King) is in no way inconsistent with his fervent opposition to Marriage Equality. Denying equal legal and financial benefits afforded by our Government to families headed by heterosexiuals to those families headed by gay and lesbian couples is nothing short of punishment for those who disagree with Mr. Land's prevailing ideal and has nothing to do with protecting families. Instead, it is a direct attack against families, albeit familes that Mr. land would rather not let exist in the first place. But that argument aside, it is a denial of benefits to one class of persons that is granted to another class of persons by a Democratically elected government. I am not sure how much more of a clear case of discrimination and denial of civil rights and liberties is needed before Mr. Land faces his epiphany, or his hypocrisy.

Quoting brucds: http://erlc.com/article/the-so-called-land-letter

Good find. That letter certainly strengthens the feeling I had during the diavlog that these two guys were engaged in a rebranding exercise more than anything else. It seemed as though they realized the earlier evangelical message of complete intolerance was showing slumping returns, and they're now trying to roll out a new model: the kinder, gentler evangelical, as it were.

"I am not sure how much more of clear case of discrimination and denial of civil rights and liberties is needed before Mr. Land faces his epiphany, or his hypocrisy."
They'll change on this when they feel that holding fast is a danger to their institutions being perceived as legitimate, that the younger generation is likely to turn away and their pews/coffers won't be filled. Right now exploiting this issue is still a regional "winner" - just like defending slavery and then segregation was for them back in the day.

What is an evangelical? Both participants identified themselves as such but didn't define what it is. John

This discussion was interesting although it reminded me how much of a minority I'm in: a social liberal who is scared to death of religion. I was watching Obama and McCain pander with Rick Warren the other day and it just made me want to move to San Francisco and get high while we wait for the inevitable apocalypse.

I have to say that having listened to Land on this diavlog, I don't believe a word he says. I'm going in biased, but he's presenting a public face here that's not at all consistent with the movement he's actively helping to lead: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_crusaders/ (Scroll about halfway down for Land's appearance...) Also, this is rather humorous in retrospect, as well as indicative of what a phony the Slick Reverend unfortunately happens to be: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/0...ushing_co.html

It seemed like they were playing a chess game. I think the dude on the right (is it my imagination of does BHTV do this on purpose) thinks evangelical means that you go to hell if you aren't saved and a good Christian is obligated to spread the news and save people. I think the dude on the left thinks evangelical means one should do good works (clean water in Africa etc.). I'm just guessing though. [Hitchens] A cynical person might see common ground among them insofar as they both are concerned about the poor: poverty has been good to religion so it isn't surprising. [/Hitchens]

Quoting bjkeefe: Good find.

That letter certainly strengthens the feeling I had during the diavlog that these two guys were engaged in a rebranding exercise more than anything else. It seemed as though they realized the earlier evangelical message of complete intolerance was showing slumping returns, and they're now trying to roll out a new model: the kinder, gentler evangelical, as it were.

Eh, so maybe the rebranding worked on me. Truth be told, I'm a total whore to just hear something positive come out of a conservative blogginghead's mouth this week. Maybe I'm picking the wrong ones to watch. Call Ross Douthat and tell him I miss him. No wait, bring Jim Pinkerton back on to tell me how I should kill myself because I went to college...

I believe they were both very pleased at just how wonderful they discovered they really are, despite the evil media's attempts to portray them as narrow minded, holier-than-thou, money hungry, smug, power mad evangelicals - all in Jesus name, of course. And I particularly enjoyed the railing against corporations and political parties that pursue money and power that, once they get it, abuse it. (All without the slightest hint of self awareness!) So just how big are their congregatons and churches? How much money do they take in weekly? What Politicians and lobbyists do they have access to? The pandering of both Presidential Candidates last weekend to evangelical voters is proof that they possess quite a bit of power and authority themselves as a group. Power corrupts; absolute power as granted by the divine creator corrupts eternally? Absolutely.

Quoting Running Dog: Mr land objects to the notion that a catholic can be an evangelical. Maybe not in his mind, but there are certainly Catholics who view themselves as such.

I once heard a presumably Protestant evangelical explain that Mr Romney is not a Christian and went on to point out that neither are catholics Christian; funny if were not so sad.

What is an evangelical? Do Catholics consider themselves evangelicals or is it just a Protestant designation? How about the ones on TV that are speaking in tongues and healing people - are they evangelicals? What is the difference between a fundamentalist and evangelical? Oh my, I am getting lost in these terms. Maybe they should teach some religion in school so I would know some of this material. I feel hopelessly lost in yet another diavlog. John

Quoting brucds: I have to say that having listened to Land on this diavlog, I don't believe a word he says. I'm going in biased, but he's presenting a public face here that's not at all consistent with the movement he's actively helping to lead:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_crusaders/

(Scroll about halfway down for Land's appearance...)

Yeah. This was a bit at odds with how he presented himself in the diavlog:

It helps that Dominionists have a direct line to the White House: The Rev. Richard Land, top lobbyist for the 16-million-member Southern Baptist Convention, enjoys a weekly conference call with top Bush advisers including Karl Rove. "We've got the Holy Spirit's wind at our backs!" Land declares in an arm-waving, red-faced speech. He takes particular aim at the threat posed by John Lennon, denouncing "Imagine" as a "secular anthem" that envisions a future of "clone plantations, child sacrifice, legalized polygamy and hard-core porn."

Quoting brucds: Also, this is rather humorous in retrospect, as well as indicative of what a phony the Slick Reverend unfortunately happens to be:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/0...ushing_co.html

Heh. Did Land say, in the diavlog, that he no longer endorses candidates? Maybe he's got an out.

One thing I do admire about Reverend Land: he's got that great TV preacher hair.

Guys and/or Gals, I admire you all for having the stomach to watch this diavlog entirely. I listened to about 15-20 minutes and gave up. There's only so much rotten BS I can listen to. And what's worse is the mellow tone of voice that goes along with that crap! My most sincere admiration for your patience and self sacrifice!

Dear My Friend BCruds,

I want to simply make the point that this guy Richard Land is suspect as a spokesman for anything remotely defensible as upholding in our times the spirit of Jesus Christ. Aside from the fact that his particular denomination was founded on the theological defense of America's "original sin", slavery, and would not otherwise exist...

Here's some straight talk: Dick Land is not pro-slavery. Back during the Korean War, before I met, cheated on and dumped my first wife, I dated Dick Lands's grandma, Daisy Mae Land. She was a fine woman. The family was very much pro-emancipation. Sure they had Negro servants who worked some cotton and tobakee on what used to be the Land Plantation, but they got paid, just like white folks. I'm not saying Daisy Mae would have let her daughter marry one, but that wasn't the style at the time. Still ain't where I come from. God Bless America,
John

Quoting jh in sd: I hope the lack of comments on this diavlog does not mean it has been passed over by viewers here. It was a good conversation and one that can be educational to those who take a narrow view of Evangelicals.

I heard little in this chat that would expand my impressions of Evangelicals. I heard some grumblings about christian persuasion not including coercion, yet the top down judgment remains. "Conception" as the perfect example of the litmus test that no member of the fold could in good conscience argue with is the prime example.
It is politically astute to rail against accosting vehicle inhabitants for their bumper stickers or not sharing congregant lists with election committees, but the result is the same as it ever was. The votes are practically signed, sealed and delivered without any real impetus for free thought, expression or acceptance of voting a conscience that isn't filtered through dogma.
Abortion is antithetical to the church belief system. Barry Lind was defeated as far as Mr. Land is concerned. If that isn't acknowledged political victory, what is it?
The separation of church and state allow for real

Bob, thanks for arranging this one. I suspect I'm one of the few regular bhtv viewers who is also a fan of Brian McLaren. I realize this type of exchange is going to be viewed by many with a healthy dose of cynicism, and I don't know Mr Land from Adam, but I do know that Brian McLaren is the real deal. Like Jim Wallis, McLaren has been working hard to bring about much needed reform to an institution (the church) that is clearly in need of it. Not surprisingly, he is often demonized by the same church for his views. I hope you can get McLaren to come back soon and do another diavlog, perhaps with Wallis or even someone like Shane Claiborne, one of the young leaders of the new monastic communities cropping up. It appears the evangelical movement is itself, ironically, evolving. Thank God for that!

Out of curiosity, Alyosha, would you be interested in seeing Brian paired with someone who didn't share his basic views?

Quoting bjkeefe: Out of curiosity, Alyosha, would you be interested in seeing Brian paired with someone who didn't share his basic views?

bj, Did you have someone in mind? Since most of McLaren's criticism comes from fundamentalists and evangelicals on the right who disagree with his theology and the whole "emergent church" thing, I would personally not be interested in hearing more of that debate. Or, by basic views, were you thinking more along the lines of a pairing to debate faith in general?

Quoting Alyosha: bj, Did you have someone in mind? Since most of McLaren's criticism comes from fundamentalists and evangelicals on the right who disagree with his theology and the whole "emergent church" thing, I would personally not be interested in hearing more of that debate. Or, by basic views, were you thinking more along the lines of a pairing to debate faith in general?

Huh. I wasn't aware there was that much difference between him and other fundamentalists and evangelicals "on the right," as you say. From what I gathered from this diavlog, I didn't hear anything to suggest any real disparities. As I said, it seemed more a difference in tone -- the "kinder, gentler" thing. I guess I could be persuaded that there might be slight differences in political priorities; e.g., Brian might think the abortion issue need not be first and foremost. If there really are significant differences, I'd have to disagree with you, and say that such a diavlog sounds interesting to me. This diavlog was too mutually congratulatory and self-reinforcing for me to understand what makes these guys different from every other politically prominent fundamentalist/evangelical, especially after following the links that have been supplied here in the comments. However, I was thinking

I am an evangelical, so I did agree with almost everything in this discussion. However, I would prefer if it went more to the substance of issues. Exactly which Republican positions did these two disagree with and why? How does a conservative (theologically) yet non-Republican Christian think about foreign policy or economic policy? Can Mr. Land really justify his position that trade agreements are outside his purview?
I think there's a strong Christian argument for pacifism (or something approaching pacificsm) and I am torn on whether the free trade movement embodies Christian principles. I